Branson on the Beeb BA Bashing [Archive]

fernytickles

24th Oct 2003, 03:54

How about these for a start....?

Steve Fossett's records
1998/2002: long distance for solo ballooning
2001/2002: duration for solo ballooning
First balloon crossings of Asia, Africa, Europe, South America, South Atlantic, South Pacific, Indian Oceans
Seven fastest speed sailing titles
13 World Sailing Speed Record Council titles
Oct, 2001: fastest trans-Atlantic sailing
Round-the-world titles for medium airplanes
US trans-continental titles for non-military aircraft

He's certainly no couch potato! The "basket" that was used for his round the world balloon flight stopped in at Oshkosh last year on its way to NASM. It was not roomy or remotely comfortable looking, so I should think a few (80?) hours squashed in a plane should be relatively straight forward for him.

Good luck to Fossett, Branson and the Rutan team - people who push the limits as these folk do help to cheer up some pretty dreary news headlines these days!

zalt

24th Oct 2003, 04:14

Yeah good luck to them. Pity the thread was started with a bit of BA-oversensitive Virgin bashing.

Classic quote in the Beeb report:
"But Steve is used to landing in the Pacific so it's alright," Branson added comfortingly.

ducksoup

24th Oct 2003, 07:29

Thanks fernytickles.

Seems to have a lot of balloning and boats but not a great deal of what could be quite challenging flying (piloting) in the proposed Rutan aircraft.

Round the world in "medium" aircraft means what; Piper, Cessna or small jet? Modern US trans-continental is surely not too far removed from merely shoving the throttle forward for longer on a conventional aircraft?

My question really referred to the relatively unconventional type, which MAY offer somewhat iffy flying qualities in a pretty hostile environment and the test/experimental experience that one might have thought relevant.

Once again, not knocking, before someone gets hold of the wrong end of the stick.

fernytickles

24th Oct 2003, 11:45

Ducksoup - I just borrowed that off the BBC website, but Fossett is an experienced pilot - his own GV, amongst other goodies! And no doubt working with the Rutan team is going to broaden his aviation horizons prior to setting off?

I have to agree with the comments regarding the start of the thread re-BA bashing - didn't BA do a little bit of Virgin bashing not so long ago? For all his faults, Branson manages not to take himself too seriously - I liked the picture of him trying out for the Birdman of Bognor - and is always game for a challenge (especially if it promotes his company!).

aviate1138

24th Oct 2003, 15:00

fernytickles said......
I have to agree with the comments regarding the start of the thread re-BA bashing - didn't BA do a little bit of Virgin bashing not so long ago? For all his faults, Branson manages not to take himself too seriously - I liked the picture of him trying out for the Birdman of Bognor - and is always game for a challenge (especially if it promotes his company!).

Aviate1138 adds.....
Remember the BA diatribe when RB aquired some 747's, how he wouldn't last more than a year or two? At least he wasn't obsessed with buying Boeing for every route. So he is gauche and he is a bit wierd when women are around but he has put his money where his mouth is and although he never misses a trick for Virgin publicity he would make Concorde work - given the right financial and spares setting. The French never liked operating Concorde and dumped it asap. History is going to see Concorde as one of the Golden Girls of Transport despite any minor gripes over noise and cost. I would give RB a chance but it has passed the point of no return.
I have the same dull ache as when I heard about the cancellation of the TSR2.
Such a waste.

Aviate 1138

PS With all the spares available couldn't we keep one on a permit to fly and display at Airshows and UK events? Brit engineering at its best.

AppleMacster

24th Oct 2003, 19:08

Steve Fossett gained the transcontinental US and Australian records in his own Citation X. His website (http://www.stevefossett.com/) explains all. He's a serial daredevil.

Wee Weasley Welshman

24th Oct 2003, 19:18

It is Sir Richard himself who uses Concordes retirement as a point scoring exercise against BA.

Sir Richard has not the ability or interest to run a commercial conorde service in my opinion. If he did he would have tried to buy the considerably lower mileage French Concorde fleet that have been available for some time.

BA have engineered a dignified retirement for the fleet and I applaud them in in doing so.

It would be a sad day if Sir Richard acquired them, used them for a very short time to gain publicity then dumped them somewhere doubtless covered in his company logos for posterity.

He has no spares, no hangars, no national agreements to operate, no AOC for the type, no engineers, no pilots, the manufacturer is stopping support for the type and it was always going to retire in just a few years anyway.

Hardly a compelling business case.

Good luck to the record attempt. Just, please, grow up and stop using every event to have a go at BA. Oh, and someone please explain why Sir Richard was wearing a silver flight suit yesterday?

Cheers

WWW

strafer

24th Oct 2003, 19:52

It would be a sad day if Sir Richard acquired them, used them for a very short time to gain publicity then dumped them somewhere doubtless covered in his company logos for posterity.

Which is why, IMO, BA could have called his bluff by only handing them over if Virgin were contractually obliged to run a service for at least 5 years, say. If he wasn't able to do that, he would have to hand them back freshly painted in their existing BA scheme.

This is a PR battle that Branson has conclusively won. (In the eyes of the public at least). I myself am firmly of the opinion that the thought of Branson running a successful supersonic operation, which BA gave up on, is the prime reason he's not allowed anywhere near them. Whether he could have or not, will always remain a moot point.

Re BA have engineered a dignified retirement for the fleet Surely you mean announced a retirement just long enough to fully cash in?

You're right on one point though, Branson did look a tw*t in that silver suit.

Wee Weasley Welshman

24th Oct 2003, 20:27

Strafer - you need to understand that Sir Richard couldn't make the service a success in my opinion. Not unless he could charge £20,000+ a ticket; which I think the market would not support.

With the French half of the fleet grounded the BA fleet had to bear all the support costs and that was simply too much. Airbus aren't won't shan't can't support the aircraft any longer. So if you want spare parts forget it. If you want modifcations done to keep it legal forget it. If something goes wrong don't phone the manufacturer.

You CAN'T operate the aircraft for passenger service under this situation whether you are BA, Sir Richard or the man on the moon.

What might have happened is Sir Richard would have publicly tried it and then every other week he would pop up on the telly claiming BA Dirty Tricks because of this or that snag. In the end he might concede defeat and adopt an "aw shucks - I tried but BA beat me" PR attitude.

This would lack dignity for the aircraft and too my mind would not be fair play.

Cheers

WWW

strafer

24th Oct 2003, 21:09

Fair enough WWW,

You're right, I don't know all the technical ins and outs, but then neither does Joe Public and they think that Branson should have been given a go. I would say however, that Airbus are the 'manufacturer' for historical reasons. If there had been any political will from either the French or British Gov'ts, then I don't see why the problems could not have been surmounted. They're not as big as designing the thing in the first place after all.

Concorde is a fantastic symbol of the best of British (and maybe some French;) ) engineering around the world, so should it have qualified for some sort of Govt subsidy for either BA or Virgin? I think yes.

Wee Weasley Welshman

24th Oct 2003, 22:00

Well yes. Given the unlimited funds of the Treasury the machine could be kept flying forever.

I think though that it would be improper for the taxpayer to bear the costs of a commercial operation. Those days have long gone and we are the better for it.

Airbus are the manufacturers, they own the plans and employ the engineers and technicians. They alone can make the parts and keep the thing long term serviceable.

Cheers

WWW

DSR10

24th Oct 2003, 23:41

Of course he wore a flight suit, he announced he was standby pilot if Steve couldn't make it on the day....

Jerricho

25th Oct 2003, 01:54

(Warning...thread hijack)

Well, if we're gonna start BA bashing.

I think a big thanks goes to BA for including NATS Heathrow staff, who provided the pointy one with a service day in day out, in their little bash. Especially some of the more experienced guys and gals (our buddy Heathrow Director comes to mind, or some of the 30 years plus controllers)

I know this sounds like sour grapes (and probably is...)........

BEagle

25th Oct 2003, 03:34

WWW - no, despite the efforts of the crews, particularly Porky Bannister, the day was sullied by the odious presence of 'Dirty Tricks' Marshall at the NY briefing rabbiting on about his co-Virgin basher JuanKing. Add in a few totally insincere words from Skippy and the day just about summed up the state of BA at present - no pride, no vision but just a bunch of grey suits, overpaid lords and Skippy ruining the company whilst a diligent and professional work force do their best.

And I'll never, ever fly BA until King and Marshall have gone. Period.

PH-UKU

25th Oct 2003, 06:37

It breaks my heart to see these ac grounded. I had the opportunity to bid farewell on frequency way up in the frozen north but it has left a bad sad taste in the mouth.

IMHO BAW's attitude stinks throught all this.

I don't want to piss on anyone's party, but from a personal point of view, the flight in and out of Edinburgh is fine, but please what extra effort would it really have taken to do a fly past at Glasgow (and Prestwick) ? Considering Concorde orbited three times at Dunblane (because the pilot lives there), it does seem rather self-indulgent when there were many aviation pros and punters out there at Glasgow desparately keen for a last glimpse. And considering she had to hold at Ockham to await the join up, an extra 10 mins round Central Scotland would have made a LOT of people very happy.

But, we are told, BAW said 'No'. Kind of sums up your attitude to us up here doesn't it ? Dobbers!! :mad:

If that is the case you should hang your collective heads in shame for having such a self-indulgent elitist final party. Concorde belonged to us all, not just the 'privileged few' in the south-east. May you burn in hell and may the reheat of perdition burn your buttox.

However, you have a slim chance of redeeming yourselves if from your ivory tower you deem to give an ac to East Fortune museum. Why oh why do give them to Barbados (rich geeks) and USA (who objected so vehemently in the first place that it screwed up all the potential airline orders)?

EVER THINK ABOUT LOOKING AFTER YOUR FRIENDS AT HOME DOBBERS !!

Digitalis

28th Oct 2003, 04:17

WWW, you really have no idea of what you are talking about. Richard Branson was not firing from the hip when he suggested that Virgin could take over Concorde and run a profitable service; a very great deal of research went into this proposal, and it was most certainly achievable had the will of the UK Government and BA been so disposed.

The design authority, currently held by Airbus, could have been transferred to BAe. I understand that both they and another company were seriously interested in the proposal and had a great deal of constructive input into the negotiations. As for line engineering, while Virgin does have hangarage, it's probably inadequate for the intensive pre- and post-flight attention Concorde needs. Therefore, I believe, it was on the cards that BA Engineering (who have some expertise in this) would have been sub-contracted to continue doing what they already do so well, albeit in a scaled-down operation.

You may not like Branson, and you're entitled to your opinion, but don't make the mistake of assuming him to be the bumbling incompetent he sometimes appears on TV. The Virgin proposal was serious and credible, and born of Branson's enthusiasm for the aeroplane and everything it stood for.

Hand Solo

28th Oct 2003, 06:19

Sorry Digitalis, but you're the one who has no idea what your talking about. Branson announced his desire to buy the aircraft days after BA announced it's retirement. Can a 'great deal of research' take place in this time?

Perhaps the design authority could have been transferred to BAe by Airbus, but it would require Airbus to agree to it and they said they never would. The UK government, as is repeatedly demonstrated, has little or no influence over France. BA would be mad to hand over its star asset to a competitor if there was a hope of operating it profitably.

BAe and QinetiQ may have been very interested in the proposal, but the only airliner BAe have supported in service for years is the BAe146/RJ100. A very different proposition. QinetiQ are primarily a research body, with tremendous scientific and engineering expertise, but no actual experience of maintaining a commercial airline operation. Are you really trying to suggest that these two companies could rapidly form a collaborative team that could do the job as well as Airbus, but without their 30 years of expertise, and do it cheaper too?

You then suggest that having got this design team up and running, BA Engineering itself would maintain the aircraft for an arch-competitor? In a scaled down operation????? BA had five airworthy Concordes and every one was needed to just to provide a reliable daily service to JFK. There could not be any scaling down of the operation or there would cease to be an operation.

I personally don't like Branson (so you're right in one respect at least), but I don't consider him a bumbling incompetent. I consider him cunning, cynical and higly manipulative of public sentiment - thats what he does best and always has done. That said, the Virgin proposal was never credible or serious, and to suggest so merely displays a total lack of appreciation of the technological and financial requirements of operating the aircraft. Its not a modern, off the shelf airliner.

Edited to add that PH-UKU appears to be talking completely out of his @rse. Fly-past of Glasgow and Prestwick as well? Why stop there, how about Aberdeen, Inverness, Stirling, Paisley and Stornoway as well. The lines got to be drawn somewhere. If you were so desperate to see it then why not get you're backside on a train to Edinburgh, it only takes 40 minutes you know! As for the elitist party, well I'm sure you are entitled to feel aggrieved that you weren't invited after spending so much money on BA tickets over the years. Hell damn those FTSE 100 chairmen, what have they done apart from pay to keep the aircraft flying for 27 years? Also Concorde doesn't belong to the people, the people got a tidy sum selling Concorde to the public years ago. Once you've sold it you can't demand it back.

Finally, why not give the aircraft to Barbados (don't see many rich geek Bajans, you ever been) and the USA? They are the destinations which have supported the aircraft for the last twenty years, not East Fortune.

ramsrc

28th Oct 2003, 14:35

Finally, why not give the aircraft to ... the USA? They are the destinations which have supported the aircraft for the last twenty years, not East Fortune.

You're having a laugh! After all the whinging NIMBYism and sour grapes. Even New Yorks own congressman Weiner couldn't wait to see the back of Concorde. If it really was that bad, then why would the museums want it?

If the fleet really HAS to retire then surely is right to send them to museums in the UK. In my humble opinion East Fortune should get one - even if it will have to be brought in my truck - and keep her right alongside the Comet and the Vulcan. Two more memories of our once great Aviation industry.

coughing corner

28th Oct 2003, 14:54

So Digitalis, if its such a simple thing, why in May when Air France withdrew theirs did the beardy weirdy not try and take theirs, as a complete package? I think that the AF birds had less hours on them than the BA versions, so arguably a better buy!. And BA sub contract their expertise on a product they have unique experience in, now being used to 'rub their noses in it', so how much would they charge for that work..... 'now I don't think we've got enough noughts to put on the quote, can you get a longer bit of paper please?'

The business case would have been just as compelling, more so even, as he could have competed on the same route with the same type. Look! see! Virgin can make it work!

Please please someone give me a sensible answer to this question, lots of people are banging on about how BA not selling theirs to Virgin, have prevented the type from continuing to operate. So why when there were french examples 'available' did Virgin not make a bid for those aircraft? The simple answer to anyone who has worked in provisioning and aircraft support is that this was never a realistic option, and never costed as such by Virgin. It was just a superbly taken PR opportunity!

BALIX

28th Oct 2003, 16:00

Hand Solo

You talk a lot of sense when it comes to the proposed continued operation of Concorde by Branson. I don't believe for a minute there was ever a chance of it happening and although unlike you I don't dislike the guy - he makes a bit of a change from the normal suited wonders that run big business - I am completely aware that he knows a good opening for publicity when he sees it.

On the subject of Glasgow and Prestwick, however, you are a bit off the mark. AE very nearly DID go to Glasgow before landing at Edinburgh though in the end time constraints prevented it. As for Prestwick, well, why not? The aircraft spent more time there than anywhere else in Scotland.

Don't forget that this is an emotional issue for many people. For them, and me for that matter, flying on Concorde has been something of a dream. It would happen when those savings bonds paid out, when the retiral lump sum gets paid out, when the lottery numbers come up but it would happen sometime. Of course, that chance of doing something really special has now passed us by. You can't blame people for being a bit upset about it, even irrational at times. We'll get over it. Eventually :{

scroggs

28th Oct 2003, 16:27

I doubt there was ever any chance of Virgin successfully continuing any operation of Concorde; it would have required the wholehearted cooperation of BA, and that was never on the cards! Air France were, I believe, adamant that no-one would ever operate their Concordes once they were retired by AF, so that was a non-starter. How much research and negotiation was done on the Design Authority issue, I've no idea.

However, had there been the will within BA and the Government to see the aeroplane continue to fly without any commercial risk to BA itself, I don't see why an engineering support package couldn't have been negotiated. There has been much cooperation between Virgin and BA in engineering and other support services over the years and, away from the headlines, the two companies are quite capable of working together when it suits them to do so.

Lastly, while the publicity opportunities were too good to miss for RB, his enthusiasm for Concorde, both as an engineering achievement and a commercial tool, is quite genuine. I'm not sure there were that many - especially on the financial side - within Virgin who were as keen as he was to see it in our colours as he was, however!

CaptainFillosan

28th Oct 2003, 17:52

Hand solo.

I have responded on the R&N thread to your last post.

This one proves what your posts are born from. A cynical and totally inward thinking anti-Virgin and anti-Branson bitter and twisted syndrome. How can you control any logic with that lot?

Just try for once to look at the wider view and get off your BA high horse! BA is not the airline it should be. Hasn't been for many years. It is run by a management team who wouldn't see a tree if they were trapped in a jungle. Their decision on Concorde was a crass one. Forget the beancounters, it was lousy management which bought about the demise of the finest thing that ever flew. It was lousy management who bowed to AF and Airbus.

PR was seriously lacking in attracting customers, management ran out of ideas and those who had any were third rate. It needed top class dynamic managers and hasn't got a one! Well maybe one or two but who have their reins running under the doors of top managment. Those who should have given up years ago.

I almost puked when I saw CM bowing and scraping.

Come on HS, get real and stop flying that tatty old flag. It's not worth much these days. Few will forget what BA have done.

coughing corner

28th Oct 2003, 19:01

So CaptainFilloscan, why didnt Virgin buy the AF airplanes in May? :E

Oh and don't bother with the BA vs Virgin diatribe cos it won't work with me! :rolleyes:

CaptainFillosan

28th Oct 2003, 20:38

Because they were not the ones he wanted I imagine.

And because I don't know who you are, or care, my comments were for those who were interested in my opinion so why would I want to influence you?. If people don't like what I say that's fine. That happens every time a page is opened on PPRuNe. About 100,000 times a day I think! Maybe a lot more. Get the point.

Where is the Land of Bumbly Boo?

coughing corner

28th Oct 2003, 22:13

'Because they were not the ones he wanted I imagine.'

Quite, so he's not interested in five or so aeroplanes, 'available' five months in advance of the BA aircraft, undoubtedly very similar mod status due to the small production run. You yourself have stated that transferring BA's fleet wouldn't be a problem, getting BA's staff aircrew/engineers etc to join Virgin wouldn't be a problem, so why no french option considered? Still points to a brilliantly taken PR opportunity by RB with no real intention to ever run the aircraft commercially. So as a matter of interest why do you imagine he's only got eyes for the UK registered aircraft?. Its simple enough to put a French Boeing/Bus on the uk reg why not Concorde?.

If you don't want people to comment on your public mud wrestling with other opponents mate do it behind closed doors! :ooh:

Bumbly Boo? Try Spike Milligan for kids :ok:

From Sydney Zoo an Alligator,
was put on board a flying freighter.

He ate the pilot and the navigator,
then asked for more with mashed potater

Best thing to do with pilots and navs quite frankly! :E

CaptainFillosan

29th Oct 2003, 00:43

Ever thought he might not like the French? :E I wouldn't have had them either! :yuk:

coughing corner

29th Oct 2003, 00:47

Good point, well made!:suspect:

Hand Solo

29th Oct 2003, 08:47

Yawn yawn Fillosan!

I'm anti-Branson, as are a growing proportion of the British public, but I quite like Virgin and have flown on them several times.

Might I remind you that not so long ago BA was the most profitable airline in the entire world? There certainly were gash decisions taken under the reckless stewardship of Ayling, but that does not mean the decision on Concorde was crass. Regrettable, yes. Unavoidable no. When nobody wants to fly your aircraft, you have to call a halt. Our subsonic First cabins are almost empty. Concorde was flying with less than 20% load factors before the announcement. Our top corporate customers wouldn't touch it with a bargepole, even for free. You call that a succesful economic case and I'll call you a basket case! None of the figures add up, and thats before you even mention the real reason it's going which is that Airbus won't support it.

Sadly you and your ilk find a forum in PPRuNe in which you can spout garbage without the normal requirement of substantiation or fact. Your emotions do not represent a sound business case for preserving the flagship of our fleet, nor do they hold much sway over the politic machinations of Airbus. The era is over Fillosan, it fell victim to the politics which gave it life, now deal with it and stop carping.

CaptainFillosan

29th Oct 2003, 17:32

Dear dear Solo, do you really have to resort to snide? Is that the only way you think you can get a point across? You can't be right all the time you know, even though BA pays you. Perhaps you are on their PR staff in which case you have failed. :rolleyes:

You will just have to recognise that other people have points of view too. Some might even have first hand knowledge. Some might even know exactly what they are talking about. Some might have also been in the industry for a very long time! Are you getting the point?

Sadly you and your ilk find a forum in PPRuNe in which you can spout garbage without the normal requirement of substantiation or fact. Your emotions do not represent a sound business case for preserving the flagship of our fleet, nor do they hold much sway over the politic machinations of Airbus. The era is over Fillosan, it fell victim to the politics which gave it life, now deal with it and stop carping.

Firstly, PPRuNe and it's forums are specifically designed for people to "spout" their opinions, garbage or not. And as I said above you should not imagine that those who do have opinions might have a good deal more experience than you.

Forget AF, forget Airbus, this was a BA decision, Airbus just went along with it - OR - were given purely French ultimatums. The old hands in BA who hang on to the puppet strings are the ones who should be held to account but they are not. Their actions are underhanded but nonetheless ruthless. If they had had any feelings left for Concorde they would have, indeed, should have, given Virgin the opportunity to prove their point. They ARE a good airline. They are profitable too.

BA have been tainted for years. Dirty tricks, boil on the bum unions, massive overmanning which, eventually, meant the removal of over 10,000 uneeded staff, predatory route applications which resulted in massive penalty payments (another dirty trick) to the airlines they tried to smother. Who knows how much more they got away with.

This doesn't mention the bad management that exists. Good people, VERY good people treated like something the cat brought in. That is not the way to get the best from people. Quite reverse in fact. But who cares?

Solo, do yourself a big favour and stop trying to extol the virtues of BA - it hasn't got any. Let them fly into cuckoo land. In the next few months will see if BA has made a good decision or not.

Concorde was for the ordinary person the flagship (you got that right!) of all that is British. Everyone wanted to fly with her, the charters proved that. (ummm! Why did BA not carry on with those - they made pots of the stuff) But it was only the rich and famous who could afford it. Concorde is an icon, a beautiful flying machine which is loved. BA destroyed it and they will not be forgiven.

The era may be over solo but people will carp about it for many years to come. Get used to it. If you don't like that kind music then get of the dance floor.

strafer

29th Oct 2003, 17:59

Nice post Captain F!

Hand Solo

30th Oct 2003, 00:13

No I don't have to resort to being snide Fillosan as I've already posted a point by point rebuff of your position on the R&N thread. But if you haven't seen it, I'll do one here for your benefit also.

Forget AF, forget Airbus, this was a BA decision, Airbus just went along with it - OR - were given purely French ultimatums

Do you have any substantive proof of these claims, because it's certainly counter to the opinion of every source I have within BA, and a very good source outside BA. What is a 'purely French ultimatum' and why is it not significant to BAs operations?

given Virgin the opportunity to prove their point. They ARE a good airline. They are profitable too.

Why should BA give any competitor the chance to take our flagship aircraft and best marketing tool? As I've said before, this is business. Virgin are a good airline, but they are also a small, niche longhaul airline. BA compete against the global players too, and in the grand scheme of things are doing OK for a privately owned airline independent of state subsidy. Virgin are profitable, but scrutiny of their accounts would also show their profits often stand or fall on the multitude of wholly Virgin-owned companies which trade exclusively with Virgin Atlantic. When Atlantic make a profit, they show a loss. When Atlantic show a loss, they have shown a profit. All legal and above board, and all money in the Virgin group, but certainly a sophisticated way of massaging results.

BA have been tainted for years
That was a long time ago, and even Virgin staff have found it in their hearts to forgive BA and go to work for them. Branson came out of it smelling of roses and uses it at very opportunity to promote himself, and why not. The world has moved on.
predatory route applications which resulted in massive penalty payments
When exactly was the last one of these?
This doesn't mention the bad management that exists. Good people, VERY good people treated like something the cat brought in
And a lot of people treated very well by the good management that exists. I'm afraid you can't tar 50,000 people with the same brush. Just because some people feel aggrieved and choose to shout about it doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of good work going on behind the scenes that people don't crow about. I think I'm in a rather better position than you to make a balanced judgement on that.

stop trying to extol the virtues of BA - it hasn't got any
I suspect the guys who resigned from their previous airlines on the basis of a BA job before 9/11 would disagree. They were all employed by BA, even though they didn't have to be, and could carry on paying their mortgages as a result. I also suspect that all the terminally ill children that the Dreamflight charity takes on holiday would disagree. I suspect all the other charities that BA funds would disagree as well.

Everyone wanted to fly with her, the charters proved that. (ummm! Why did BA not carry on with those - they made pots of the stuff
1. Because as the aircraft were modified the priority was to restore the JFK route. This requires at least three aircraft.
2. Because some aircraft were approaching the limit of supersonic cycles and it became necessary to preserve these until the heavy maintenance was due around 2007.
3. Because the aircraft were becoming increasingly difficult to maintain and it was an additional burden on Engineering to reliably provide a fourth serviceable aircraft for charterwork.

Concorde is an icon, a beautiful flying machine which is loved. BA destroyed it and they will not be forgiven.

BA made it. They could have retired it years ago, but they carried on promoting it as the pinnacle of air travel. When Concorde was launched it was a hugely expensive, environmentally unfriendly, noisy, polluting white elephant. It retired a legend. I suppose you think everything that happened in between was just chance? You may never forgive BA, but thats not really a problem. Every now and then one does come across a dyed-in-the-wool BA grudge bearer on these forums, and your comments above clearly mark you out as one of those. I suspect BA will never do right for you, but fortunately tens of millions of passengers every year find the opposite.

Chokdee

30th Oct 2003, 01:04

Hand Solo,
how can you dislike someone you have probably never met. You and I have never met, **** maybe, but I don't dislike you. How should we read into your name, perhaps someone who spends endless evenings in the bedroom alone

CaptainFillosan

30th Oct 2003, 01:54

Solo, I am weary of your intransigence. I have accepted what I think is acceptable from you. Otherwise I do have an opinion of my own which you have not once respected. Since you will not see any other side or accept that perhaps there is a another aspect, possibly even the correct one, I am not prepared to continue this.

BA is NOT the be all and end all of the airline industry, it never will be, and I really don't care how many people travel on their aircraft. Your propensity to rubbish Virgin, and probably everyone else I expect, is just not worth the effort for further discussion. Verbosity is a short one-sided conversation anyway.

BRITISH AIRWAYS have destroyed Concorde. With resolve that need NOT HAVE HAPPENED. Since you will not see that there is no more to be said.

Alty Meter

30th Oct 2003, 03:09

Hand Solo Branson announced his desire to buy the aircraft days after BA announced it's retirement. Can a 'great deal of research' take place in this time?
For someone who makes out he knows the truth and understands the commercial world that's a very naive comment.
So you think BA's announcement came as a surprise to Branson and he only started his research when he read the newspapers? Twit! I know, not guessing, he was in confidential talks with key BA people who for months before that. :rolleyes:
Branson decided he could do it and a lot of people who know more about operating Concorde than you thought he could as well. Branson has an unconventional business image which he exploits to his advantage, but he's a razor sharp tough top class businessman. We could do with a few like him at the moment. I'd rather have him running the company than Marshall and Rod.

thegypsy

30th Oct 2003, 16:09

Alty Meter So you would rather Branson ran BA than Rod and Marshall ???

So how for a start if Branson reduced all Pilots and Cabin crew T & C,s to Virgin's rates??

AlanUK

30th Oct 2003, 16:26

Alty Meter,

How can you describe Branson as:
"a razor sharp tough top class businessman"

May I suggest you read the very interesting book by Tom Bower "BRANSON"... This man has been cheating on the UK Inland Revenue, the tax man, other businesses and his own staff since the very beginning of his business life.

Razor sharp? :yuk:
I don't think so.

Basil

30th Oct 2003, 17:11

I've observed these BA><VS threads which arise from time to time and would like to add the following:
Good luck to the solo circumnavigation. RB as backup pilot? - Don't make me laugh!
Branson is a great opportunistic publicist and a successful businessman. King was, at one time, of enormous value to BA. I do not think that I would like to work directly for either.
I've flown as pax on VS and they were very good.
I have flown for a few air-taxi outfits and five airlines, one of which was BA.
There is no doubt in my mind, taking the whole airline ethos and package into account, which was the best to work for.

Which one? - British Airways.

yachtpilot

30th Oct 2003, 18:34

IT USED TO BE SAID THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE OPENING 'FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL ' FROM THE FRONT WERE BA PILOTS...
IS THIS STILL THE CASE.... ?

Wee Weasley Welshman

31st Oct 2003, 16:48

Hand Solo - you are trying admirably to feed strawberries to donkeys my friend.

BA did a marvelous job of running Concorde - I doubt any other airline would have had a route, a brand image and a business model that so suited running a SST aircraft. They retired her with grace and made it a bit of an event for the country. Well done all in BA.

I used to admire Sir Richard hugely. Then I read the Tom Bower book and saw the other side of the coin. If you haven't read it I don't think you are informed enough to espouse an opinion on the worthiness of Sir Richard.

I really don't 'get' why people feel inclined to become emotional about Concorde.

I don't think it was that technologically brilliant. It is just a lump of metal. It represented an inglorious industrial/political era that took the country decades to escape from. Its old and - bearing in mind I am to the right of Jeremy Clarkson when it comes to political correctness - dare I say it, a bit naff and a bit obscene.

Joan Collins and David Frost in a half empty aeroplane sipping Champers at 55,000ft whilst pumping out a heck of a lot of muck direct into the upper atmosphere just so they can 'save' 4 hours
of their oh-so-precious lives. Sorry - thats a bit 80's for my taste.

The worlds moved on.

Nobody wants to sit on the M25 for 3hrs in a queue trying to fight their way into Heathrow. To get on a plane that everybody remembers making a smoking hole in the ground recently. To find the mix of other passengers are sad 'once in a lifetime' aircraft anoraks, has-been aging celebs or frequent flyer photocopy machine salesmen whos time has come for an upgrade...

Whats cool now is to whiz to Farnborough or Northolt say and simply whisk onto your 'bling bling' Gulfstream V.

Once upon a time Concorde was cool, the world was not such an enviornmentally sensitive place and airports were convenient and efficient.

Now its naff, people feel ill at ease with those ripping great engines and big airports are hell on earth.

Farewell Conorde, your time had come and you went with grace.

Everybody else - stop getting emotional about a machine. Its a bit pathetic and just another annoying example of the Oprah Winfreyisation of British culture.

Cheers

WWW

ps mind you - she is beautiful to look at. ;)

mjenkinsblackdog

31st Oct 2003, 16:53

Www,
Not that technogically brillant.
I suppose you have first hand experience.
Utter rubbish!

strafer

31st Oct 2003, 17:13

WWW,

I'm actually logging on from the cabin of my Gufstream V (gold plated laptop, natch) and myself and Joan both think that you're on one of your wind-up missions again. Is this something you do every Friday?

Sipping champagne on the edge of space at Mach 2 was kinda the point of Concorde. The world hasn't moved on, it's gone backwards.

Wee Weasley Welshman

31st Oct 2003, 18:55

No first hand experience claimed.

But the Fairey Delta 2 in 1956 was doing 1,200mph level flight with a Delta wing. The Vulcan saw mass produced delta wing aircraft. So you can hardly credit Concorde with advancing that particular technology.

Apart from that what was so technologically amazing about it? Digital computer control for the engines I suppose was pretty new. But the engines were just ripped out of the Vulcan and given an afterburner. I suppose the inlet control was a bit clever as well.

Otherwise surely it was just standard 50's and 60's aviation technology put together into one very expensive package?

A poor mans answer to the Space race which DID bring us all manner of new technologies.

