FL,
I agree with your view that RB was very serious...he isn't known to miss a real opportunity when he feels there is one. And that AF needed to be out of the SST business prior to a privatisation.
I'm however less than convinced of Airbus's opposition. From what I have learnt they were obliged to provide a 'fixed' minimum of engineering and design support for the Type, regardless of the number of airframes in commercial service.
Each user payed a percentage of this minimum (so 2 users meant each pay half etc) plus a fee for the number of airframes it had in service. I think my understanding is correct, but not 100% certain somebody here will know more.
So when AF informed Airbus they were withdrawing their fleet, Airbus were forced to inform BA that it alone had to carry the entire cost of the design authority contract, plus the fee for its own airframes.
Now I understand that there was some saving on the DA fee as AF and BA birds were not identical (batteries plus a few other electrical items) but broadly speaking BA faced a massive % increase in the fee...which the business case did not cover...
What is more difficult to know is where or not the DA fee was 'reasonable'...but compared to what?
I believe that Airbus were free to charge whatever they wanted for this service..as who else could provide it? I'm certain they were not 'unreasonable' in that they could have justifed every Euro if challenged in court, but they would have made sure the price was in their favour.
An interesting dilemma...knowing Airbus's desperate requirement for more engineering support at Toulouse it seems possible that the senior, experienced engineers dedicated to Concorde were in theory more 'profitably' employed on a current design....if you are really cynical.
If AF had not made the move to retire then she would have flown at least until this year and economics not with standing recieved a further life extension if warranted and requested by both BA and AF.
Airbus would have continued to support her as long as AF wanted to fly her. I think the link between AF and the French Government was influential enough to ensure that Airbus was not in a position to 'assist BA' in any significant manner.
No doubt the CAA were also consulted as to how a 'new' operator could be accommodated.
Imagine if they said to RB, 'Sure, no problem, provided all the maintenance is carried out by an experienced maintainer based in the UK'.. ie BA.. what a hoot.. BA being paid a fortune to maintain an aircraft they retired because it could not afford to fly it for a competitor who thinks he can...
Cessna,
None of the BA concordes are complete. Check on Gordon's site (
www.concordesst.com) for more details of the decomissioning and what was removed.
The real issue is that none of the BA Concordes were preserved for future re-commissioning. The hydraulic systems were drained and left empty for example and in the intervening time the seals therein will have deteriorated sufficiently to render them inoperable. In order to provide flightworthy hydraulic systems these seals would need replacement by certified new ones. These no longer exist...and that is the real issue. All of the spares have left the controlled environment (traceability etc) that is required for flight rated spares. It would of course be possible to remanufacutre but the cost issues associated with this means its improbable.
I'm sure FL will know more than I but my understanding is that if an a/c has a previous UK TC it is not all owed to operate under a Permit....which makes that avenue a dead end. Again taking an airframe in for a major is possible, returning it to full operational status is possible, even getting insurance is possible.. funding all of this is possible, but improbable.
I doubt that any of the AF birds are near flight status. The last Concorde (FC)to move under its own power was in Toulouse as part of the investigation. I believe that this a/c is complete, but not maintained in 'live' condition. It would need a serious amount of work to bring back on line, less than any of the BA airframes but nevertheless it would be a big job. (She is however open to visitors and the cockpit is blocked off by a glass door).
The museum planned for Toulouse (adjacent to the new factory) is going to be home to one of the Toulouse Concordes. This is planned to open in April 2009 and not only allows one of the two to be undercover, but also to house a Super Guppy, A300 and Caravelle. It will also be part of the Airbus factory visit...so what happens to the other....a flying example...?