should Concorde have been dropped from service?

Question

On 10 April 2003, British Airways and Air France simultaneously announced that they would retire Concorde later that year. They cited low passenger numbers following the 25 July 2000 crash, the slump in air travel following 9/11 and rising maintenance costs.

That same day, Sir Richard Branson offered to buy British Airways' Concordes at their "original price of £1" for service with his Virgin Atlantic Airways. Branson claimed this to be the same token price that British Airways had paid the British Government, but BA denied this[18] and refused the offer. However, although the cost of buying the aircraft was £26 million each, the money for buying the aircraft was loaned by the government - this loan was written off when British Airways was privatised in 1987.

Answer 1

It doesn't matter how much it cost it was such a step forward for the human race in technology and engineering, I don't think it should have been take out of service it was fantastic to see... It like were going back in time now there is nothing like Concord and never will be apart from military planes and aircraft carriers...
There are so many generations that wont know what its like to fly at mach 3........ We are now no more nearer to putting a man on the moon "again" then fly around the world at the speed of sound..... Please some one bring back the iron bird.... She's probably sitting there wondering what she did to make people stop flying her and making people feel good about them selves.... Sod the bleeding economy with a leader like the one we have now there will be nothing left too enjoy in 20 years....

Answer 2

First, the Concorde was not taken out of service "because it was dangerous". The one crash was the result of debris that came off another plane, but it was high publicized. Even you have the perception it was dangerous - it was not, but the ticket buyers got the same idea you have. Even before that, the plane failed the primary design requirement for a commercial airliner. It NEVER made money. Even if it was still in service, it would do you no good. If you are concerned about the cost of a headset, I doubt you can cough up $10,000 a for ticket. The Concorde was so expensive that it was not just competing against other airliners. If you can afford to spend an extra $9000 to save a couple of hours of your time on a regular basis, you are able to afford to own or charter a private jet. That means no crying babies, no standing in security, no need to be at the airport hours in advance. On a door to door basis, the biz jet will beat a Concorde most of the time.

Answer 3

Personally I don't think so. I am just glad I got to fly in it before it was taken out of service. If it wasn't for the crash it would still be in service. There was a huge following for Concorde, and many fans took pleasure flights in it, for many years. There was a travel company that chartered Concorde for these pleasure flights at just £500 per person and lasted for 1hr 30mins. These flights were ALWAYS full.

Answer 4

i can see why they dropped it but i live quite close to Filton Bristol and to drive past and see Concorde just parked up it seems such a waste. Richard branson was willing to take them on regardless of the costs and they should of let him. they just didn't want anyone else to have them which was just petty
I am sure I read somewhere that concorde lost 4 or 5 of its regular passengers(flying every week) in 9/11.

Answer 5

The operational cost of the Concord was huge. If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't much of a money-maker to begin with.
After the crash, it became more expensive to operate than to park it.

As an aviation enthusiast, I didn't want it dropped from service. It was the only operational SST, and with airlines looking more for comfort and economy, it was the last "cutting edge" aircraft that could spark interest in aviation.

As a armchair economist, tho, yeah, it needed to be dropped from service. Airlines aren't in business to provide excitement, they're in business to make money.

Answer 6

If it had been making money they would have kept it. Unfortunatly it was too expensive and un neccesary. BA love to waste money and fly empty aircraft around the sky making huge losses, this is why the budget airlines are getting a tighter grip on the market.
I would like to see BA bankrupt and out of the market so the real airlines can do business.

Answer 7

Yes...It seems only the rich and famous could afford to fly them.
Not that there is anything wrong with being rich and/or famous.
It was just so uneconomical to use them. I for one am extremely happy they were dropped from service. I used to live near the landing path close to JFK airport in NYC. I got used to the normal sized jumbo jets screaming in all night. BUT... when the Concord came in (luckily only one at 5 am). It came into its landing approach with a sound that was like all creation was coming to a thunderous end. It was my reason for moving far away.

Answer 8

The Concorde was totally uneconomical to fly and keep in service because of the problems, their limited production made replacement parts astronomical.
The success of a plane assures availability of spare parts, the lack of Concordes spelled doom for them in the long run.
Going fast is cool, but it really wasn't a sound idea economically.

Answer 9

Concord was comeing to the end of its life any way, to keep it flying would have ment refitting the whole fleet, availability of spares was never a problem, as to it being a loss maker I do not think so as I think this may have been a smoke screen put up by those who wished to see it gone

Answer 10

The plane was running at a huge loss 'cos people wouldn't fly in 'it'.BA couldn't substantiate the loss and wouldn't let Branson buy them because he could probably make them viable and make BA look silly.