[CarrotAndStick]

But still, I don't think the concordes were more accident prone, plane-for-plane, than regular jets. Considering the very demanding envelope within which the concorde operated, it seems like it is the better performer on safety.

Okay, if my comparison was imperfect, then wouldn't you atleast say cheap no-frills airlines are giving the big ones a run for their money?

[neutrino]

If I may interject -

I perceive a market progression to a bimodal pattern.

The cheap no-frills airlines are doing well. The high end - not the Concord type, but rather the real high end such as private jet ownership and fractional ownership are doing well. Those in the middle languish.

Take a look at NetJets.

[StolarStorm]

"Okay, if my comparison was imperfect, then wouldn't you atleast say cheap no-frills airlines are giving the big ones a run for their money?"

Of course, but when times are good the legacy airlines do very well indeed. My company is doing better than many of the LCC's this quarter, granted I work for one of the more effective big carriers. But there is a place for both quality and cheap.

Best of course to be a provider of both... as we are. But rather than relying on foreign outsourcing or other gimmicks, we focus on automation, efficient utilization of planes, fuel and labor.