body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents
Good articleConcorde has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 30, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 11, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 25, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
May 24, 2010Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 21, 2005, January 21, 2006, January 21, 2007, January 21, 2011, January 21, 2013, and January 21, 2016.
Current status: Good article

How many Concorde passenger flights?[edit]

Article says 55 for Tu-144.

I’m sure it’s on Google somewhere but I can’t find it.

Estimate? 2 per week? 27 years? 2700 flights?

MBG02 (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On this forum there is an educated guess of 100.000 flights.--BIL (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I gotta get better at this searching stuff. (That was easy, with "British Airways"). (Of course, unnecessary if it's on Wiki).
British Airways Concorde made just under 50,000 flights and flew more than 2.5m passengers supersonically. [1]
I was thinking (later) that it must've been over 2 flights per week. So, 100k flights, 74 per week average. Must've often been around 200 pw. MBG02 (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still haven't found it.

This site [2] says 50,000 flights (in total).

This site [3] implies 50,000 too; and (if I read it correctly) says 1 round trip per day by Air France, and 2 by British Airways => 42 flights per week for most of 1976-2000 => 24.5 years => 53.6k flights.

MBG02 (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read somewhere ages ago that each and every flight was subsidised by taxpayers by several hundred euros, and so it never made any real profit. Article is poor on the real economics of it, and also its contribution to future technology.— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 11:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well what you read was wrong.
Initial British Airways flights before privatisation charged a fare rate of 'First Class plus 20% Supersonic tariff' and due to the low take-up (many potential passengers thought that fares were much higher than they were in reality) did not produce a profit. After privatisation in 1987 British Airways (BA) management raised Concorde fares to what the market would pay, most of Concorde's passengers being businessmen who's fare was being paid by their employers. BA from then on made a profit on their Concorde operations such that BA's seven Concordes were eventually generating 25% of BA's net profits.
Taxpayer subsidies stopped upon BA privatisation in 1987.
Just prior to the the halt in Concorde operations in 2003 BA had been studying a 10-year Life Extension programme to continue flying Concorde until 2013. Operations were not stopped because BA didn't want to continue using Concorde, quite the reverse, otherwise they would not have spent over £1,000,000 per-aircraft on the Kevlar fuel tank liners. 86.8.126.91 (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Avionics (in Specifications template)[edit]

Briefly, yes only the notable bits of kit should be listed, but a nuanced approach should be taken to the current list which does contain too many things: someone needs to read up on the subject properly and remove from the list only those items of avionics which were commonly fitted to airliners when Concorde came into service.

Thus, fly by wire (Concorde was the first such airliner), inertial navigation, electronic engine controls, digital intake controls, and several other items should certainly be left in place.

Please don't just hack and slash at this list without looking at each item properly - unless an easily interpreted definitive statement on exactly what should be included can be found someone in the guidance.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't been involved in your argument with the other users, but I suggest you be mindful of WP:3RR. I notice in the article history the edit from 16:39 yesterday is shown as coming from an IP editor, rather than from your username, but I also note you almost certainly wrote the edit summary, given its striking similarity to your other summaries in this exchange and given that your edit summary of 18:56 begins with "As per my explanation," which appears to refer back to the explanation in the 16:39 edit summary. I won't report it as a violation, but I suggest you be mindful of that rule before you continue reverting other people's edits. 1995hoo (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Template:Aircraft_specs says for Avionics field is "a place to put any specific avionics used." This is meant for named or specific avionics components, not generic type info. Details and generic info really belong in the Design section instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability of JFK opposition to Concorde?[edit]

President Kennedy was angered by Pan Am's interest in Concorde, referring to initial efforts for the US Boeing 2707 etc. This is seen in the SimpleFlying 45ref and its source, and a recent BBC documentary. How notable is this? TGCP (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notable for inclusion in the article on John F. Kennedy, but less so for the article on Concorde. Dolphin (t) 14:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, really about Kennedy and his domestic politics, rather than this aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sunrise in the West[edit]

Should add that Concorde flew faster than the earth spins and would catch-up with the sunset, so passengers could see the sun rise in the West [ https://www.aerosociety.com/news/concorde-contemplatio Fig (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)n] .Reply[reply]

See WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

XB70 converted for commercial use (?)[edit]

Recently released document conclude that plans were drawn up for converting the XB70 to passenger use. I would like to edit the paragraph on the xb70 to Includes this.. . Any objections Jacob805 Jacob805 (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are your sources? BilCat (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How? There are only 2 prototypes built and they are on display now.-Fnlayson (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The conversion was in the design stage, it was mentioned in a recent documentary on British TV. Needs a proper source for addition here. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories