Will we ever see a replacement for Concorde ?

[Butts]

It seems Aviation is the only form of Transport that has gone backwards in terms of speed.

Could Britain and France produce a new supersonic airliner as a replacement for Concorde ?

At the time of it's inception British Engineering was at the forefront of speedy modes of getting around.

QE2 in the shipping arena which could go faster backwards than most competitors could go forward.

E-Type Jaguar a 155 mph behemoth in the early sixties.

Concorde 1354 mph

APT 155mph

Is it time to bring back BA001 ?

 

[Alfonso]

I think it was Jeremy Clarkson who wrote that the problem with concorde wasn't that it was too fast, but that it was too slow. The fax machine, communications satellites, fibre optic cables, the Web, video conferencing etc all reduced the need for people to dash from one side of the Atlantic to the other.

 

[mpthomson]

I think it was Jeremy Clarkson who wrote that the problem with concorde wasn't that it was too fast, but that it was too slow. The fax machine, communications satellites, fibre optic cables, the Web, video conferencing etc all reduced the need for people to dash from one side of the Atlantic to the other.

Indeed. How people do business changed radically from the early 2000s onwards, and now time critical meetings are carried out online. People who want luxury tend to use Virgin or BA Upper Class (or equivalent), which is way more comfortable now than Concorde ever could be, to the point of making the longer journeys matter much less.

If supersonic travel has a market it's for those very long plane journeys to Singapore/ Aus/ NZ for economy passengers.

 

[75A]

Can't see the point of it these days.

 

[gg1]

I think it was Jeremy Clarkson who wrote that the problem with Concorde wasn't that it was too fast, but that it was too slow. The fax machine, communications satellites, fibre optic cables, the Web, video conferencing etc all reduced the need for people to dash from one side of the Atlantic to the other.

I can't say how accurate it is but I did read a number of years ago that a major contributory factor behind the scrapping of Concorde was 9/11. A combination of a decrease in trans-Atlantic travel generally in the years immediately after the attacks plus the deaths of quiet a few regular users of Concorde turned a previously profitable service into a loss making one.

 

[birchesgreen]

Boom are trying to build something though whether it will ever come to fruitition is a good question. I hope they do succeed though if only that Overture is a lovely name for a plane.

 

[NIT100]

If supersonic travel has a market it's for those very long plane journeys to Singapore/ Aus/ NZ for economy passengers.

And the fact that overland supersonic travel is so heavily restricted means the only feasible markets are coast to coast flights over the Atlantic or Pacific.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Faster = more pollution, too.

The slightly ironic thing is that once you get into flights that basically take all day (and so are typically done overnight) the benefit reduces. Where it would bring benefit would be things like US domestics, but you can't because it'd break everyone's windows.

 

[MasterSpenny]

I can’t see there being a replacement.

This is because as with the above post, more pollution is being made with being faster, and Earth is going towards net zero. Unless if a supersonic electric plane is created, in which case, is highly unlikely, but can lead to a return.

 

[Bantamzen]

I can’t see there being a replacement.

This is because as with the above post, more pollution is being made with being faster, and Earth is going towards net zero. Unless if a supersonic electric plane is created, in which case, is highly unlikely, but can lead to a return.

Net zero doesn't necessarily mean no future supersonic passenger craft, its certainly not going to stop supersonic military craft being built! As has been said above, the real limit on supersonic passenger craft is demand, unable to fly beyond the speed of sound over land means a very limited number of routes given the cost per seat. It may be that some private initiative tries it out in the future as a novelty or ultra-premium product, but as a regular passenger product its very unlikely.

 

[RailWonderer]

Before the 787 was designed in the early 2000s Boeing proposed the Sonic Cruiser which would do a mach 0.89. No carriers wanted it due to high fuel costs and I assume it will be the same with Concorde 2.0. With carriers looking to compete with budget airlines in this age of mass air travel, flying expensive supersonic flights on one London/Paris - JFK flight per day doesn't help carriers compete besides over a very small niche customer base.

Is it time to bring back BA001 ?

