Anyone flown on Concorde.

RR Olympus engines X 4... the same set of engines were used in the Vulcan and we also used in the T42 Royal Navy Destroyers. Very thirsty engines and also complex to maintain.
Who was taking selfies before 2003??? Surely that wasn't a thing.
re 'Selfie' - with a filum camera, you either take a chance or get someone else to take the picture. As you are effectively art directing, you could claim either to be a self portrait.
Perhaps I could find the ticket, scan it and attach it it to verify my post.


Well-known member
I've never really understood the 'cost' reason. Obviously, it is the reason, but why didn't demand grow such that supply increased and costs were able to be reduced?

Like why aren't we all nipping to New York and Hong Kong for the weekend on one of many concorde planes? Why weren't all the design flaws rectified and improved upon? Its about the only example of a technological progression not being lapped up the public I can think of.

Is it simply that it was only ever accessible to the 'super-rich' and the 'super-rich' demographic just wasn't big enough to saturate the market?
I wasn't super rich but my company thought it worth while to put me on it. It was near full on most flights and made BA a lot of money for over 20 years. The Paris accident got people commuting in different ways and the numbers never recovered after that.


Active member
The thing about Concorde is that if it flew at the same speed as a 747, you would probably still save 2 hours off your trip just by dint of it being a premium service: no queue to check in; everyone boarded in half a minute; no waiting for a take-off slot; no circling around London in the 'stack'; no time to wait at the luggage carousel etc. Hence it faced stiff competition from private hire jets.
You could be onto something with this like, by just having a "no pi$$ing about flight", no checking in 3 hours before a flight to New York, better plan for security and no waiting around on landing etc. The current speed is actually ok, unless flying like 12 hours.

The problem is there's people willing to pay a fortune for first class because of the service, and there's also people who just want to waste less time, on the same plane as another 300 people that have all the time in the world or are happy to just wait, to save some cost.

If they put an economy style flight on, which could handle getting people on, off and checked in etc quicker then it would save a ton of time, probably more than Concorde saves on flights up to 10 hours.

Loads of things which could speed things up, if you had a flight of 200 people wanting less messing about:
Same leg room as economy/ premium economy, but 10 entry/ exits on each side of the plane
Pick up hold bags from your hotel/ house the night before or drop of at a secure bag drop in cities/ towns
Drop off hold bags at hotel/ house
Method of only checking boarding passes and passports once, or methods to stop the queues where this happens
Option to skip main security and all the shops, people, restaurants and just go straight to the gate (which could be split into fast v slow)
No passport control with the other 800 people, do it elsewhere
They could even put secure taxis on or something, that literally just drive you to a secure area and just cut out all the crap, same thing on landing
Flight could have priority on getting a landing slot/ gate

It would all take some cost to sort out, but it shouldn't cost more than supersonic flight or a seat taking up 4 economy spaces? Some of these things happen with first class, but first class and business seem more aimed at luxury, than speed/ efficiency.