Why was CONCORDE taken down?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for kirk4ever
kirk4ever

3543

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 kirk4ever
Member since 2005 • 3543 Posts
i mean ..planes always crash and stuff..so what was the reason for it to be taken off? i always wanted to ride one :( was it unfixable?
Avatar image for skinnypete91
skinnypete91

6022

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 skinnypete91
Member since 2006 • 6022 Posts
Eh.. I don't know everything but I think it was just an over reaction to the crash. I'm sure whatever it was could be fixed, it really is a shame that it had to be put out of use.. it was such an amazing machine and by putting it out of service we've effectively taken a step back technology wise.
Avatar image for EboyLOL
EboyLOL

5358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 EboyLOL
Member since 2006 • 5358 Posts
The Concorde was taken down because it was not turning a profit.
Avatar image for kirk4ever
kirk4ever

3543

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 kirk4ever
Member since 2005 • 3543 Posts

The Concorde was taken down because it was not turning a profit.EboyLOL

oh.:(

Avatar image for skinnypete91
skinnypete91

6022

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 skinnypete91
Member since 2006 • 6022 Posts

[QUOTE="EboyLOL"]The Concorde was taken down because it was not turning a profit.kirk4ever

oh.:(

I was just reading more about it on Wikipedia and it seems that that was the main cause, worsened by the economical effect of the 9/11 attacks.

Its a pretty strange story really... In 1976, when Concorde was operational, you could go from London to New York in about 3 and a half hours. Now, 30 years on, technology has actually backtracked.. the fastest commercial jet will get you there in about 7 hours. Ridiculous really :?

Avatar image for kirk4ever
kirk4ever

3543

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 kirk4ever
Member since 2005 • 3543 Posts
[QUOTE="kirk4ever"]

[QUOTE="EboyLOL"]The Concorde was taken down because it was not turning a profit.skinnypete91

oh.:(

I was just reading more about it on Wikipedia and it seems that that was the main cause, worsened by the economical effect of the 9/11 attacks.

Its a pretty strange story really... In 1976, when Concorde was operational, you could go from London to New York in about 3 and a half hours. Now, 30 years on, technology has actually backtracked.. the fastest commercial jet will get you there in about 7 hours. Ridiculous really :?

so that why ..and a guy did tell me concorde cancelation was a backtrack in science..dammnit OSAMA!!!!

Avatar image for blakout3
blakout3

985

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#7 blakout3
Member since 2005 • 985 Posts

There are a couple of factors.

1. That was not the first Concorde crash.

2. There were alot of new sound regulations coming in which restricted Concorde.

3. And mostly, like said before, they were'nt pulling in the money. It was unecinomical.

Avatar image for skinnypete91
skinnypete91

6022

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 skinnypete91
Member since 2006 • 6022 Posts

There are a couple of factors.

1. That was not the first Concorde crash.

2. There were alot of new sound regulations coming in which restricted Concorde.

3. And mostly, like said before, they were'nt pulling in the money. It was unecinomical.

blakout3

What? I'm pretty sure they only ever had one crash :?

Avatar image for skinnypete91
skinnypete91

6022

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 skinnypete91
Member since 2006 • 6022 Posts
Hmm.. checking again there was only one "fatal accident"... not sure about others.
Avatar image for xboxdudeman800
xboxdudeman800

3880

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#10 xboxdudeman800
Member since 2005 • 3880 Posts
[QUOTE="blakout3"]

There are a couple of factors.

1. That was not the first Concorde crash.

2. There were alot of new sound regulations coming in which restricted Concorde.

3. And mostly, like said before, they were'nt pulling in the money. It was unecinomical.

skinnypete91

What? I'm pretty sure they only ever had one crash :?

I know there were at least two, and I'm pretty sure there was a few more

Avatar image for kirk4ever
kirk4ever

3543

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 kirk4ever
Member since 2005 • 3543 Posts
[QUOTE="skinnypete91"][QUOTE="blakout3"]

There are a couple of factors.

1. That was not the first Concorde crash.

2. There were alot of new sound regulations coming in which restricted Concorde.

3. And mostly, like said before, they were'nt pulling in the money. It was unecinomical.

xboxdudeman800

What? I'm pretty sure they only ever had one crash :?

I know there were at least two, and I'm pretty sure there was a few more

i dont think its because of crashes or else they would have taken down all planes

Avatar image for skinnypete91
skinnypete91

6022

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 skinnypete91
Member since 2006 • 6022 Posts
[QUOTE="skinnypete91"][QUOTE="blakout3"]

There are a couple of factors.

1. That was not the first Concorde crash.

2. There were alot of new sound regulations coming in which restricted Concorde.

3. And mostly, like said before, they were'nt pulling in the money. It was unecinomical.

xboxdudeman800

What? I'm pretty sure they only ever had one crash :?

I know there were at least two, and I'm pretty sure there was a few more

Yeah, I just found an article that mentions them, nothing fatal though, just "minor" accidents. Link

Avatar image for kirk4ever
kirk4ever

3543

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 kirk4ever
Member since 2005 • 3543 Posts
[QUOTE="xboxdudeman800"][QUOTE="skinnypete91"][QUOTE="blakout3"]

There are a couple of factors.

1. That was not the first Concorde crash.

2. There were alot of new sound regulations coming in which restricted Concorde.

3. And mostly, like said before, they were'nt pulling in the money. It was unecinomical.

skinnypete91

What? I'm pretty sure they only ever had one crash :?

I know there were at least two, and I'm pretty sure there was a few more

Yeah, I just found an article that mentions them, nothing fatal though, just "minor" accidents. Link

then its just because of money..but does any1 know how much was a TICKET?

Avatar image for xboxdudeman800
xboxdudeman800

3880

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#14 xboxdudeman800
Member since 2005 • 3880 Posts

If i remember correctly, they were VERY expensive

Avatar image for skinnypete91
skinnypete91

6022

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 skinnypete91
Member since 2006 • 6022 Posts

Apparently about £6200 (about $12500)!

I'm pretty surprised by that. It's obviously a hell of a lot to pay, but for some people their time is worth that much money...

I don't think its just about the money... but obviously with the 9/11 attacks doing a lot of damage to the air industr, it was "the final nail in the coffin" so to speak.

Avatar image for SolidSnake35
SolidSnake35

58971

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 3

#16 SolidSnake35
Member since 2005 • 58971 Posts
I miss hearing it pass overhead. :(
Avatar image for Green_Iugana
Green_Iugana

1153

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 Green_Iugana
Member since 2007 • 1153 Posts
It was too expensive to keep and maintain