Concorde vs Boeing 747: compare speed, size, seating, range, flight time and economics, with clear figures and the key design trade-offs.
Concorde was a 100-seat supersonic airliner built to minimise travel time; the Boeing 747 was a far larger subsonic airliner built to move hundreds of passengers or heavy cargo economically. Concorde cruised at Mach 2, roughly twice the 747’s speed, but the 747 flew farther, carried far more and served many more routes.
For our Aviation & Real-World Flying readers, the crucial caveat is that “the 747” covers several major variants. The figures below span the original 747-100 through the 747-8; our guide to how the 747 family developed through the 747-8 explains those generational differences.
Concorde vs Boeing 747 specifications
Concorde was much faster and flew higher, while the 747 had far greater cabin volume, payload and range.
| Comparison | Concorde | Boeing 747 family |
|---|---|---|
| Airline service began | 1976 | 1970 |
| Normal cruise speed | Mach 2.02, about 2,160 km/h or 1,340 mph at altitude | Approximately Mach 0.84–0.86, about 900 km/h or 560 mph at altitude |
| Typical cruise altitude | 50,000–60,000 ft | Approximately 35,000–43,000 ft |
| Passenger seating | About 100 in airline service | Roughly 300–500 in passenger layouts, depending on variant and cabin |
| Length | 61.7 m | 70.7 m for the 747-100 to -400 and 76.3 m for the -8; the short-bodied 747SP was 56.3 m |
| Wingspan | 25.6 m | Approximately 59.6–68.4 m |
| Maximum take-off weight | About 185 tonnes | Approximately 320–448 tonnes, depending on variant |
| Published range | About 3,600–3,900 nautical miles | Approximately 4,600–7,700 nautical miles across the main passenger variants |
| Production | 20 built, including prototypes; 14 entered airline service | 1,574 built across all variants |
Published range is not guaranteed route range. Payload, reserves, winds, temperature and diversion requirements all affect what an airline can schedule.
Both aircraft had four engines, but the similarity ends there. Concorde used Olympus 593 turbojets with reheat for take-off and transonic acceleration; reheat was not left running throughout Mach 2 cruise. The 747 used high-bypass turbofans suited to efficient subsonic flight. Concorde also needed movable engine-intake ramps, fuel transfer to control its centre of gravity and a distinctive droop-nose and visor system for runway visibility.
Which was faster, and how much time did Concorde save?
Concorde cruised at about 2.3 times the 747’s Mach number and could cut a transatlantic flight roughly in half.
A typical Concorde crossing between London and New York took around three and a half hours, while a subsonic airliner commonly needed about seven or eight hours westbound. Taxiing, climbing, routing and the subsonic portions near land meant the total journey was not shortened by the full speed ratio.
The quoted 1,340 mph figure is true airspeed near cruise altitude, not a fixed groundspeed. Winds can raise or lower groundspeed substantially, so record crossings should not be confused with normal schedules. Concorde also could not make routine supersonic runs over populated land because of its sonic boom, restricting where its speed could be exploited.
Which aircraft was bigger and carried more passengers?
The Boeing 747 was vastly bigger inside and normally carried three to five times as many passengers as Concorde.
Concorde had a narrow cabin approximately 2.6 metres wide with four-abreast seating in a 2-2 arrangement. A 747 main deck is about 6.1 metres wide, with later economy cabins commonly using 3-4-3 seating, plus the aircraft’s characteristic upper deck. Concorde charged premium fares, but its appeal came from speed and service rather than a spacious modern first-class suite.
The 747 also had a decisive cargo advantage. Passenger versions offered substantial belly capacity, while dedicated freighters could carry heavy and bulky loads, with several variants using a hinged nose door. Concorde had limited baggage and freight volume because its slender fuselage, fuel system and supersonic shape were designed around speed rather than payload.
Later 747 passenger models could fly close to twice Concorde’s published range. More importantly, they could do so across a broad global network rather than depending on routes with long overwater supersonic sectors.
Why was the Boeing 747 more commercially successful?
The 747 was more commercially successful because it spread operating costs across hundreds of passengers and could perform many more airline missions.
- Route flexibility: The 747 could operate long overland and oceanic services without sonic-boom restrictions.
- Lower cost per seat: Concorde consumed fuel at a high rate while carrying about 100 passengers; a 747 divided fuel, crew and airport costs across a much larger cabin.
- More revenue sources: The 747 could carry passengers, containers and substantial belly freight, and it was developed as a dedicated freighter and combi aircraft.
- Broader market: Airlines could configure a 747 for several cabin classes and demand levels. Concorde depended on a small premium market willing to pay primarily for time saved.
- Larger support base: More than 1,500 747s created a worldwide operating, maintenance and parts network. Concorde’s airline fleet centred on British Airways and Air France.
This does not make Concorde an engineering failure. It achieved sustained scheduled Mach 2 passenger service, but its economics and route limitations kept it specialised. It retired in 2003 after the 2000 accident, reduced demand, high operating costs and support difficulties combined; our detailed Concorde history and retirement account covers that sequence.
The 747’s combination of scale, range and cargo utility had a much broader effect on aviation, which is central to why the 747 became a long-haul icon. Its advantage was relative to contemporary aircraft, however: later twin-engined airliners eventually displaced many passenger 747s with lower operating costs.
Which aircraft was better?
Concorde was better for the fastest possible premium transatlantic journey; the Boeing 747 was better for capacity, range, comfort, cargo and airline economics.
- Speed and altitude: Concorde won decisively.
- Passenger and cargo capacity: The 747 won decisively.
- Range and route choice: The 747 was more capable and less restricted.
- Cabin space: The 747 offered much more room, despite Concorde’s more exclusive service.
- Technical ambition: Concorde pushed supersonic aerodynamics and propulsion; the 747 mastered wide-body scale and practical global transport.
They were therefore not direct substitutes in the usual sense. Concorde sold time to a small premium market, while the 747 sold capacity and flexibility to the mass long-haul market. Concorde was the more extraordinary high-speed machine; the 747 was the far more useful airliner.