Re: Lufthansa Chair sees no superjumbos

From:         rhh@tachy.uah.ualberta.ca (Roy Hann)
Organization: Computing and Network Services, U of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date:         10 Jul 95 03:18:21 
References:   1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

mezei_jf@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) writes:
: >>What about the sonic boom? I thought most countries banned Concorde from
: >>going supersonic over land, and this severely restricts viable routes.
:
: I know that part of the reluctance to allow the Concorde to land was the high
: noise during the take-off and landing. Was that the major stumbling block for
: the Concorde, or was it really the sonic boom while it was at cruising altitude
: ?

I was living in England when the Concorde first went into service
and I recall that public opinion of the day was that the Americans
refused to allow supersonic flight over the US mainly because the
US had no SST.  The assumption was that the Americans were damned if
they were going to let anyone else make a success of SSTs if they
couldn't play the game too, and any excuse would do.

Noise at take-off is quite awful it is true.  I was living 4 miles
from RAF Brize Norton where a Concorde made occasional visits for
some reason.  Every time I hear a Learjet departing over my house
here in Edmonton on a cold winter day (say -30C) I recall the
Concorde.  That darned Learjet must be the noisiest thing in the
sky around here--it easily drowns out the 737s.  A B-1 is
similarly noisy during take-off--the ground shakes.

So there are lots of noisy planes that seem to do well.  I don't
think noise alone could be what makes the Concorde a tough sell.
(Not that B-1s are working the same market of course :-)

--Roy Hann