BA001 and BA002 made up the all business A318 from London City - JFK via Shannon return, which ran until Covid hit and the service was axed and the 2 A318s sold off. BA still has yet to reintroduce a new flagship flight.

 

[Ediswan]

And the fact that overland supersonic travel is so heavily restricted means the only feasible markets are coast to coast flights over the Atlantic or Pacific.

Overland supersonic travel (Concorde) was restricted due to the sonic boom. A key goal of all subsequent projects has been to reduce that to an acceptable level.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Boom are trying to build something though whether it will ever come to frutition is a good question. I hope they do succeed though if only that Overture is a lovely name for a plane.

Boom has picked up quite a lot of firm orders and options in the past couple of years - although yes, we have been there before with Concorde in the pre-oil crisis days.

They are currently building their factory premises, and they have a small test aircraft built which has been doing ground tests and is expected to start flight tests shortly.

 

[NIT100]

Overland supersonic travel (Concorde) was restricted due to the sonic boom. A key goal of all subsequent projects has been to reduce that to an acceptable level.

True, we will have to see the results of the X-59 to see if it works to the theory. I am confident it will achieve the high level of sonic boom reduction, but to achieve that the taper is extremely high and the fuselage very narrow. As an engineering challenge, definitely worth doing. I just don't think it can be translated into an economic commercial aircraft anytime soon. Boom Overture looks interesting and is progressing but it doesn't actually address the issue of sonic boom, which does restrict routes it can fly.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Boom has picked up quite a lot of firm orders and options in the past couple of years

Boom's issue is their timeline, they want the Overture to be flying by the end of the decade, yet they haven't even finished building the factory where the Overture will be built, and their XB-1 demonstrator (Baby Boom) has yet to fly and has been doing taxi tests (in which it reached a top speed of 102mph). Virgin Group has allowed their options for the Overture in recent months. They want the Overture to be built by 2026 and flying in 2027 with certification in 2029.

Is there demand for a high cost, lower than Business Class comfort, fast plane in the 2020's? This is what airlines, and therefore manufacturers are asking.

 

[Deepgreen]

I can't see any replacement (e.g. Overture/Boom) being viable as it would be restricted more or less to the same routes as Concorde (i.e. ocean-crossings), which lost money. Perhaps a far higher alitiude cruise would reduce the sonic boom problem but that will require a propulsion system that is suitably non-polluting and able to operate at very high altitudes (FL1000+). I suspect virtual communications will obviate the need for such high speed global travel.

 

[RailWonderer]

I suspect virtual communications will obviate the need for such high speed global travel.

This is one of the stated reasons why concorde ended. But really, 8 hours from London to NY is a long time, even if many people are used to it, many people would still pay more to get there faster. London NY on BA is the only route in the world to generate over $1 billion (1.1bn) so it's worth the risk even if BA, VX, AA and Delta all have microfleets, they can maintain them in NY for their flights to London and Frankfurt.

The economic case is totally different today as the market has grown with a rising population, increased fuel efficiency and a larger market than back in 2003.

 

[AlastairFraser]

If supersonic travel has a market it's for those very long plane journeys to Singapore/ Aus/ NZ for economy passengers.

So London to Melbourne, according to my calculations would be around 10 hours, if you routed it just below the speed of sound to the Strait of Hormuz (between the UAE and Iran), then proceeded at Mach 2 from there onwards to the edge of the Victorian coast. Currently 21-22 hours, so would be a significant cut if the market is there, and a cost effective fuel can be found.

 

[JamesT]

So London to Melbourne, according to my calculations would be around 10 hours, if you routed it just below the speed of sound to the Strait of Hormuz (between the UAE and Iran), then proceeded at Mach 2 from there onwards to the edge of the Victorian coast. Currently 21-22 hours, so would be a significant cut if the market is there, and a cost effective fuel can be found.

Is this assuming a Concorde replacement would have much better fuel efficiency and/or capacity?
When BA ran Heathrow to Sydney back in the day it took 17 hours including fuel stops in Bahrain, Sri Lanka, and Perth.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Is this assuming a Concorde replacement would have much better fuel efficiency and/or capacity?
When BA ran Heathrow to Sydney back in the day it took 17 hours including fuel stops in Bahrain, Sri Lanka, and Perth.

Yes, it would have to be significantly more efficient.
Subsonic jets have had a considerable fuel saving since Concorde was required, in part due to progress in materials science (which is of course transferrable).

 

[Peter Mugridge]

This is one of the stated reasons why Concorde ended.

Not quite; it's rather more complex than that.

What really killed Concorde off was 9/11; the vast majority of Concorde's passengers were the senior financial and business people. A high percentage of them were lost in the Twin Towers, but it went deeper than that because in many cases those people were the only ones in their companies who had the authority to allow lower ranked staff to upgrade to Concorde.

At the same time, there was a looming need for an in depth refurbishment of the airframes, with particular attention needed to the fuselage crowns. This in itself wasn't an issue, but Air France felt the financial damage more after 9/11 than British Airways did; with a longer overland segment the Air France operation was always more financially marginal to start with.

In early 2003, therefore, Air France decided to pull out. This had the effect of placing 100% of the support costs onto British Airways as only the two airlines operated the aircraft. To their credit, BA did look at the viability of taking on that in full and they were still profitable but did face falling demand following the 9/11 issue mentioned above. Again, that in itself wasn't an issue - but when they factored in the required airframe works, they decided it was too much of a financial risk to continue, so BA then also announced an axing - but they did carry on for six months after Air France.

I would recommend reading the specialist Concorde website https://www.concordesst.com/ for more details.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Not quite; it's rather more complex than that.

What really killed Concorde off was 9/11; the vast majority of Concorde's passengers were the senior financial and business people. A high percentage of them were lost in the Twin Towers, but it went deeper than that because in many cases those people were the only ones in their companies who had the authority to allow lower ranked staff to upgrade to Concorde.

At the same time, there was a looming need for an in depth refurbishment of the airframes, with particular attention needed to the fuselage crowns. This in itself wasn't an issue, but Air France felt the financial damage more after 9/11 than British Airways did; with a longer overland segment the Air France operation was always more financially marginal to start with.

In early 2003, therefore, Air France decided to pull out. This had the effect of placing 100% of the support costs onto British Airways as only the two airlines operated the aircraft. To their credit, BA did look at the viability of taking on that in full and they were still profitable but did face falling demand following the 9/11 issue mentioned above. Again, that in itself wasn't an issue - but when they factored in the required airframe works, they decided it was too much of a financial risk to continue, so BA then also announced an axing - but they did carry on for six months after Air France.

I would recommend reading the specialist Concorde website https://www.concordesst.com/ for more details.

You can also add the crash of AF4590.

 

[yorkie]

The simple answer is no because it's too expensive and not economically viable.

 

[RailWonderer]

The simple answer is no because it's too expensive and not economically viable.

You're grossly oversimplifying the siutation. 2023 is not 2003 and it's at least worth looking into. The market is very different now to then. There are so many rich people today and so much created wealth now vs 20 years ago. The amount of money a lot of people have today is mind boggling. Lots of people will pay for London NY supersonic. I guarantee it will be tried, and even if it fails again, some carrier will try and some people will throw money at it. Flights will be sold out.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Lots of people will pay for London NY supersonic. I guarantee it will be tried, and even if it fails again, some carrier will try and some people will throw money at it. Flights will be sold out.

American Airlines has ordered 20 of the Boom Overture, with options for a further 40.

United Airlines has ordered 15, with options on a further 35.

Japan Air Lines has options on 20 of them, but has also paid $10 million towards the development of the aircraft itself. Obviously the JAL examples will be intended for the Pacific sphere rather than the Atlantic run, but there's no prizes for guessing which market the other two are aiming at first.

You can also add the crash of AF4590.

The AF4590 accident was not a factor contributing towards the Air France decision to withdraw three years later, after the return to service modifications had been implemented, than a second very near loss they experienced on February 18th 2003 - it was this later incident which caused Air France's management to lose confidence. That, combined with the financial pressures mentioned in my earlier post, led to Air France pulling out.


Given that this thread is for discussing the replacement, we should perhaps carry on any further discussion on the withdrawal of the original in a separate thread...?

