Comments by "rockethead7" (@rockethead7) on "Wendover Productions"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simon7790
YOU SAID: "Both Air France and BA both reported making a profit on Concorde, albeit not huge amounts after the 1970's oil prices rises."
== Then why did they lose money like crazy and need so many subsidies to stay flying? Or, did they report profits AFTER the subsidies?
YOU SAID: "But there were other benefits. Who needed an advertising budget when you had Concorde."
== I'm not sure what entity you're talking about.
YOU SAID: "And no I don't mean domestic flights. There are other destinations you can reach in the US from Europe that are not on the east coast, such as the west coast cities,"
== Pfffttt. Let me get this straight... you think the Concorde had the range to go from London to the west coast of the USA? Sorry, with a 4,000 mile range, if you're talking about west coast flights, yes, you're talking about domestic flights. There's no way an international flight was going to get to the west coast. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
YOU SAID: "but if you are not licensed to fly to them it removes your market opportunity."
== Yes, it's a strange dynamic, such that outside carriers cannot fly domestic, and USA carriers can't fly domestic in other countries, etc. But, Concorde has/had nothing to do with that dynamic. That dynamic exists with or without Concorde.
YOU SAID: "The US government focused on ensuring Boeing had an advantage so closed the market by banning supersonic flight over land."
== Just Boeing, eh? Good grief. What ARE you talking about? The ban on foreign airlines flying domestic flights has nothing to do with supersonic or not. And, this is just silly at this point. If it was the way you're talking about, any number of things could have happened differently. Boeing (or any USA manufacturer) would have just built supersonic airliners. Domestic carriers would have just bought Concordes (just like they buy Airbus planes today). Sheeeesssshhhh. The ban on supersonic flight is mainly because they don't want sonic booms making all that noise over cities.
YOU SAID: "Concorde was the first and last iteration of its type,"
== Except for the Soviet version that was actually first, right? Did you even know they had one before Concorde? Or, are you just making this up as you go? Why are you calling the Concorde the first?
YOU SAID: "no subsequent R&D was done to develop it and improve on it, such as develop more fuel efficient engines, or make a bigger cabin because the real market opportunity was closed to it."
== Complete and total nonsense. Utter garbage. The Soviets didn't continue their Concorde copy either, and not because there was a "market" problem. It was because flying supersonic is an amazing fuel hog, is hard on the equipment, requires far more expensive craft, and doesn't have a market of people willing to pay that much just to save a few hours of time. Why are you so focused on the US market anyway? Do you think none of Europe would want supersonic flights? Do you think none of the Soviet Union wanted supersonic flights? Do you think flights around Africa or Asia or South America wouldn't benefit from supersonic flights? Or, hmmmm, is it because it's amazingly expensive to fly supersonic, and there aren't enough people willing to pay THAT level of premium to save a few hours? Hint: the answer is the latter. Develop a bigger cabin?? You are BACKWARD. Bigger cabin = more drag. More drag = even more expensive to fly supersonic. They had a hard enough time filling the cabin they had, let alone a bigger one. And, supersonic flight is not able to achieve the economies of scale in quite the same fashion as subsonic flight. There are diminishing returns at those high speeds. That's why the modern development of next gen supersonic airliner development is trying to go SMALLER, not larger. And, as for more efficient engines, yes, that's always nice, but, I'm afraid there's just not all that much more efficiency to be had, that would make it that much more economical to make a difference in a large enough way to tilt the dynamics in favor of supersonic flight. Look, there's a reason that nobody in the world has bothered trying to build a new supersonic airliner since the failure of the Soviet supersonic airliner and the Concorde, and it has nothing to do with USA's domestic policies on supersonic flight over land, or protection of Boeing, or anything else you are choosing to make up as you go along. It's because of the cost of it. And, yes, I'm aware that your argument is that further development could bring costs down. And, back in the 1990s, some people were just as delusional about that as you are now, and actually funded a NASA program to try to develop EXACTLY what you're outlining. The goal was to produce an airliner that would be more efficient, quieter, carry more passengers, and fly at mach 2+. It failed miserably. 10 years of development yielded nothing. Why? Because of physics. Flying supersonic is very taxing on the airframe, requires exotic and expensive materials, and burns fuel quicker than a meth addict loses brain cells. This also kind of kills your notion that the USA was opposing supersonic flight, eh? They spent the entire 1990s trying to see if they could pull off a next-gen airliner to do EXACTLY what you're outlining, but eventually came to the conclusion that it wasn't viable.
YOU SAID: "The design stayed in the 1960's. Who knows which direction things may have headed if there had been a level playing field and some further development."
== But, we already know the answer to that. It ended up in the trash bin!!! The "further development" was scrapped!!!
YOU SAID: "Maybe there would be room for a more modern passenger supersonic aircraft."
== Well, there are a couple of companies trying to do exactly that, nowadays. But, they've scrapped the notion of doing it with a big plane. They're trying to go small, like 20-50 passengers, max. They know the market is quite limited for people willing to pay that much of a premium. And, they know that staying small is the key to burning less fuel at supersonic speeds. Personally, I'll be honest with you, I don't really think they're even trying. I think these are probably actually investment scams. They're raising money, hundreds of millions for development, and, it's quite easy to just have that money evaporate and then just say at the end that they couldn't make it work (pocketing large salaries and whatever else they can siphon along the way). But, what do I know about it? Nothing. Maybe they're making an honest attempt. I think probably not. But, hey, maybe. Will they make it work? Well, I wouldn't hold my breath, but, at least they have a formula that makes more sense than what you're proposing.
1
-
You are correct, he doesn't explain it. And, that's because his modeling is completely wrong to begin with. He has not accounted for the fact that a large number of business/first class seating is given away to mileage/loyalty program members, who aren't paying full fare for those upgraded classes. Yes, they sell some seats at full fare. But, let's face reality here, they're giving away a lot of those seats, not charging the kind of money he's talking about. Back when I was a more frequent flier, I was upgraded on more flights than not, never paying a dime for it. I'd also use my miles (flown on business trips) to buy 1st class vacation tickets. I could honestly tell you that over a period of 100 flights, I flew first class in probably 75 of them, but only paid 1st class fares maybe one time (if even that). Anyway, the point is, his video is wrong.
1
-
He has not accounted for the fact that a large number of business/first class seating is given away to mileage/loyalty program members, who aren't paying full fare for those upgraded classes. Yes, they sell some seats at full fare. But, let's face reality here, they're giving away a lot of those seats, not charging the kind of money he's talking about. Back when I was a more frequent flier, I was upgraded on more flights than not, never paying a dime for it. I'd also use my miles (flown on business trips) to buy 1st class vacation tickets. I could honestly tell you that over a period of 100 flights, I flew first class in probably 75 of them, but only paid 1st class fares maybe one time (if even that). Anyway, the point is, his video is wrong.
1