spitfire boy wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2007 at 6:29am:


Mmm, but that's a lot easier when you virtually didn't have to pay for the aircraft in the first place, and when tickets were generally several times times the price of a normal economy of business class fair across the pond. I expect if they (AF and BA) had paid cost price for the aircraft and its development, they may have made a little less of a profit to say the least!

spitfire boy wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2007 at 7:53am:


That may be so, as most stories like that are, but I doubt they paid anywhere near what could be considered a realistic commercial price for the aircraft (in fact, having looked it up, about £20m). Looking at rough figures, development cost over a billion pounds at original prices, of which the airlines then paid just under £300K for the 16 aircraft (with BA's last two being bought off the shelf for a mininal price).

spitfire boy wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2007 at 8:30am:


For the airlines it was certainly profitable... For the British and French goverments who covered the deficit, probably not!

Hagar wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2007 at 8:42am:


Good point, well made!

Anark wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2007 at 10:49am:

At least the thread went into a topic that is acutally interesting.

SimViation = Off-topic heaven

Björn wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2007 at 12:26pm:


How to make a simple informative topic (A380 to Brussels) into an informative discussion on the merits of Ronnie Corbett, via the financial and political background of the procurement of Concorde.

That's what makes us unique!