"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 9 January 2019 18:04:26 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"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.

So why did they put in an order for them if they were never going to be
viable ?

They didnt. BOAC was given them for just £1 by the govt that
was actually stupid enough to **** all that money against the
wall on something that was never going to be viable.

BOAC only took theirs because they got them for free.

So why did others order them ?

They were conned by the sales bull**** and once they realised
that they were never gunna be viable, cancelled their orders.

None of the other were ever going to
be actually stupid enough to pay for any.

So why order them ?

The price of fuel didnt stop vast numbers of 747s
being sold at the same time, because it was viable.

because they were more fuel efficint and larger meaning more passengers.

And those are the reasons why Concorde was never going
to be viable, along with the fact that it was only even possible
on the one/two routes, London/Paris to New York carting the
stinking rich and those whose employer was actually stupid
enough to pay the terminally stupid fare price.

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

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

Because they were designed for mass transport that is why.

So it was completely stupid for the UK and frog govts to be ****ing
so much money against the wall to cart the stinking rich etc on that
one route. Something only a ****wit Labour govt would be stupid
enough to do.

It didnlt mean the technology was a failure.

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

you do know that more of the area of earth is covered by water than land
didn't you.

Pity about where the major aircraft volume goes.