Yet another aviation thread.

Quote: Pacomartin

I am fairly sure the Concorde did one round trip London to JFK per day. They used to have two flights, but they had different planes. And their fuel usage was one ton per seat per one way trip.

I've heard they parked one at JFK as backup, seeing as how they couldn't place passengers on a regular subsonic flight if the Concorde was down for maintenance.

My very limited reading on the plane, too, suggests neither AF nor BA particularly wanted it. It definitely wound up more as a prestige symbol than a working plane.

Quote: Nareed

My very limited reading on the plane, too, suggests neither AF nor BA particularly wanted it. It definitely wound up more as a prestige symbol than a working plane.

In the military they use the "low rate initial production". It refers to production beyond an Advanced Demonstration Model, and an Engineering Development Model.
Concordes built numbered 20 (inc. 6 non-commercial aircraft).

It was pretty clear no additional planes were going to be built, and AF nor BA were owned by the government, so it is very possible that many executives didn't want to be bothered, but they were not free to say no.

Quote: Pacomartin

It was pretty clear no additional planes were going to be built, and AF nor BA were owned by the government, so it is very possible that many executives didn't want to be bothered, but they were not free to say no.

I need to get my hands on a good, thorough history of Concorde, since before it was designed. For instance, we know there were orders from several airlines, but when was this? Late 60s? We know fuel prices mostly killed it, but when did fuel go up? How was the matter of the ban on supersonic flights overland handled? All those details no one ever seems to talk about.

Most orders and options except for AF an BOAC were cancelled by 1973. Air India cancelled in 1975.


Airline Number Reserved
Pan Am 6 3 June 1963 2 extra options in 1964
Air France 6 3 June 1963 2 extra options in 1964
BOAC 6 3 June 1963 2 extra options in 1964
Continental Airlines 3 24 July 1963
American Airlines 4 7 October 1963 2 extra options in 1965
TWA 4 16 October 1963 2 extra options in 1965
Middle East Airlines 2 4 December 1963
Qantas 6 19 March 1964 2 cancelled in May 1966
Air India 2 15 July 1964
Japan Airlines 3 30 September 1965
Sabena 2 1 December 1965
Eastern Airlines 2 28 June 1966 2 extra options on 15 August 1966
United Airlines 6 29 June 1966
Braniff 3 1 September 1966
Lufthansa 3 16 February 1967
Air Canada 4 1 March 1967

In 1973, the FAA decided to prohibit supersonic travel (SST) over the US.
Maximum fuel load: 210,940 lb so divided by 100 seats is 1 US "short ton" per seat.


https://www.npr.org/news/specials/oil/gasprices.chronology.html


Annual Average Domestic Crude Oil Prices (in $/Barrel)
1966 $3.10
1967 $3.12
1968 $3.18
1969 $3.32
1970 $3.39
1971 $3.60
1972 $3.60
1973 $4.75
1974 $9.35
1975 $12.21
1976 $13.10
1977 $14.40
1978 $14.95
1979 $25.10
1980 $37.42
1981 $35.75
...
2017 $39.17

Boeing 747 orders for -100 variant
Apr 13, 1966 33 Pan Am World Airways
Sep 3, 1966 15 TWA
Oct 3, 1966 22 United Airlines
Nov 1, 1966 16 American Airlines
Nov 11, 1966 10 Northwest Airlines
Jun 12, 1967 4 Eastern Air Lines
Jun 26, 1967 5 Delta Air Lines
Jan 10, 1968 1 Braniff Airlines

Speaking of Boom, I don't know if I brought this up before. One idea for the internal configuration is modern lie-flat seats. This kind of makes sense and doesn't.

The whole point of an SST is to fly faster and thus take less time to reach your destination. Now, a lie-flat seat makes perfect sense on a 7-hour flight, and even in shorter 5-6 hour red-eye flights. While it's not impossible to sleep sitting up, it's much easier to do so lying down. And since the tickets are going to be priced "like business class" (or so Scholl and co. claim), you'd expect passengers to expect business class seats at least, even if in a 2-2 configuration (and you can get to put in a first class section in a 1-1, too, like AA does with the A321T).

Does anyone need a bed for a 3-hour flight?

