Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban

Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban by peteri on Monday June 13, 2016 @11:45AM (#11894783)

At supersonic cruise (M2) Concorde used fuel at the same rate as a Jumbo, a quick google search reveals this:

"BA said a 747 cost $100,000 to fly each way across the atlantic in wages, fuel, maintenace etc, before fixed costs. At the same time Concorde was costing $120,000".

Having read in the past the various Concorde threads on pprune.org, one view was that it was killed of by Airbus who didn't want to keep on supporting it as the manufacturer so helped get rid of the certificate of airworthiness. see this url http://www.concorde-spirit-tours.com/concorde.htm for at least one view.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban by goodcanadian on Monday June 13, 2016 @11:51AM (#11894838)

The 747 carries ~450 passengers. The Concorde carried ~100. So, the Concorde is 4.5 times worse on a per capita basis.

EDIT: Actually, ~5.4 times worse if you take into account the 1.2x difference in cost.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban by ulfw on Monday June 13, 2016 @12:08PM (#11894991)

British Airways' 747-400 carry between 275 and 345 passengers, depending on configuration. But still. Similar in principle :)

http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fle...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban by goodcanadian on Monday June 13, 2016 @12:16PM (#11895049)

Depends on the airline, I suppose. Air Canada used to fly 747-100s with 400 seats:

http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/historical/b747-100....

[ Parent | on HN ]