"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 9 January 2019 13:26:43 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 January 2019 18:01:30 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 8 January 2019 13:42:40 UTC, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article
,
whisky-dave wrote:
Maybe you can tell us why america or any other country
hasn't
also developed a passenger jet to replace concorde since
then.

Why would anyone want a replacement for something that ran at
a
loss?

To make it profitable. Russia tried and the USA tried.

And finally realised the concept was flawed.

The concept wasn't flawed

Corse it was when it could only fly supersonic over water.

and cars can only travel at the limits set in each country on land they
can't even travel over water without help.


it worked as a passenger airliner for 27 years.

On just the one route for most of that time.

So yuo;re sayig n that the 100 sold all travled the same route, that
must
have been some demand for that service.

Only 20 were ever built. of those only 14 went into passenger service.

Partly because of the price of fuel

Nope, because everyone except BOAC and Air
France noticed that they were never going to
be viable. BOAC only took theirs because they
got them for free. None of the other were ever
going to be actually stupid enough to pay for any.
The price of fuel didnt stop vast numbers of 747s
being sold at the same time, because it was viable.

and you do remmber the problems with fuel in the early 70s.

Didnt stop vast numbers of 747s being sold at the same time.

It didnlt mean the technology was a failure.

Corse it was given that it could only fly supersonic over water.