> Flight times between Singapore and London would be cut from 18 hours on conventional aircraft at the time to just 10 hours.<p>This is very interesting, because current Singapore-Heathrow direct flights are around 13 hours. I wouldn't pay first-class++ fares for a 3-hour flight time reduction in a tiny, cramped cabin with worse pressurisation and ventilation than first class on modern A380s, B777s and A350s that currently ply the route.
I was surprised that SQ was the only third party airline to have its livery on Concorde, as I saw plenty of pictures of Concordes with Braniff livery on on side.<p>Well, I did remember correctly that the service operated from Dallas (to NY or Washington). Subsonic only, and with lots of crazy adaptation to fit the crazy laws, like changing the aircraft registration number on each flight.<p>But all those pictures I saw were advertising drawings: <a href="https://www.heritageconcorde.com/braniff-airways-concorde-operations" rel="nofollow">https://www.heritageconcorde.com/braniff-airways-concorde-op...</a>
Concorde’s failure makes me very sad. I understand that the economics didn’t stack up but it feels like we’ve given up trying to reach for the space age style future envisaged 70 years ago and instead are settling for “the same but a fraction nicer or a bit cheaper” in many areas.
> most popular supersonic passenger airliner<p>I don't understand this passage. There were only two supersonic passenger airliners, and Tupolev 144 was obviously off limits for Singapore Airlines. Is it LLM writing?
This should be labeled (2021), as evidenced by the comments. This blog is doing a weird thing where it's re-dating old posts to today, presumably to try to trick Google into thinking that it's fresh content, for SEO purposes.