 

[YorkRailFan]

The AF4590 accident was not a factor contributing towards the Air France decision to withdraw three years later, after the return to service modifications had been implemented, than a second very near loss they experienced on February 18th 2003 - it was this later incident which caused Air France's management to lose confidence. That, combined with the financial pressures mentioned in my earlier post, led to Air France pulling out.

The crash of AF4590 was a contributing factor, it lead to the public loosing some trust in the aircraft and Air France to consider the viability of the aircraft. The events of 9/11, rising fuel prices and the aforementioned incident on 18 February 2003 all contributed to the decline and pushed Air France and British Airways over the edge into retiring the aircraft.

Japan Air Lines has options on 20 of them, but has also paid $10 million towards the development of the aircraft itself. Obviously the JAL examples will be intended for the Pacific sphere rather than the Atlantic run, but there's no prizes for guessing which market the other two are aiming at first.

Interestingly, the Overture will struggle to fly a lot of Trans-pacific routes, despite what Boom says on their website, so could fly from Tokyo to Seattle, but to Los Angeles or San Francisco might be a stretch. That doesn't even include whether or not Russian airspace will be open to these airlines if the aircraft is even built.

You're grossly oversimplifying the siutation. 2023 is not 2003 and it's at least worth looking into. The market is very different now to then. There are so many rich people today and so much created wealth now vs 20 years ago. The amount of money a lot of people have today is mind boggling. Lots of people will pay for London NY supersonic. I guarantee it will be tried, and even if it fails again, some carrier will try and some people will throw money at it. Flights will be sold out.

You continue to assume that the aircraft will be built, with the factory not even completed, no photos of the construction, partnering with small engine manufacturers, the XB-1 demonstrator hasn't even flown, and the timeline of certification and entry into service of 2029 is incredibly optimistic.

 

[PTR 444]

Not quite; it's rather more complex than that.

What really killed Concorde off was 9/11; the vast majority of Concorde's passengers were the senior financial and business people. A high percentage of them were lost in the Twin Towers, but it went deeper than that because in many cases those people were the only ones in their companies who had the authority to allow lower ranked staff to upgrade to Concorde.

I knew 9/11 was a major contributing factor to the decline of Concorde, but hadn’t thought about that specific scenario. I’d assumed the decline in passengers was a result of additional airport security checks and people developing a fear of flying following the attacks.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Interestingly, the Overture will struggle to fly a lot of Trans-pacific routes, despite what Boom says on their website, so could fly from Tokyo to Seattle, but to Los Angeles or San Francisco might be a stretch. That doesn't even include whether or not Russian airspace will be open to these airlines if the aircraft is even built.

Would a 30 min stop in Hawaii for fuel make this possible?
Edit - just calculated, the flight time would be around 5hr30-45 with a stop in Hawaii. This beats 12hours out the park.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Would a 30 min stop in Hawaii for fuel make this possible?
Edit - just calculated, the flight time would be around 5hr30-45 with a stop in Hawaii. This beats 12hours out the park.

Yes, but would make it less feasible for airlines, I still see subsonic ruling this space for a long time.

 

[RailWonderer]

You continue to assume that the aircraft will be built, with the factory not even completed, no photos of the construction, partnering with small engine manufacturers, the XB-1 demonstrator hasn't even flown, and the timeline of certification and entry into service of 2029 is incredibly optimistic.

Yes, but the fact that in 2001 nobody wanted a mach 0.98 Boeing Sonic Cruiser yet now multiplet carriers are already interested in a mach 1.7 jet demonstrates they have are fairly sure there is a market. Whether or not it will be built by 2029 or not go bankrupt is another story.

The crash of AF4590 was a contributing factor, it lead to the public loosing some trust in the aircraft and Air France to consider the viability of the aircraft. The events of 9/11, rising fuel prices and the aforementioned incident on 18 February 2003 all contributed to the decline and pushed Air France and British Airways over the edge into retiring the aircraft.

Wasn't the Concorde life expired anyway? It was already over 25 years old by 2003 and if not total replacement then significant refitting as mentioned upthread would have been needed.