Back to Squawk list
  • 43

A Supersonic 'Mini Concorde' Business Jet is going to Happen

eklendi
 
This bird was reviled in 2004 and the company is partnering with Airbus to build the bird. (flightclub.jalopnik.com) Daha Fazlası...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


siriusloon
siriusloon 4
I'm sure it really was reviled by some people in 2004 and that environmentalists and the "anti-one-percenters" probably don't like it very much now, either, but did you actually mean it was revealed in 2004?
jkudlick
Jeremy Kudlick 2
Interesting... Approximately $100M for the plane, plus untold operating costs - those obscene operating costs were a large part of why the Concordes were retired. I anticipate similarly obscene operating costs for this thing as well, unless they can figure out a way to drastically reduce friction.
NF2G
David Stark 1
Maybe that's why it was reviled. :)
siriusloon
siriusloon 1
After the R&D and construction costs were written off, the Concordes generally made money. Since the Aerion aircraft benefits from aerodynamic and other aeroscience advances not available in the 1960s, as well as from greatly advanced and much more fuel-efficient engines, the operating costs may not be as "obscene" as you think.
avihais
Martin Haisman 1
Definitely a bilinear toy as too small to be a commercial success. Yes Concorde lost money hence avionics and many safety commendations were not implemented.
siriusloon
siriusloon 7
"Too small to be a commercial success"? It's a bizjet, not an airliner. It's supposed to be small. You don't compare a Learjet to a 777 or even a 737, do you? If someone can afford to buy and use a bizjet, they don't worry if the cost-per-seat-mile compares favourably with Emirates or even Southwest. They get in it and they go. As the writer of "The Great Gatsby" once observed, "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me." The people who will buy these aircraft don't care if it's a "commercial success" to operate because they themselves are a commercial success.
cm5299
Chuck Me 1
I think he may have been referencing it being used as a commercial airliner as opposed to a privately owned or charter.

That being said, your post was still spot on.
annellandfrank
John Taylor 1
So callous...but absolutely on-target! Scott and Zelda would still be drunk and confused....but they'd love your comments! So we're back in the '20s...and it's starting all over again. What a shame!!
siriusloon
siriusloon 0
In the mid-80s, Concorde was profitable, once the R&D and construction costs were written off and the airlines owned the aircraft outright: http://tinyurl.com/ll98lhp

Most people travelling on Concorde were on business and their companies had booked their seats. Surveys showed that passengers assumed the seats cost much more than they did...so the airlines raised the prices to match expectations, thereby further increasing profits.

Which safety "commendations" weren't implemented because Concorde (supposedly) was losing money?
jmilazzo
joe milazzo 2
No not "further increasing profits" they finally started to make a profit after the price increase.
avihais
Martin Haisman 1
Airworthiness recommendations Kevlar fuel tank lining, undercarriage wiring routing, ZGT tyres not fitted, wet tyre deflector cables on some aircraft. Prior to the crash there were 54 tyre bursts with 4 serious damage. I watched a documentary on Concorde in which it only made a profit for about 11 months of its lifetime. Due this it still remained with antiquated avionics and from memory eventually on release one country bought it for a dollar (France?)Well ahead of its time but pride overtook profitability. Seems they did not learn as Airbus sales are still subsidising the A380 yet to break even. At least the A380 makes a profit for the airlines. Maybe the "mini Concorde" will be able to be a commercial success and not just a rich boys toy.
btweston
btweston 1
Why was it hated so much in 2004?
outward
Jimmy Robinson 1
Interesting wing configuration. Reminds me of an F-104-built as an interceptor and for speed more than anything else. With its short, stubby wings, if the Aerion has a catastrophic engine failure the glide-slope is probably straight down.
lwr
lwr 3
Reminds me of a joke:

Q: How do you get your own Star Fighter (F-104)?
A: Buy a piece of land and wait.
omrigaron
Ryan Hodges 1
Thats what the 9 massive ballistic parachutes are for.
wylann
wylann 1
I would love to be on the engineering team to do the first interior in one of these. I was in the VIP interior industry for a decade, and the smaller aircraft were more challenging. Of course, the 747-400s were much more extravagant, but there's so much space (and weight limit) to work with, the engineering is pretty straight forward.
devsfan
ken young 1
The operating costs are borne by the owners of the aircraft. It is none of anyone's business how the owners spend their money
bearkrause
Carey Krause 1
The original plan was to use three JT-8's for propulsion. In other words, this business jet needs the same propulsion plan of a 727 so these well-heeled owners can "get there first." Carbon emissions and fossil fuel use are everybody's business, like it or not.
devsfan
ken young 1
ok....The question was about operating costs and of course the cost of the aircraft. I did not address nor did the OP mention anything about carbon footprints.
bjaygarber
bjaygarber 1

Giriş

Hesabınız yok mu? Kişiselleştirilmiş özellikler, uçuş uyarıları ve daha fazlası için şimdi (ücretsiz) üye olun!
Bu web site tanımlama bilgileri kullanmaktadır. Bu web siteyi kullanarak ve bu sitede gezinerek, bunu kabul etmiş olursunuz.
Kapat
FlightAware uçuş takibinin reklamlarla desteklendiğini biliyor muydunuz?
FlightAware.com'dan gelen reklamlara izin vererek FlightAware'in ücretsiz kalmasını sağlamamıza yardım edebilirsiniz. harika bir deneyim sunmak adına reklamlarımızı anlamlı ve öne çıkmayacak şekilde tutmak için yoğun şekilde çalışıyoruz. FlightAware'deki whitelist adsreklamları güvenilir olarak görmek hızlı ve kolaydır, veya lütfen premium hesaplarımıza geçmeyi düşünün.
Kapat