Ozzy asks a very sensible question: Why didn't BA fight the decision to end Concorde's manufacturer's support?
We mere line crews will never know the full details of negotiations between BA/Airbus/AF, but it has been made clear that at least some effort was made to keep flying the aeroplane longer.
AF operations were far more financially problematic than BA's - it is understandable that they wanted to end them. As I write, the final AF flight is 4 days away, yet BA is continuing to the end of October. THAT is the limited success achieved in these negotiations. We know that BA wanted to continue to at least the end of next Winter's schedule in order to capitalise on the profitable BGI season but was flatly prevented by Airbus.
Why would Airbus take this stance and why would BA apparently not take a firmer stand? To consider the scenario raised by Ozzy where Boeing announced the cessation of support for the 747:
There are hundreds of 747's flying. It would be financial and commercial suicide to do such a thing, so it is a remote possibility, but should such a thing come to pass then the market would be there for a third party to take on design authority and manufacture of components. This is what generally happens in this scenario - consider the multitudes of GA aircraft supported in this way, plus after-market freighter conversions, the support of Fokker types and so on. (I am aware that none of the foregoing example are of manufacturers wilfully withdrawing support while still in business, but that's because it doesn't generally happen).
So there would be little need for BA or anyone else to apply massive pressure.
Concorde is a different matter - I won't reiterate the same old arguments about how much manpower it costs Airbus to provide support, and how much more profitably these resources could be employed elsewhere - but it can be seen that the possibility of third-party support is non-existent. (The design is simply going to be outside the experience of anyone else, and the market too small). So Airbus has BA by the proverbials, and there is really very little that can be done.
There is a further aspect - this aeroplane was born of politics and multi-national agreements, and some elements of these will still be extant. It was long rumoured that a tripartite obligation existed which compelled each element (arlines and builders) to support the aircraft so long as the others wished. Clearly that is not now the case, but it could possibly be assumed that the inverse applies; removing the manufacturer's compulsion to support the programme if either airline wished to cease operations. Whatever, we won't know the truth in the near future, but it seems unlikely that the continued operation of this machine was as free from conditions as conventional types.
Finally - it has been long suspected by line crews and line engineers that the end was in sight anyway; it did appear to all of us that the fleet was been positioned to be wound up in the next couple of years anyway. So - if the decision had been made to kill it off in 2004 there would be little point in having a massive and fruitless fight to extend beyond 2003.
None of this, of course, detracts from the fact that structurally these machines could continue to perform in this unique operation
for years to come.
PS: Hasn't the Grinning Cardigan been awfully quiet since he met with Airbus?? Obviously BA have threatened awful things to the little Airbus company to force them to do BA's bidding......