British Airways Concorde landing at Heathrow in 2003.

British Airways Concorde landing at Heathrow in 2003.

When the TU-144 and Concorde first went into service in the 1970’s , it was a time of aviation excitement. Both  aircraft had the promise to completely revolutionize commercial transportation, providing speeds over twice the speed of sound (around 1100 mph vs 500-600 mph for other commercial airliners). Most thought the supersonic transport (SST) would replace other aircraft, to become the norm in general aviation. It was thought the sonic boom experienced when a jet goes over the sound barrier would become part of daily life, and people would be willing to live with them to have fast transportation.

The Tupolev TU-144 was the first SST to take flight in December 1968, two months before the Concorde. The TU-144 hit a big setback when the first production aircraft crashed during the 1973 Paris Air Show, killing all six crew members aboard and 15 people on the ground. Then in 1978 another TU-144 crashed during a pre-delivery test flight, killing all aboard. The aircraft type flew 55 passenger flights with Aeroflot before it was pulled from service in June of 1978, less than ten years after its first flight.

At the time Boeing was also working on their own SST, the Boeing 2707. The US didn’t want Europe and Russia to have the monopoly on SST technology, so the US government funded a contract for Boeing to study making its own. In 1963 the National Supersonic Transport program subsidized 75% of development costs to help Boeing directly compete with the TU-144 and Concorde. Since the Concorde and TU-144 were almost twins, Boeing wanted to make something different and were aiming to make a 250 passenger SST, which would hold about twice the passengers of the other two. In March 1971, funding for the project was canned by Congress and although private funding was able to raise nearly $1 million, the entire project was shut down in May of 1971. At the time, the Boeing 2707 had 115 orders from 25 airlines and the Concorde only had 74 order from 16 customers.

The Concorde and Tu-144 might have looked similar, but Arospatiale-BAC’s Concorde was superior in its avionics and capabilities. It has its first flight in March of 1969 and entered service in 1976. During that time, the first two prototypes traveled the world to build excitement and there were 70 orders for the plane. However, many orders were canceled after an oil crisis caused financial difficulty for the airlines, the crash of the similar TU-144, and concerns about the sonic-boom not being acceptable in populated areas. In the end, only British Airways and Air France took delivery of the Concorde. The plane was flown until 2003 when Air France flight 4590 crashed in France killing all 109 people aboard and raising questions about the safety of the aircraft. The aircraft was retired on November 26, 2003.

Supersonic Aerospace International's QSST rendering.

Supersonic Aerospace International's QSST rendering.

There was hope in the early 90’s for a resurgence of SST when a wealthy businesswoman, Judith DePaul, worked with Tupolev and NASA to use a TU-144 as a testbed for additional SST research. Over $350 million was spent on retrofitting the mothballed Tu-144 and it made a total of 27 flights through the 90’s, but was canceled in 1999 for “lack of funding.” Today, the aircraft is rusting away in storage with little hope of  being used again.

It has been over 40 years since the first SST flight occurred and almost 6 years since the last SST commercial flight. It has seemed unlikely there will be a revival of the Concorde or TU-144, but there might be hope on the horizon. The biggest hurdle has been the sonic-boom heard when an aircraft passes the sound barrier. The loud and disruptive boom caused previous SST’s to be flown only over water. Scientists are currently working on ways to “shape” the boom, making it sound more like distant thunder, something that the general public could live with to allow flights over land.

Even if the technology becomes available, it is not going to be cheap. A round trip ticket from New York to London on the Concorde before its cancellation ran about $10,000.00 USD. However, history has shown new technology can be expensive at first but as it develops can become more cost effective. The Concorde didn’t have time to become less costly since the technology became stagnant.

It would be a long while before Boeing or Airbus would start seriously considering making a SST line of aircraft. But smaller business jet companies are spending good sums of money researching new technology that is being dubbed Quiet Supersonic Transport (QSST). Supersonic Aerospace International is working on creating the next generation of SST starting in the business jet realm. They are hoping to have their first aircraft flying by 2014 with first customer delivery in 2016. Even if they wouldn’t be able to make those optimistic goals, it seems like there would be a big market for business people being able to save time while in-flight around the world.

Who knows where the future will go for SST? Will the start of space travel help in the development in the next SST? I would think there might be some overlap. There are those that already talk about post-SST and moving to hypersonic flight , but that is going to be far out in the future.  It seems it might be most beneficial for the technology to start on a smaller scale. It looks like smaller companies might create SST business jets and allow the wealthy to help pay for the development of the technology. As the technology grows, becomes more accepted and less costly, larger aircraft manufacturers could pick up the production of SST aircraft and usage would spread.

Images:
Concorde (Spencer Wilmot)
QSST (SAI)
Aeroflot - Russian Airlines, Tupolev Tu-154M RA-85642 (cn 88A778)

Aeroflot - Russian Airlines, Tupolev Tu-154M RA-85642 (cn 88A778)

Aeroflot, Russia’s largest carrier, is planning to rid its fleet of Tupolev TU-154 jets and acquiring additional Boeing and Airbus aircraft. It is planning to sell its remaining Tupolev jets, but the airline will still have six Russian built Illyushin Il-96’s to handle some international flights.

This is a big change from an airline that at one time had no Boeing or Airbus aircraft. Aeroflot is hoping to cater more to business travelers and TU-154’s are not known for their quality or silence.

Aeroflot also is looking to lower the cost of its routes. The airline’s chief executive, Vitaly Savelyev, explained the airline is currently losing money on 40% of its routes and looking to avoid thousands of layoffs over the next few years. Instead they are hoping the improved savings with fuel consumption, less maintenance costs, and increase traffic due to flying newer aircraft will allow the airline to avoid layoffs.

With the current global economy and the fact there are hundreds of other older Boeing and Airbus aircraft sitting in the desert, it will most likely be difficult for Aeroflot to find buyers for its 26 TU-154s. Personally it is a bit sad to not be able to see a TU-154 in Aeroflot livery, however it would be worth it to someday see a Boeing 747 or Airbus A380 in the airline’s livery.

Image: osdu
Baggage Claim at PHL

Baggage Claim at PHL

The European Union (EU) is pushing to create tougher regulation over airlines and airports that damage and lose luggage.

Recently, United Airlines felt the brunt of a passenger who had his guitar broken during a flight. He was unhappy with how the airline treated him and if you agree or disagree, his video went viral and got a positive reaction from United.

Of course this strategy cannot work for everyone. The EU Commission is proposing that each EU country create an agency to monitor incidents of lost and damaged bags. An EU Commission survey shows that between November 2008 and March 2009, airlines on average lost one bag for every 64 passengers. ’œIt’s a serious problem,’ European Transport Commissioner Antonio Tajani said, ’œWe have to act.’

With airlines charging more for checked bag fees, it is frustrating that so many bags in the EU would be lost and damaged. Even though having less baggage lost would of course be better, is it worth all the extra money it would cost to have the government watch over the industry?

Image: Casteel
It looks mighty cold out there!

It looks mighty cold out there!

The Library of Congress shows that Matthew Henson was the first person to reach the North Pole on April 6, 1909. It took him eight attempts to finally make it to the North Pole. The journey was difficult and I bet he never imagined that a little over 100 years later an airline could have flown over the North Pole region 10,000 times. United Airlines flight 898 from Beijing to Washington, DC marks their 10,000th polar flight.

Today in the Sky points out that United Airlines has quite a few daily flights on four polar routes: Chicago-O’Hare Beijing; Chicago O’Hare-Shanghai; Chicago O’Hare-Hong Kong; and Washington Dulles-Beijing. The routes and flights didn’t come easy. In 1999 with the combination of better technology and better cooperation from Russia, UA were able to start the first of these first flight in Jan 1999 from Chicago to Hong Kong.

Polar flights are able to save time, fuel and money. Currently United Airlines only flies about 20% of the polar flights worldwide.

Image: hundun
US Airways E-Jet, much like the one used on flight 3203. Thanks Dan!

US Airways E-Jet, much like the one used on flight 3203. Thanks Dan!

US Airways Flight 3203 was on descent to Charleston from Charlotte on Wednesday, when the pilot had to turn around and head back to Charlotte. The Charleston International Airport has been closing at midnight since June 9th and will continue to do so until August 9th. From midnight to 6am, the airport has been working on a $30million project to rebuild one of the runways that has had work done on it in the past 40 years.

Trouble started for flight 3203 before it took off, when bad weather came into Charlotte. The flight was scheduled to depart at 10:30 PM, but weather didn’t allow it to depart until 11:43 PM. Carlo Bertolini, spokesman for Republic Airways, the carrier that operated the flight for US Airways  stated,  ’œWe thought we were going to be able to make it in time. In addition, we thought the tower might remain open a little later.” The pilot of the flight and dispatcher for the airline were in communication during the flight and it was thought the flight could make it before the tower shut down operations for the night.

Bertolini says their flight plan showed them making it to Charleston 17 minutes before the airport was closing. But how is that even possible, when the flight left Charlotte at the time where they were expecting to land in Charleston? This seems like there has to be some mis-communication going on between the airline, dispatcher, airports and spokespeople. The flight is about an hour and the plane left about 17 minutes before the airport was scheduled to close. It shouldn’t have been hard to see the flight was going to be late. Maybe the pilot was hoping they would make an exception since they were coming anyhow?

The pilot and the airline took a gamble and lost. Unfortunately 66 unhappy passengers were stuck on an hour flight to nowhere.