![]() “It will add several minutes to the flying time, but it is not significant.” Ted Duggan, British Airways PR Manager for the Orient, 8th December 1977 (via New Nation) “We don’t know whether this refers to supersonic or subsonic speed, but if they allow us to fly subsonic, we will do so. “No reasons have been given, either verbally or in writing. “We were told verbally yesterday by the Malaysian Department of Civil Aviation that overflying rights have still not been granted. ![]() Malaysia had presented no formal reasons to deny Concorde’s overflight of its airspace, indeed the jet had previously routed over the country on demonstration flights and made several landings at Kuala Lumpur’s Subang Airport. Tickets could be purchased at BA or SIA offices and cost around 15% more than First Class fares on existing subsonic flights between the two cities.Īt the eleventh hour, on 7th December 1977, the Malaysian Government threatened to hold back overflight rights for the new service. Singapore Airlines formally made an agreement for the joint venture Concorde operation with British Airways in October 1977, with the inaugural service from Paya Lebar planned for 10th December that year.Īs part of the deal, SIA sent 36 of its cabin crew to London in November 1977 for training on Concorde operations. British Airways was already operating Concorde services from London to both Bahrain and Washington in 1976/77. ![]() Plans included an extension of the route from Singapore to Melbourne, Australia, though this never went ahead. The supersonic trip would cut flying time to 10 hours, with only a 40-minute refuelling stop in Bahrain. Joint venture with British Airwaysīy late 1977 Singapore Airlines was in negotiation with British Airways to jointly operate a Concorde on the London – Singapore route under a cost and revenue-sharing basis. Ultimately the two sides agreed to a compromise, with Concorde flights from Bahrain to Singapore having to route around the Indian mainland, adding 200 miles to the journey. Even that wasn’t perfect though, with Saudi Arabia withdrawing supersonic permission for Concorde after nomads reported the sonic boom was upsetting their camels, stopping them from breeding! That meant supersonic flight by Concorde was restricted to overwater or sparsely populated land masses like deserts. That was no problem for the passengers sitting on the jet at the head of the ‘Mach cone’, they were moving so fast the sonic boom didn’t have chance to catch up to them.įor those on the ground it was a different matter, creating a 100dB+ sound like an explosion. Sonic Boom It’s worth mentioning at this point that the problem for Concorde was primarily related to its ‘Sonic Boom’, caused by shock waves when the jet was travelling through the air at Mach 1 or greater. In the 1970s and 80s, it was common for governments to use air traffic agreements as political chess pieces. On the table was more access to Heathrow slots for Air India, plus ‘fifth freedom’ traffic rights from the London airport, with the airline keen to tap in to the lucrative transatlantic market. In the late 1970s, India refused permission for Concorde to fly over its airspace, blocking a direct routing from Bahrain to Singapore, BA’s proposed extension to an existing service. It didn’t take long for politics to start getting in the way of plans to fly Concorde to and from Asia. India refused overflightīA’s problems weren’t isolated to a ‘forced pact’ with SIA on a future Singapore route. It was proposed that SIA would lease 20 out of 100 seats on each of these flights to address “the likely loss of First Class passengers” on SIA’s own London services. ![]() Over a year later, in November 1976, British Airways (BA) was negotiating with the Singapore Government to start a London – Bahrain – Singapore service using Concorde, while the airline was still blocked from flying the jet to and from New York – its most desired route. Two proposed Boeing 747-200s could have been sidelined for a pair of leased Concordes in 19, as part of SIA’s desire to join the supersonic age. The pair of aircraft would have replaced two Boeing 747s the airline had on option for delivery in 19. With a S$100 million price tag per jet (S$257 million in today’s money), buying the aircraft was “out of the question” according to SIA’s Managing Director Lim Chin Beng, but the carrier was said to be keen if an acceptable lease deal could be forged.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |