blufive

green_amber got a bit sick of us whinging poms going on about the demise of big beaky. Hehe. My response got long enough to be an entry in its own right, so here it is.

I suspect what [some people] are subconsciously mourning is the deflation of an unusually large penis substitute.

I'm consciously mourning a symbol of technological progress which has been around me for my whole life. I agree that there isn't much justification for keeping them in regular service - the airframes and engines are over 25 years old now and the maintenance costs are probably rising rapidly year-on-year. However, I am sad to see them retired. I'll be even more disappointed if they don't manage to keep at least one in flying condition for a decade or two yet.

this was a luxury machine for the amusement of a few of the most overpaid people in the world.

As were almost all airliners in the early 1960s, when Concorde was conceived. Remember the term "jet set"?

There was a big fork in the development of air travel in the sixties - fly faster, or carry more people. In essence, Supersonic Transports (Concorde) vs Widebodied Jumbos (747, DC-10, Tristar). The widebodies won, and air travel is now much cheaper as a result; but now the fastest way from London to New York takes 6-7 hours again. You win some, you lose some.