in

This plane could cross the Atlantic in 3.5 hours. Why did it fail?



The Concorde gave us supersonic transport. But why did this supersonic plane fail? The answer is complicated.

Follow Phil Edwards and Vox Almanac on Facebook for more:

Subscribe to our channel!

Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what’s really driving the events in the headlines. Check out

Check out our full video catalog:
Follow Vox on Twitter:
Or on Facebook:

What do you think?

0 points
Upvote Downvote

Total votes: 0

Upvotes: 0

Upvotes percentage: 0.000000%

Downvotes: 0

Downvotes percentage: 0.000000%

Written by lena

Foodie, Performer, Water Protector, Avid Baker, Syndicate Aggregator. I probably still live in my mom's basement.

45 Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. IT DIDNT FAIL! any accident or stopping of service was due to airport safety…. nothing to do with the best designed and engineered passenger aircraft of all time.

  2. Problem with the tires?!? BS!
    FOD or foreign object debris on the active runway is what sealed the fate of Concorde which could have happened to any tire on any aircraft at any time.

    The doomed Concorde tire ran over a strip of metallic material that fell off the aircraft that took off just prior. The cut tire disintegrated and the hot pieces ripped through the wing, striking and puncturing the fuel tank. The rest is history.

  3. The Concorde was ahead of it's time . Given that the Euro fighter is probably the most unstable plane there is, aerodynamically. The software that keeps the Euro fighter in the air , could easily keep the Concorde in the air too. The problem was , at that time computers weren't capable of anything near the same performance as they are today, also the science of flight today, is quantum leaps ahead of where it was back then.

  4. As I recall in 1979, the Concorde fare exceeded $4000, 747 cost around a $1,000. For most travelers, the 2 hour savings wasn't worth the fare premium.

  5. THIS PLANE DIDN'T USE FUEL.
    THEY GOT RID OF IT SO THE NEXT GENERATION DIDN'T QUESTION WHY MORE WEREN'T MADE!
    COMMERCIAL "AIR-O-PLANES" (transport that uses air to fly over the flat plane) DO NOT USE FUEL.
    FACT.

  6. Why did it fail? An over simplistic question. From an operational perspective it did not fail, it was hugely profitable for it's operators, despite the high running costs. Very few aircraft see commercial service of 27 years.

    For the joint Governments who funded the development and construction they were a massive fail, with no commercial return on a massive investment. Unfortunately just around the time they were nearing the end of development the 1973 fuel crisis hit and every prospective customer backed out.

  7. Not sure why other planes can crash over and over and not get abandon. Ots almost like all the planes that always have a crash or mishap happen every so often are the ones they use. Concord had a few crashes all because of either pilot error or the fact that the technology was new and noone had corrected the issues.

  8. Very good work! It’s so good to see a journalist that shows important material as it really is. No covering for the companies or any one, just the reality of the facts. Congrats!

  9. Concorde was a very old demonstration technology, as old as 1960s. The treaty was signed in 1962, the first Concorde flew in 1969. Commercial flights commenced in 1976.

    The demonstration showed that, yes, it could be done. Passengers could be flown between London and New York at supersonic speed. And this was all. The cost of flight was very high, the cost of plane maintenance higher still. Eventually, the planes, only 20 had ever been built, the production stopped in 1979, began falling apart by 2003, and the whole fleet was retired.

    Can we do better today, 40 years after the last one was produced? Can we make them more durable, easier and cheaper to maintain, safer, easier and cheaper to fly? Can we make a fleet of such planes affordable, economical, and profitable?

    It is not obvious, because it is not clear that we really need it any more. Today, if we want to meet face to face with someone across the ocean, we can do so without having to travel at all, by telepresence!

  10. maintenance costs,,,,ticket costs..cost to fly in general…plus that horrible accident when a piece of metal was left on the runway and smashed into the fuselage and killed everyone on board!..,.,.that might be part of a problem too. My mother had a chance to get on one but decided not to 🙁 mom!

  11. This plane's REAL market is the flight from the US to Asia. Anyone who has made the flight will understand what I mean.

  12. Not Economically Feasible.
    There simply are NOT sufficiently many passengers who are willing to pay from 5 to ten times the price to cross the Atlantic a few of hours faster. The 3.5 hours is merely takeoff to touchdown time. Let's look at this from the point of view of a passenger going from New York City to London, UK.
    Getting to airport – 1 hour (could be much less or more depending on many factors)
    Going through security – 20 minutes
    Boarding aircraft upon leaving security – 20 minutes
    Waiting around for takeoff clearance – 15 minutes
    Taxiing to runway – 10 minutes
    Flight – either 8 hours or 3.5 hours
    Taxiing to gate – 10 minutes
    Deplaning – 10 minutes
    Getting luggage – 15 minutes
    Riding to destination – 1 hour.
    Adding these all up, we find that the total source to destination time is either:
    11 hours & 40 minutes on subsonic jet
    7 hours & 10 minutes on Concorde
    This is NOT a 50% time savings, but only a 38% time savings.
    Most passengers simply will not pay the price differential, a fact proven by the record.

  13. Really good video, I enjoyed it. Only thing that it is missing is the truth. SST had to go bc too many people were realizing the Earth is flat and no one has ever been to "otter space" bc they would burn up in the Vanallen belt.

  14. It failed because people would've been able to see NO EARTH CURVATURE and would begin to put 2 and 2 together.   Funny how at  9:22  there's a screenshot of an article dated 2016 claiming nassholes nasa  were/was  starting to work, (w/taxpayer $) to build sst plane that was quieter?  Hmmm   How do you control the sound that "Nature" makes when sound barrier is broken?  Breakthroughs can also end to avoid disaster.  Anyone wonder why, in this vid, narrator mentions curvature view from concord but doesn't show us one?   Also odd he mentions AND SHOWS US a funny toy earth spinning to illustrate the speed of the plane and says it flies faster than the earth spins.   Just puttin' it out there, man.

  15. This plane could cross the Atlantic in 3.5 hours. Why did it fail?

    Simple: Economics. The Concorde was far too expensive to fly, given the cost of maintenance and cost per flight hour. Much like the A380, it was a prestige project with not enough airline customers (and passengers) to make it viable.

    Available routes for the Concorde were very sparse due to noise concerns, just over the oceans.

  16. The reason it “failed” is because people aren’t so willing to pay $10,000 merely to save a few hours anymore, and the operation costs were high.

  17. Phil Collins was the only artist who performed at both Live Aid concerts in Philadelphia and London on the same day because of the Concorde. That's more then enough reason to scrap it.

  18. This plane was grounded because it flew so high that people could see that the earth was flat. Bone heads.

  19. Not economically viable when it was developed. Perhaps if it becomes more viable later on it could be revived?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

DD News correspondent visits 1962 Indo-China war memorial in Arunachal (English)

Reversing Fibromyalgia with Dr. David Brady