Anyone support that Concorde Jet Airplane go to skies again?

Question

If there's a chance of returning the Concorde Jet Airplane in to the skies, will you support? Why?

Answer 1

As soon as the Concorde had its first "accident" which was not its own fault, it was stopped.

Why so quickly?
Why wasn't the DC-10 stopped that fast after the slew of fatal crashes a coupla decades ago?

I think British Airways and AirFrance were secretly begging for an excuse to get out of Supersonic transport.

...I guess mankind's best days are behind us.

Answer 2

To correct a few of the urban myths on this board (and on every Concorde thread since time began, it would seem!), the ONLY reason Concorde stopped flying was because Aerospatiale decided they weren't going to supply parts and maintenance any more. The aircraft almost always flew at a tidy profit (so there was no economic problem), and bought in untold extra millions for BA and AF by creating a 'prestige' factor that filtered through to their subsonic services too. It didn't lose it's airworthiness certificate permanantly after the Paris crash, but resumed flying after fuel tank modifications had been made. Importantly, though the fuel tank rupture was touted as a serious and unique 'design flaw' to Concorde (which dramatically affected public confidence), it had actually been suffered by other aircraft without nearly such adverse publicity. In theory, Concorde could fly again, but in practise this is very unlikely, since most of the models have had their hydraulic fluid drained off - something that would be extremely costly/ difficult to reverse. It is alleged that two (french) aircraft remain in something approaching airworthy condition - their engines are started occasionally and they still have their hydraulic fluid. A rumour circulated recently that Concorde was to be used to bring the England Football team back from the World Cup if they were victorious, though it's hard to say which was more far-fetched - Concordes resurrection, or Englands mitts on the Jules Rimet!! Lastly, for proof of how iconic and adored the aircraft was, it is said that during the 'farewell' flights, people wept openly. -

Answer 3

A little gee whiz history here - do you know the reason why the Concord was operated by Air France and British Air only? No USA carrier would touch one.

Because those two carriers are government owned and operated and are not for profit carriers. The Concord was built by a European conglomerate. Every time the Concord took off - it lost money. A lot of money. It was flown simply as a huge promotion for those two governments.

In today's modern economy, the jet's time had come. The Concords first accident was an opportunity to cease service without criticism. Even the government hates to lose that much money - and that is how expensive it was to operate.

There is no chance it will return to service and logically should have been retired a long time ago. The expense is also why no other supersonic design has superseded the Concord.

Answer 4

The Concorde was a fantastic airplane, but honestly I don't think it should be put back into service. It simply pollutes too much for the amount of passengers it carries and is not cost-efficient. I definetly think that they should work on making faster airplanes however using newer more fuel and cost efficient technology.

Answer 5

No. It's an intesting enough aircraft, in fact a milestone. But the thing so expensive to operate, I can't imagine the per supporter cost to get one airborne again.

I'd much rather invest in keeping F-14A and D model Tomcats airworthy, as well as Lockheed Constellations, North American B-25 Mitchells, ... hey, what about a Convair 990? Now THAT I could support.

Answer 6

No- it is an unsafe airplane, because with the engines podded together as they are, if an engine fails it takes out both on that side; but the airplane has too small a fin and rudder to fly with two engines out.

Answer 7

To much CO2 to much noise not enough passenger room 40 year old design. I might support a new generation of scram jet plane that enters space and re enters the atsmosphere at hyper sonic speed.

Answer 8

only at air shows as an antique. a passenger Scram jet should be fuel efficient and less emissions and even faster .

Answer 9

There was only one airport in the US they could land at because of the noise levels, so why support a rich people's toy so they don't have to fly as long?

Answer 10

Not as a commercial carrier, it simply isn't cost effective enough for the operator or the traveler.