isn't the true reason congress outlawed sst concorde flights over the u.s. was to drive aerospace competition into bankruptcy?

Question

allegedly congress claimed the sonic booms from the concorde would cause harmful environmental noise pollution. using that excuse, the new york port authority also banned the concorde from landing in new york, the plane's biggest potential market.

but wasn't that merely a ruse to protect american aerospace companies from foreign competitors, whose concorde poised them to take the lead in the commercial aviation market? witnesses claimed the concorde's booms sounded no worse than distant thunder, no problem at all. but congress had just cancelled funding for the u.s. version of the sst, placing american aerospace companies in jeopardy of losing their lead to the new foreign competition. rather than fund the u.s. sst, congress' cheap alternative was to attempt killing the concorde by banning it from the u.s. market. without the ability to fly over the u.s., the concorde was not economically viable. the true reason the u.s.
banned the concorde had nothing to do with noise or the environment. it was old fashioned economic protectionism.

Answer 1

Concorde never made money on London / Paris to New York. It needed also to fly to US west coast but at non supersonic speeds there was no point. The US government pretended the supersonic ban was for environmental reasons but it was jealousy pure and simple, the US couldn't match the technology. However, the US (Boeing) reponded with typical product, same as before but bigger, the 747, which turned out to be the biggest commercial aircraft success ever.

Answer 2

Ridiculous. The Concorde did not pass pass US noise regulations and needed a runway longer than many airports had at the time. JFK in New York was one of the few places able to handle a Concorde.

Answer 3

Your question is flawed in that you assume that the Concorde was outlawed from flying over US land, which is not true. It was the speed, specifically Mach 1 and above, that was outlawed over U.S. land, not the plane itself.



But you're right, JFK was very competitive - a true nationalist who put America first (sound familiar?). He would not tolerate America loosing the race to produce the world's first super-sonic airliner. Kennedy threatened companies who pledged to purchase the Concorde instead of waiting for Boeing to come out with their super-sonic airliner.

Answer 4

SST Concord flights over land in the US were NOT outlawed. Exceeding Mach 1 over land was. Noise and expense of operation ruined the Concord. Did you ever actually hear the damned thing on TO??? Painful from miles away!!!

Answer 5

no the reason for the Concorde No Longer Flying into New York was over the French safety Issue the UK did a Modification on the Aircraft to solve the Fire Problem but France withdrew and the UK followed



the Failure of the Company was an Internal Problem Nothing to do with the USA

Answer 6

Congress NEVER "banned" Concorde flights over the USA. After receiving THOUSANDS of complaints and being sued for property damage relating to sonic booms, the FAA made it illegal for ALL civilian aircraft to exceed the speed of sound over the Continental USA. Military aircraft are also restricted from flying at supersonic speeds over land except for very specific circumstances.

Answer 7

Concorde would have ruined Boing

The US Libtards just couldn't handle that

Answer 8

Hardly. While the sonic booms were a massive problem for intra continental flights (everything from waking people up at night, broken windows, to chickens refusing to lay eggs, and cows dropping in milk production), the Concorde was a money pit.



The cost of its fuel alone - especially during the oil embargo years, was outrageous.

Answer 9

You are talking out of the wrong end of your gastrointestinal tract.



Both BOAC (later British Airways) and Air France had multiple daily Concorde flights between New York and London and Paris throughout Concorde's operations. Both Boeing and McDonnell Douglass were developing supersonic transports, so your protecting the US aerospace industry doesn't hold water either.



The sonic boom is what kept the Concorde from flying supersonic over land. While there were less than 20 Concordes in operation at any one time and the occasional sonic boom from them alone wouldn't have been a big problem, what if the supersonic travel took off as anticipated in the 1960s? Imagine living under a major transcontinental airway with hundreds of supersonic jets passing over your head every day. You'd be hearing a boom every minute. That was unacceptable.

Answer 10

What you say is very likely true.

Considering that there are hundreds of military supersonic planes - and they are not banned.



But then, why didn't the US industry develop their own supersonic passenger plane.

The US still does not have one.



Have you seen the cost of first class seats on the newest planes. They virtually are cabins, so passengers can sleep in comfort. But shave the flying time by 50% and the need for that luxury disappears. Those seats tend to be fully booked. People line up to pay the price of the ticket.



And I have traveled on Concorde. In a window seat. My partner sitting next to me could see out if he leaned over. He would put his hand ... well never mind where his hand went. Mind you there was precious little to see out the window over the sea..



On the 10 abreast seats on many aircraft these days, the 6 middle rows see nothing out of a window unless they go to the loo. And I've noticed many loo-goers lingering by a window there.

Answer 11

No. The sst is an overpriced slow dog of a jet. And noisy at that. That's why it was banned. Fly american.

Answer 12

Yes it was outlandish tbh

Answer 13

Congress never outlawed the Concorde - and the only companies that it can close to driving into bankruptcy were Air France and British Airways.

The simple fact of the matter is that it was never economically viable. You are talking about a plane that had half the passenger capacity of a 767, but burned 50% more fuel than a 767. What made that even worse was something no one here has mentioned: the Concorde had little to no space for cargo. A large part of the profit of any transoceanic flight comes from the stuff carried under the passenger cabin, not the people in the cabin. That revenue stream did not exist on Concorde.



And if money was no object and you needed to get several people to a meeting in Europe as quickly as possible, Concorde was not the answer. Instead of waiting for the next scheduled Concorde flight ( and having to get the to airport 2 hours before the flight), you could charter a long range business jet that operates on your schedule for the price of 3 or 4 Concorde tickets.



And how does your rant about an imaginary ban in the US explain it's failure in every other market? Air Canada, Lufthansa, Sabena,Japan Airlines, Air India, Qantas and Middle East Airlines all ordered Concordes, but canceled when they saw the operational reality of the final plane. Of those carriers, only Lufthansa would have been operating to or from the US.

Answer 14

Some could argue that, but the point is that New York WAS routinely connected with flights of the Concorde originating from London and Paris, point being that supersonic flight regime ended several minutes before landing, when the plane was still above the ocean.

The overland supersonic ban affected the New-York/Los Angeles (and similar) possible routes, which were another big market.



That said, it was just last year that the US administration tried to impose 300% tarifs against Bombardier aircraft, claiming subsidies, while Boeing did not even have an aircraft in that class, so narrow minded and unfair politicians do exist.

Answer 15

Most of the things you've written are inaccurate. The ban was very early in the operational history of the Concorde, and was completely lifted in the late 1970's. The Concorde flew daily between New York and Europe from then until its retirement in 2003. It also regularly flew to or through Washington-Dulles and Miami.



The Concorde wasn't a profitable mode of travel. It was expensive to fly, expensive to operate, and as a result had a much lower demand than subsonic flights.

Answer 16

The Concord was never a practical mode of air travel. Due to it's massive fuel consumption and the cost of a ticket, only the rich and famous could afford to fly on it. The sonic booms were just one more problem and did not prevent methods from being developed to eliminate them over US soil. Even without the sonic booms, the noise from the engines at takeoff and landing would be unacceptable by today's standards.