The concorde didn't fail because it was expensive.

It ran profitably for 27 years. [0]

It failed because it crashed and killed 109 people 3 years before they threw in the towel. [1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Operating_economics

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590

The main reason the airlines managed to run Concorde at a profit is because they bought the planes for quite cheap. At one point the British government even sold two planes to British airways for £1 each. [0]

The airlines might have profited, but the R&D and manufacturing programs were a more or less write offs.

[1] https://simpleflying.com/british-airways-1-pound-concorde/

It also ran on only two routes for most of that time, with all others shut down because airlines lost money operating Concorde on them even without having to pay off the capital costs.

The Concorde was also blocked from flying a lot of profitable routes because of sonic boom concerns, some justified, others less so. In particular, you can't legally fly over any part of the US at Mach 1 or faster unless you're military.

The problem is that there's no realistic way to fly across the US, supersonically, without massively impacting a substantial fraction of the electorate (who will enthusiastically vote for anyone who will stop the noise).

You can read about the supersonic experiments over Oaklahoma City in the 1960's to learn about the effects of sonic booms, and why people don't like them.

For reference, the Space Shuttle generated annoying sonic booms over west Los Angeles when landing at Edwards Airforce Base. The approach path to Edwards is more than 30 miles from west LA. So, for any supersonic airway, you'd need to set aside a roughly 60-70 mile wide swath of land. That's a lot of people voting to shut down your SST operation (or suing you).

Sure, but I don't see a startup called Boom changing the political landscape around sonic boom concerns, particularly not in an era where there's also a lot of environmental lobbying.

if they revive the noise implications they might well manage to change it. IMO those restrictions are also because it wasn't an American jet so it kept the competition out.

Agreed on both points, but they're fighting against the physics of sonic booms, not just Concorde's noisy turbojet [a solved problem] so I wouldn't bank on it, and lobbying against Boeing as well as an environmental lobby that's far more influential now than in the seventies.

Several European states without commercial airframers introduced supersonic overflight bans too and the Anti Concorde Project started in the UK so I don't think the argument it was all protectionism stands up anyway.

I think this issue was range. Many of the over ocean routes it simply couldn't fly. One of the reason BOOM believes in themselves is that they open up many more routes.

Boom's planned range of 4,500 nm is actually only a marginal improvement on Concorde's 3,900. Their site advertises routes like "LA-Sydney", but at ~6,500 nm this won't work without a refueling stop.

if it weren't for the concorde, airbus wouldn't really exist and be able to compete with boeing. so while your point isn't untrue, it's also fair to say that it ended up paying huge dividends and was worth it.

On top of that, none of the things mentioned were big problems during the 80s when the concord was in its peak. Security just started ramping up after the wave of 1970s hijackings that necessitated security at airports

It crashed because of a fault on another airplane, a 5 Kg titanium strip from a DC10 entered the wing at very high speed. Not a lot of aircraft of the day would have survived such an impact.

Almost all jetliners of the day would have survived it because their tires wouldn’t lushest accelerated it to 300 MPH.

These are true but with Air France what made it profitable were all the special and charter flights...

And realistically it also failed because while flying west makes sense as you could land "before" you took off, going east didn't work like that. Sure you're losing less time either way compared to a regular flight but flying east, you might as well take a slow flight to get some shuteye.

This problem still hasn't been solved.

It made way more sense as an aircraft when:

1. Communication was not as instantaneous as today and more things required face to face meetings.

2. You could basically walk onto an air plane with minimal security interference.

My dad said he flew the Concorde several times from Europe to NYC for business in the late 70s and early 80's and he said it was worth it in that context.

I should ask him how comfortable it was next time I see him. I've been inside of a Concorde that was turned into a museum piece and it is a pretty cramped airframe. I dunno how modern 2020 people would feel about the compactness.

The Concorde interior was pretty similar to the first class seating of the era (maybe a bit tighter), i.e. more like today's conventional domestic business/first than Polaris lie-flat seats (much less the mini-cabins airlines like Emirates have available).

> Whether you can fly JFK-CDG in 8 hours or 4 hours, when you factor in how irritating airports are, parking, security line ups, waiting for baggage, etc, it still takes all day to make the trip.

Security lines weren't a thing until 2001. The Concorde operated from 1976 to 2003. The retirement was due to low passenger count due to a crash in 2000 and 9/11 in 2001.

I remember going through security for domestic U.S. flights in the 1990s. They had magnetometers and I think they had some kind of baggage x-ray machine. It was faster because they didn't check IDs, and I don't think they were that careful about having people go through the metal detector one at a time with a security agent actively watching them pass through.

im guessing if you really need, and can afford, supersonic travel then either it'll be like flying business/first or you'll have top tier ff status with the airline, and queues etc are much less of, or even a non issue.

Exactly this. Supersonic flight is likely to be more expensive than subsonic flight, and will likely mostly be used by people that fly regularly. Even moderately frequent travellers don't find airports that much of an issue because a) their status allows them to skip most of the horrible parts, and b) they have learned how to travel efficiently.

Security lines were absolutely a thing in the UK and France, where the Concordes flew from, due to terrorist campaigns.

Flying with first class tickets will get you into an expedited security line in most airports as well as other perks like lounge access. If you're paying Concorde prices I'd expect that to also come with the same perks as a first class ticket on a slower plane. That means less waiting than the rest of us and the wait you do have is more comfortable.

LAX also has Private Suite, JFK & MIA coming soon.

https://reserveps.com

You also get the expedited security line if you keep a NASA badge inside your passport.

Well for all but the last two years of the Corcorde's existence there was no TSA or security lines. Also I know at JFK at least the Concorde had it's own private departure lounge called the The Concorde Room(it's actually still there) and it also had its' own private jetway as well. So it was definitely a premium experience all the way around.

that's true of LHR as well, there is a Concorde Room just after the priority security scan lane, and first class or top tier BA pax get invited. the place is insane in terms of 'premium-ness' with the experience being s whole level above the usual BA first class lounges - you'll find the full details on the ba.com site. sadly i only managed to use it once or twice, when my boss guested me in ;(

Or fly it out of a private airport without as much irritating stuff, much like private jets do today.

They could have their own special terminals and all passengers pre-cleared.