why were the concorde planes scraped?

Answer 1

to expensive to use

Answer 2

Despite Concorde's beauty and futuristic look, she is a horrible aircraft in terms of profits. Thus back in the days when she was flying, the tickets were priced at the equivalent (higher?) of a First Class seat of a more conventional Boeing/Airbus aircraft.

The cramped cabin of a Concorde usually fits no more than 100 people (excluding FA, F.Eng, or Pilots) while a Boeing 747-400 typically holds around 400+ (depending on how each airlines arranged the seats)

The Concorde's maximum range is around 4500 miles, while
a Boeing 747-400's maximum range is around 8357 miles
This should give you an idea which aircraft the airlines would prefer when having to fly across the Pacific. (At the very least for Asian airlines)

However, it seems contrary to common belief, the "Concorde did not profit" is a false statement. With her high priced tickets and First Class services, many people who were rich enough were more than willing to take a flight in a Concorde over a 747. They are clearly in favour of the shortened travel time that she offers.

Other than reasons such as range, fuel, and passengers allowed, another death blow to her sell was the simple fact that most countries DO NOT allow supersonic flights over residential areas due to sonic boom problems. This inevitably rendered her advantage meaningless, suppose she was to fly eastwards from Europe.

Following the Air France 4590 Concorde crash, the 2 companies both thought that it was probably a good point to retire the entire fleet, and eventually she became the first but also (currently) the last commercial SST to fly across countries. (Production models of Tu-144 only flied in the Soviet Union)

I cannot believe how many people said she "crashes too often" or "unsafe". Those are definitely false, because Concorde has never suffered from any crashes other than the one of Air France 4590, which was due to a mishap coincidence, not a design flaw. However, I am aware of the fact that statistically, she did become the unsafest aircraft in the commercial airlines. This is because they are often calculated by "passenger deaths/ per km traveled". Since Concordes were expensive to operate and only 14 (20 produced, 2 proto, 2 pre-prod, 2 did not fly) examples went airborne, the kilometers traveled remains at a terribly low number. When the math was done, she all of a sudden became the unsafest aircraft.

Answer 3

Not only it is too expensive to buy them and to operate them, but the safety record is bad on this aircraft. One of them was when an Air France concorde crash at Gonesse killing 100 people and the cause was by a strip of titanium fell off from a DC-10 from Continental Airlines. It proved to be the worst record in the world. Also because of the poor load factor after the crash and 9/11, both British Airways and Air France decide to retire the model.

Answer 4

Those planes were flying for 30 years or so. In any aircraft, that's a long life, but even more so for a supersonic plane. Most of us don't even drive cars that old. Plus, after the crash incident, it was decided that between their age and the operating costs, it was time to scrap 'em.
You could say that the Concorde was the last symbol of the now-dead "Jet Set."

Answer 5

After more than 30 years of service, this aircraft become brittle from super sonic speed. The planes were becoming too expensive to maintain and parts for the bird were becoming obsolete. The avionics in the SST's were too pricey to build.

Though beautiful aircraft, they have just worn out. Like the SR-71, the U-2, the F-14. It was just time to retire and make way for newer, less expensive technology.

Answer 6

They were way too expensive to operate and not profitable.

It is not true that they were scrapped because of the Paris accident; other plane types have dozens of accidents and still fly.

Answer 7

Cost was sky high. The two governments fought, the French and British. They were the creators of the supersonic aircraft.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2935337.stm

Answer 8

This is just a guess. They were probably scrapped, because they had flown a certain number of hours. They figured it wood not be cost effective to use them any more

Answer 9

i think they were scraped because since they go faster than the speed of sound theres that loud sonic boom and that sonic boom is too loud for flying over comercial or residential districts

Answer 10

They were not cost efficient or profitable to operate.

Answer 11

Because they were getting infested with barnacles.