I can see such configuration for transpacific routes, which will take a longer time, SST or not, stops or not. Also for Europe to Asia flights, and other long routes. But for transatlantic and transcon, it seems a bit much.

Concorde Schedules
BA 001 : 10:30 - 09:25 London - New York
BA 002 : 08:30 - 17:25 New York - London

BA 003 : 19:30 - 18:25 London - New York
BA 004 : 13:30 - 22:25 New York - London

Quote: Nareed

Does anyone need a bed for a 3-hour flight?

A hypothetical flight to get you to London for an early morning meeting might leave at 9:00-9:30 PM
Even though it is only a short flight, it is still at night.
21:00 - 6:00 am New York - London

Quote: Pacomartin

A hypothetical flight to get you to London for an early morning meeting might leave at 9:00-9:30 PM
Even though it is only a short flight, it is still at night.
21:00 - 6:00 am New York - London

Ok. But three hours sleep might not make much of a difference, if your meeting is at around 1 or 2 AM by your body clock, assuming you can even sleep the whole way.

Besides, haven't we seen this movie before? Airlines are far more likely to claim the time/speed premium to justify the ticket price, and then cram the planes full with 31" pitch seats with limited recline. No doubt there'll be a "first class" up front with four lie flat beds, for an incredibly exorbitant prize.

Quote: Nareed

Besides, haven't we seen this movie before? Airlines are far more likely to claim the time/speed premium to justify the ticket price, and then cram the planes full with 31" pitch seats with limited recline. No doubt there'll be a "first class" up front with four lie flat beds, for an incredibly exorbitant prize.

I believe they have decided to go with 55 seats per plane, so there will be only a modest recline. Judging by the high speed trains in Europe, when the vehicle goes much faster, they don't bother with the night train anymore. They may follow the same pattern with supersonic flights. If you want to be in Europe for the morning, you simply fly the day before and get a hotel room.

They used to schedule the Concorde for 3:55 even though the flight took 3:30. I think they are talking 3:15 with Boom Technology.


Looking at the schedule it looks like one round trip was 10 hours per day and the other was 12 hours per day. Presumably they would swap planes every other day for an average use of 11 hours per day ( 7.6-8 hours flying time 2 cycles)

BA 001 : 10:30 - 09:25 London -NYC (4 hour layover)
BA 004 : 13:30 - 22:25 NYC-London - 12 hours takeoff to landing and 2 cycles

BA 002 : 08:30 - 17:25 NYC-London (2 hour layover)
BA 003 : 19:30 - 18:25 London NYC - 10 hours takeoff to landing and 2 cycles

With Boom technology, I doubt they will be happy with 6.5 hours of flight time per day. I would think they would want 10 hours of flying per day and at least 3 cycles.

Looking at some sample numbers from the industry below:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some current usage times
In 2017, Southwest aircraft flew an average of just over five flights or just above 11 hours per day flying.

I get the feeling that is a high number for B737, but it is not unusual for a widebody to be flying well over 12 hours per day.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There was a special lounge at JFK for people who wanted to fly from London, have a meeting and be back in London 12 hours later
BA 001 : 10:30 - 09:25 London -NYC (4 hour layover for meeting)
BA 004 : 13:30 - 22:25 NYC-London - 12 hours takeoff to landing

I suppose you could do it the other way, but you would need 21 hours in London, and possibly meet at attached hotel at the airport
BA 004 : 13:30 - 22:25 NYC-London - (21:05 hours in London)
BA 003 : 19:30 - 18:25 London NYC - 29 hours takeoff to landing



BA 002 : 08:30 - 17:25 NYC-London (26:05 hours in London)
BA 003 : 19:30 - 18:25 London NYC - 36 hours takeoff to landing

Hotel Paddington attached to high speed train (Heathrow Express) from Heathrow

With three flights per day, Boom Technology may permit more reasonable meetings in London.

Here’s a very good review of a Concord flight I read a while ago.

http://www.travelscholar.com/concorde/

The A350-900ULR that just rolled off the assembly line in France will carry 0.88 short tons of fuel per seat, but the plane will be capable of flying Singapore to New York City (the longest commercial flight in the world). That compares to the 1 short ton of fuel for the Concorde per seat to fly from London to JFK.