"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 10 January 2019 18:56:56 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"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.

But they seemed to think there own versions would be viable

That was never any airline.

but they were even less vaible than the UK opnes.

Yes.

The US versions never went into servoce not even for
5 mins let along 27 years of carrying passemngers.

Yep, for other reasons, much to ambitious and never 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.

But still tried to build their own which were even less viable,

That sort of thing has to be tried with prototypes given
that its untried technology with something that large.

so did russia.In fact the US thought they
could build a mach 3 plane but failed.

And thats the reason it failed, much too ambitious.

Both the russain and american versions failed
the UK/French versions flew for 27 years.

But was only marginally viable on just the one route
and even then, only the stinking rich and those whose
employer was paying for the ticket could afford. No way
did it ever make any sense for a Labour govt to be ****ing
all that money against the wall on that sort of plane. It
was always just more stupid socialist dick waving.

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.

People were willing to pay the money.

Only the stinking rich and those whose employer was that
stupid. And they never paid a penny towards the development
or manufacturing cost, that was paid for by the general public.

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.