Dear Sir,
Following yet again a preamble by Monitor in the MDB (Friday) about Concorde, I would question the statements made: obsolete aircraft, no commercial future, white elephant, has never been remotely profitable. Considering Concorde was built in the 1960s when airlines were national carriers subsidised by governments, the initial development/manufacturing costs will have been written off, and as it is invariably pretty full flying to New York at £6'000 a seat, return flight, I would have thought it was highly profitable. They actually, for aircraft, have flown not many hours (compared to other more package-type flights) so have quite some life left in them. The reason more supersonic 'planes were not made was that the Americans, not being in the running supersonic wise, put so many initial restrictions on Concorde that it stopped its mass production. Future editions might well have been more economically friendly. Unfortunately, we will never know, as anyone ever having suffered from jet lag will have welcomed cutting flying time by half on long journeys.
I would have thought it was highly profitable
10/11/2001 00:00
Also in Holiday
- What a carry on! European Union abandons full launch of new travel entry system for Britons in favour of "phased rollout"
- Uncertainty surrounds EU Entry/Exit System implementation
- Fresh hope for Golden Visa in Spain
- Living in Palma Airport - Safe and warm
- Laura Hamilton: “I’ve always loved Mallorca, I just wished I’d bought here earlier...”
No comments
To be able to write a comment, you have to be registered and logged in
Currently there are no comments.