I yield to no man in my admiration of technological progress. In the fields of genetics, communications and computing this country was making fantastic strides during the period of Concordes design and build. But I don't see what the project actually gave us in terms of technology that wasn't already discovered and in use elsewhere.

I'm not bashing the aircraft or the achievement. I don't feel strongly either way about the machine. I am wholly disspassionate about it in fact.

Lets face it - aircraft technology per se was done and dusted by the mid 50's and all we've been doing since then is tweaking.

If the point was to sip Mach 2 champagne at high altitude at dissproportionate environmental cost then - as I said - thats a kind of a naff thing.

Go pay the Ukranian airforce to take you for a ride in a Mig 25, have a real thrill and get to fly the thing. A much bigger boast in the pub - if thats your bag.

I object to the dewey eyed sentimentalism that surrounded some of the coverage of Concordes retirement. Shrieks of end of an era and stepping backwards are frankly sanctimonious bollocks.

Compared to the 70's you can now cross the Atlantic in considerably more safety, more comfort, being well entertained and for a fraction of the cost. In fact you can fly non-stop around the globe in your own private jet whilst video conferencing across the internet to people spead over 4 continents simultaneously.

Thats progress, thats technology and thats got very little to do with Concorde.

Cheers

WWW

CaptainFillosan

31st Oct 2003, 19:38

WWW

Your info is wrong! Fairey Delta2 flew at 1,132mph and gained a new world record. BUT........FD2 was only a small part of the Concorde story, but a very important one. The HP115 was spectacularly useful, and very very cheap. The Vulcan was a test bed for the Olympus 593 engine - fitted underneath the Vulcan. The telemetry fitted on the Bristol 188 was a major boost for Concorde's development. Indeed, it carried over 12 tons of test equipment on board each of the prototypes.

I don't think it was that technologically brilliant. It is just a lump of metal. It represented an inglorious industrial/political era that took the country decades to escape from.

It was and is gloriously technologically brilliant, like the TSR2, but to send Concorde to the scrap heap with so much life left in it is criminal.

Wee Weasley Welshman

31st Oct 2003, 20:21

Don't be pedantic, 1,132 is pretty close to 1,200. The Fairey Delta II wasn't flying to develop a SSTA nor was the Vulcan built to be a flying testbed.

I don't see why it was technologically brilliant - obviously its pretty impressive. But not really a step change. After all we could do it today - it just wouldn't pay and there is no market for it.

If I am cash rich and time poor and am in London and need to be in New York then I have a fractional ownership of a private jet.

I don't get on the train, slog out to Heathrow, check in, wait in a security queue, wait through boarding, sit next to some oik in a non-too luxurious seat, hope we don't pick up a slot, end up number 9 for taxi, break down or end up diverting into some god forsaken hole because the machine is so tight on fuel.

Frankly.

As a leisure experience its only for a few enthusiasts.

Oh, and its old, increasingly knackered, looses money and the manufacturer is stopping support of it. It simply is the right time for it to go - saying its criminal is silly.

Cheers

WWW

Basil

1st Nov 2003, 16:34

Gotta say, I think a wing which can fly at about 180kn and also sustain M2.0 on cold power without variable geometry is pretty good :ok:

stormcloud

2nd Nov 2003, 03:24

Surely the technological brilliance was that it took 100 people sipping their champagne at M2.0.
The Fairey Delta was a testbed and the Vulcan was a (subsonic) weapon. To take the basics and make it work for GA was the brilliant part of it.
Never mind all the rhetoric about who was on it, the fact is that is was there and could do the job for those who wanted it and could pay.
If Airbus have pulled the plug then there's not a lot anyone can do, BUT, with the life in the aircraft, there may have been a market for a reduced schedule and/or cheaper seats on charters.
I shall miss her.

Cornish Jack

4th Nov 2003, 02:36

Hardly surprising that WWW can see little to get dewy eyed about in the demise of Concorde. If you are so recent a member of the flying fraternity as is WWW, it would undoubtedly seem to be rather 'old hat'.
However, for those of us lived through the conception, growing pains and birth of such a remarkable baby, the product was so technically exceptional as to merit the reverence.
I suspect that WWW wasn't exposed to the comparison between (for example) the B58 and Concorde - the former crossed the Atlantic with its crew 'luxuriating' in pressure breathing suits and with the requirement to react with exceptional speed and skill to an engine failure; the latter had its passengers suffering the indignities of champagne and haute cuisine and the 'desperate measures' of a selected diversion for a similar occurence. It is a truism that the younger generation rarely consider the energy and inspiration which went into the technicalities which they take for granted. One can only hope that ultimately their collective consciousnesses will be stirred by something of an equivalent nature - experience, however, leads me to suspect quite the opposite.:(