[rollei_list] Re: OT - The Concorde
- From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:51:13 -0400
Marc,
Excellent post, yours, but where are the FIGURES?
Cheers.
+++++
On Thursday, April 21, 2005, at 07:25 PM, Marc James Small wrote:
> At 03:37 PM 4/21/05 -0400, Ardeshir Mehta wrote:
>
>> That went right though the roof, admittedly.
>>
>> All the same there=92s something fishy about the Concorde =
cancellation.=20
>> I wrote a post about it on another mailing group as follows:
>
> Ard
>
> You miss the point. The Concorde was effectively a loss-leader from=20
> the get-go. The British and French built it in anticipation that the=20=
> US would follow suit and that they would enjoy national prestige by=20
> beating the US into the market by four or five years. There were huge=20=
> government subsidies to the development of this aircraft which were=20
> never charged against either British Airways or Air France. So, in the=20=
> end, the Concorde was simply a black hole into which huge sums of=20
> money disappeared; there are many parallels in transport history --=20
> among them, the Zeppelin airships, which never recovered their cost of=20=
> production, and many ocean liners which were grossly subsidised by the=20=
> government for matters of national prestige.
>
> In the case of the SST, the US put a quit to this in the last years of=20=
> the Johnson Administration and the early years of the Nixon=20
> Administration by simply stating that there would be no Federal=20
> subsidy to produce a US SST, so Boeing rapidply lost all interest in=20=
> its Concorde-bashing project. The US attitude was in part based on=20
> sour grapes: the refusal to allow the SST to fly into DFW was a prime=20=
> example of that. But it was also based on a recognition that the=20
> transport industry had to pay its own way and that the US had achieved=20=
> such a super-power status as not to need to fund such craft for=20
> purposes of national prestige.
>
> To be fair, the first commercial aircraft only entered production due=20=
> to government subsidies, and the transition from gasoline to jet=20
> engines was similarly a result of taxpayer contributions. But, though=20=
> it took some government money to make the Ford Tri-Motor and the=20
> Boeing 247 realities, the DC-3 was a money-maker, while the government=20=
> subsidies necessary to produce the Boeing 707 and the Sud-Ouest=20
> Caravelle were not needed for more recent aircraft. (Government=20
> subsidies, however, have re-entered the picture in the recent=20
> competition between Boeing and Airbus, but that is a slightly=20
> different issue.)
>
> And now the Japanese are planning on building an HST and the Chinese=20=
> are mooting about the same. Our children may well be travelling on a=20=
> Japanese aircraft from London to Melbourne in six hours or the like.=20=
> Sub-orbital is next. But that government subsidy may well be an=20
> essential element. (To be fair, the early voyages from Europe to the=20=
> New World were all underwritten by the governments of the nations=20
> involved.)
>
> To get back to Concorde: it was a magnificent aircraft which=20
> apparently was a delight to fly. It also was quite old and maintenance=20=
> concerns were a major problem: this is an aircraft produced thirty=20
> years back, and a lot of the OEM companies are no longer in business,=20=
> so merely keeping these guys flying was an increasing concern.=20
> Grounding them was a recognition that the great vision shown by the=20
> British and French in producing the craft was simply premature.
>
> Marc
>
> msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx=3D20
> Cha robh b=3DE0s fir gun ghr=3DE0s fir!
Other related posts:
