This day in history: Concorde Makes Its Last Commercial Flight

Everyone knows the Concorde, going twice he speed of sound and crossing the Atlantic in just 3 hours. Well, 14 years ago to this day, a Bristish Airways Concorde made its final flight, the Concordes final flight, from JFK to LHR. And that was the end, of the commercial Concorde
More info

18 Likes

Its final actual flight was over Bristol, it flew with the Red Arrows then landed back in Filton where it was built. It was the last one ever built also.

5 Likes

Well, the last commercial flight

2 Likes

Hopefully they do bring this plane back. I’ve seen articles about it’s return…

1 Like

There would be no economical benefit to bring this back. Concorde seat prices are going to be expensive. I would rather spend more time and enjoy Business & First class on a A380, rather then economy for the same price or even more on Concorde and save a couple of hours.

5 Likes

Well, the prices would go down as fuel prices are lower than they were back at its retirement

The prices were not high just because of the fuel, the major reason was the size of the Concorde. It seats a few number of people for such long flights. It would be more practical to sell it as private jets then use it for commercial purposes.

2 Likes

But who would need that big of a private jet, regular people buy 172’s Learjet 45’s Etc, but world leaders use 747’s stuff like that

Unlikely.

1- Don’t believe anything you see on the internet. Do you have sources?
2- Quite frankly, it doesn’t make money now and it won’t make money tomorrow. I am not an expert, but I do know that the Concorde is very expensive to operate, doesn’t actually get much revenue from tickets and is way, way less confirtable than a Business Class ticket on today’s wide bodies.
3- Who cares, it is a terrible looking aircraft anyways!

It looks better than you, even though that isn’t an achievement.

Everyone watch this

8 Likes

Well basically every single airplane does that. Except the Comet… that thing looks terrible. Yes, even worse than me. Lol let’s get back on topic.

1 Like

I was waiting for someone to say this. I fully agree.

1 Like

Concorde won’t fly again. It would never gain an Engineering Authority due to fatigue and corrosion management.

Exactly what killed off the last flying Vulcan.

CAA :- Campaign Against Aviation

1 Like

Concorde was killed as AF couldn’t lose any more money operating it. BA were perfectly happy operating the plane as they had been for the past few years, even refurbishing the entire fleet after 9/11 and abysmal passenger numbers. They were also constantly making money with it (they needed to fill around 40 seats to break even on a route, which they commonly had over 70), unlike AF which had Concorde more for the prestige than the money. To explain, what I mean was that AF was unable to cover for the purchase prices of Concorde + servicing + maintenance with their profit, while BA could.

BA’s famous Concorde Division also overhauled everything, including the well known price hike after asking around how much people thought a ticket on Concorde cost (the story was that the bosses of companies would fly on Concorde but have their secretaries pay for the tickets, thus being oblivious to the actual ticket cost. When asked, most quoted a price higher than what BA was charging, thus they raised the price to match).

With AF out, BA would have to pay for EVERYTHING Concorde related. This includes manufacturing new parts, designing new bits if the old ones had problems (rudder, tyres, etc) and general maintenance of the aircraft. This would mean that they would no longer make a profit for the plane, which defeated the point of having Concorde around. Most of the fleet were also due for D checks, except OAG (too new for C/D checks) and OAF (C Check), an extra expense.

Look at it this way, BA made 20 million pounds in profit in Concorde’s last year flying, dispelling the myth that the slump after 9/11 was what killed Concorde. Concorde had recovered from major events in the past, and would again. After the loss of F-BTSC however, AF weren’t too happy to keep them flying and threw in the towel, forcing BA to join them.

Airbus also withdrew the certificate after both carriers stopped flying, so to get it back in the air again would be basically impossible at this rate. Due to the long storage time, I doubt if OAF or even OAC would be in good enough condition to make the restoration financially viable.

image
image
image
Too bad I was born too late to fly on her :(

11 Likes

Lemme enlighten some of yall who thought my earlier statement was garbage.

  1. One of my sources is NASA, so…
  2. It wasn’t a BEAUTIFUL plane, but it wasn’t a 747 Dreamlifter (or an Airbus A380, for that matter)…
  3. Concorde was ruined by a bunch of random events. If 9/11 never happened, and if 4590 wasn’t a part of history, bet money it would still be flying.
  4. And also (this was my bad, poor clarity), I meant a new version. I’m smarter than you might think m8.
1 Like

I agree that 9/11 didn’t single-handily bring down Concorde, but rather the combination of the side effects of said attack, plus 4590 were the culprit of its demise.

2 Likes

Airbus hated Concorde. The airframe was made of complex and exotic materials that were thrown together in an era where fatigue management just didn’t exist. They were struggling to get qualified engineers current on the older technology and therefore were desperate to pull the plug.

The tragic AF accident was an aircraft that hadn’t been modded to apply the structures in the wheel wells to prevent fuel tank damage even though the engineering demand had been put out. AF has a habit of delaying modifications until it’s convenient for them (TAT probes on the Airbus?)

Concorde was a flying marvel, well ahead of it’s time but, it’s time had come. The costs of keeping the engineering authority coupled with the costs of keeping crews current and training new crews was getting too much. Whilst the ‘heart’ of BA management were probably sad to see a good flying advert go the ‘head’ (money) were throwing a celebratory party. World events and a tragic accident were merely the excuse/catalyst. It wouldn’t have been flying today.

Ironically looking at the aircraft parked next to the threshold of 27L it’s proven to be true. The airframe is rotting to pieces.

You won’t see another Concorde flying.

3 Likes

Pretty sure they would’ve been retired. Your average plane has a lifespan of 25 years. The Concorde had 29 flight years and she was too old. They would’ve retired her by now, she was just too old.

1 Like

Fair enough.

I disagree, but bottom line is that it is not about aspect. I meant it as a joke/opinion, not as a fact.

Sure, those facts might have accelerated the process. I am not sure, but that is very much a possibility.
The Concorde simply did not make money, even if 9/11 and 4590 never happened, Concorde would still be very expensive to operate and very poor in profits. I am not an expert, but I am pretty sure that by the 1990s, aircraft like the 767 or A330 were much better alternatives for transatlantic service than the Concorde.

Yeah I know, but that new version would probably need many, many fixes in order to actually work.

This is not about who is smarter. Just because you’re wrong on something doesn’t mean you’re an idiot or something ridiculous like that. Chill :)

1 Like

and there goes a legend … I hope we can see him someday at the IF.

1 Like