Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Civilian supersonics
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 05:24:48 GMT

In article <20000310141702.17309.00002292@ng-xe1.aol.com>,
JamesStep <jamesstep@aol.comNO-SPAM> wrote:
>High cost is another factor. I've read that the Concorde
>actually loses money (in spite of the high cost of its
>tickets) and is only kept in service for reasons of public
>relations and national pride.

Nope, not any more, not the British ones anyway.  British Airways receives
no government subsidy -- none, zero -- for its Concordes.  They pay their
own way, even though the maintenance costs of a small fleet of advanced
aircraft are high.  They do it by charging high prices and almost always
flying very nearly full.

Mind you, this is not entirely a fair comparison.  When the British
government washed its hands of all involvement in them, some years ago, it
wrote off the capital costs of the aircraft.  (Before that, the situation
was rather complex, and I think it changed several times.)  So BA is paying
only actual operating costs; the aircraft are not being asked to pay back
development and construction costs.  This was about the only reasonable
thing to do -- there's no way the tiny Concorde production run could ever
have covered the development costs -- but it complicates comparisons.
--
Computer disaster in February?  Oh, you |  Henry Spencer   henry@spsystems.net
must mean the release of Windows 2000.  |      (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)