Trip Report


In the same way that in the early 1970s Microsoft made a loss on every computer sold with their operating system on it, but by the 1980s and 1990s Microsoft became "the" operating system on PCs and now Microsoft is the biggest computer software company in the world.

The same could have happened to Concorde but it never did............

If Concorde had been allowed to develop and evolve in the same way the Boeing 747 has then by now we would have had long range and more economical versions of Concorde flying across the world in half the time it takes a 747 and a whole new era of aviation would have evolved.

Slow fat things like the Boeing 747 etc would have been relegated to either museums or bargain bucket airlines who could not afford to buy a “new  Concorde“.

If the air fares had been set correctly Concorde would have been the number one choice of the air traveller and not “oh it will do as that’s all there is and this is all we can afford“……..

Generally people always prefer to get from point A to point B as fast as they can hence why we have motorways to allow cars to travel at high speed as they go from one town to another, the same principle applies to air travel.

If a disaster of any kind happens such as tsunami, earth quake etc (where time is the key to saving peoples lives), where getting the right people to right place in the shortest possible time means more lives can be saved.

Concorde would have proved invaluable in this type of situation as her speed and inter-continental range capability to get the right people to these places would have potentially saved more lives as she was the fastest passenger plane in the sky and she would have been an extremely valuable asset to be used in these types of situations……………..

She could have been used as emergency air ambulance to quickly move people from remote places to hospitals in big cities or even other continents across the world, in those types of situations every second counts……..

All this potential and growth was there for the taking but as usual the current “men in power“, the “tree huggers” and “ bean counters” where to short sighted to see and they threw all this potential away............ and they never opened their eyes and ears to see and listen to people.

The SAME people keep on saying bad mouthing Concorde then use statistics to say how “unsafe” , how “expensive“, how “polluting”  and how “noisy” Concorde was and start throwing numbers at us to try and beat us in to sub-mission and in to "their“ way of thinking.

When if it was as bad as they now make it out to be, she would have never flown in the first place, let alone flown successfully for 27 glorious and successful years.

If after the 2000 Paris crash British Airways and Air France had given two types of Concorde service


 Economy – a Ryan Air – Easy Jet type operation where two or more British Airways and Air France Concorde’s per week where sold cheap Concorde seats for around £2000 for a one way seat where the passengers paid for the seat with no “free“ meals or drinks.

 Luxury – where they had the normal Concorde service

I bet most people would have chosen to fly Concorde economy class by just paying for the seat and getting to New York in 3 ½ hours over a 7-8 hr first class service flight on a 747.

It would have put more “bums on seats“  and Concorde would have been making MORE money, it would have been making money like water coming out of a leaking tap, but due to reasons known to both airlines this never happened.

In terms of  “pollution“ Concorde wasn’t as “dirty “ and as “noisy “ as the tree huggers make it out to be.

It’s a well known fact that when a heard of cows breaks wind they release a lot of methane in to the atmosphere (through their farts) and thus pollute the earth but why don’t the “tree huggers” stick their fingers up cows bottoms to stop them farting, ban cows from breaking wind and polluting the air ?

Considering Concorde flew at twice the speed of sound and 2 1/4 times faster than any subsonic plane including the 747, considering she covered the SAME distance as a 747 but in HALF the time Concorde was brilliant.

I feel a 747 and other subsonic planes are dirtier, pollute to air more and some like the 747 are a “noisy “ as Concorde (I hear them take off and I know what they sound like) plus there are countless thousands subsonic planes including  747s around the world which “pollute“ the air more that 8 Concordes ever did but as ever the tree huggers don’t listen and bad mouthed Concorde.