Singapore Airlines Concorde

Concorde’s appeal vs. reality

• Many express nostalgia and sadness over Concorde’s demise as a symbol of an unrealized “space‑age” future.
• Others stress that Concorde was cramped, noisy, range‑limited, and less comfortable than first class on large subsonic jets; for most travelers, speed wasn’t worth the trade‑offs.
• Supersonic overland bans and limited transoceanic routes severely constrained its usefulness.

Economics and democratization of air travel

• High‑end, bleeding‑edge tech (Concorde, A380, 747, top CPUs, luxury cars) often becomes a historical footnote while cheaper, “good enough” options dominate.
• Commenters note how airfares have fallen and capacity increased; prioritizing cost and efficiency enabled mass air travel rather than an elite supersonic niche.
• Concorde only worked with heavy state subsidies; ticket prices and tiny fleets made the business case extremely fragile.

Total travel time and Amdahl’s law

• Several argue that cutting in‑air time matters less when door‑to‑door trips are dominated by transport to/from airports, check‑in, security, immigration, baggage, and schedule padding.
• Others counter that in some regions (e.g., North America) modern processes, trusted‑traveler schemes, and proximity to airports can reduce ground overhead substantially.
• For ultra‑long routes like UK–Australia, some still see a huge benefit in turning 20+ hours of flying into ~1–8 hours, especially for people who can’t sleep in seats.

Politics, subsidies, and equity

• Concorde is framed as a prestige, politically driven Anglo‑French project akin to Apollo: great engineering, poor direct utility.
• Critics see it as regressive public spending benefiting a wealthy elite; supporters argue it seeded European aerospace know‑how and industrial cooperation.
• Disagreement over whether such “moonshot” projects justify their opportunity costs vs. alternative uses (public transport, other tech, or simply leaving money with taxpayers).

Technology spillovers and Airbus

• Some claim Concorde’s advanced systems (early fly‑by‑wire/electrical controls) and binational collaboration helped lay groundwork for Airbus’s later success.
• Others respond that many Concorde innovations were dead ends, and Airbus’s rise could plausibly have happened via more commercially sensible aircraft.

Future high‑speed concepts

• A ramjet‑based startup (Hermeus) is discussed; commenters highlight massive cost, technical risk, and long certification timelines (decade‑plus, billions of dollars), questioning VC suitability.
• Hypersonic/suborbital concepts (e.g., UK–Australia in an hour) raise concerns about security (missile‑like profiles), economics, environmental impact, and realistic demand.
• Lie‑flat business class and ultra‑long‑haul subsonic nonstops are seen by some as “good enough” to kill most remaining commercial case for passenger SSTs.

Routes, range, and operations

• Historical SIN–LHR Concorde service required a Bahrain stop, long detours to avoid certain airspaces, and mostly subsonic segments; much of the notional speed advantage evaporated.
• Confusion in the article’s numbers is resolved by realizing distances are nautical miles.
• Modern SIN–LHR flights (~13 hours) avoid Russian and Ukrainian airspace and some conflict zones, with routing driven by politics, fees, and safety.
• Discussion on whether nonstop vs. refueling is more efficient: one example suggests only a small fuel penalty (~4%) for a mid‑point stop, but stops add time, complexity, cycles, and risk.

Broader “space‑age” analogy

• Apollo and the Space Shuttle are compared to Concorde: spectacular, heavily subsidized, arguably poor value per dollar; debate over whether their technological and inspirational benefits justify costs.
• Some argue manned spaceflight has been mostly prestige/entertainment relative to robotic missions; others emphasize intangible cultural and scientific gains.

Miscellaneous

• Several reminisce about Concorde and other classic aircraft (e.g., Vulcan) as extraordinarily loud but beautiful.
• One commenter notes the blog is re‑dating older Concorde content for SEO, which they find misleading.
• Minor points include confusion over the phrase “most popular supersonic passenger airliner” (given only two existed) and skepticism about optimistic timelines for new SSTs like Boom.