DEFINATE good news on Concorde [Archive]

Mr Benn

15th Oct 2001, 19:56

Hmm.
The facts as they stand right now.
BA need to modify one more Conc before they can start running a regular passenger service once again.
This costs X million pounds.
BA are in dire straits as far as cash flow is concerned.
Not all the crews have been trained back on the aircraft yet.
Those who have have been told they are likely to be going back to another fleet once again.
I would LOVE to see the Concs back in the air again, but I am not holding my breath. Maybe once BA gets a bit stronger again?

gordonroxburgh

15th Oct 2001, 20:12

I understand 3rd Concorde (G-BOAG) will fly this week. The mods are done and BA are pre-flight test stage.

Here is what BA said officially on the Nov 7th date.

Back to Business

British Airways pledged its support for New York with the announcement that Concorde flights will resume across the Atlantic on Wednesday, November 7.

Rod Eddington, British Airways’ Chief Executive, said: “We are delighted to be returning Concorde to the skies and back into New York.

“We hope Concorde’s return will play a major part in rebuilding confidence in New York and demonstrating that it is business as usual between the UK and the USA. We have received tremendous support from our regular business customers over the last year and we look forward to carrying them supersonically across the Atlantic once more.”

New York’s Mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, welcomed today’s announcement. He said: “Concorde’s return is symbolic of how all New Yorkers feel about rebuilding this great city. I am personally proud to welcome Concorde back to New York.”

The airline will begin operations with an initial six times a week service between London Heathrow and New York JFK. Bookings open tomorrow, Tuesday October 16 at 9.00am UK time.

Flight BA001 will depart six times each week from London Heathrow at 10.30am local time and arrive in New York at 9.25am local time. The return flight, BA002, will depart New York at 12.15pm local time and arrive at Heathrow at 9.10pm. Flights to and from New York will operate on every day except Saturday.

From 1st December until 13th April 2002, the airline will operate a once a week scheduled Barbados service from Heathrow, departing Saturdays at 9.30am and arriving in Barbados at 9.45am. The return will depart Barbados on Saturdays at 11.45am and arrive at Heathrow at 8.00pm.

Plane Speaker

15th Oct 2001, 20:48

Truly great news that the machine will be in service again. Lets hope that this is the start of a conuation of some positive news for the Aviation Industry.

TwoTun

15th Oct 2001, 21:57

Mr Benn, you said:

<The facts as they stand right now.
BA need to modify one more Conc before they can start running a regular passenger service once again.>

Not really. We have three aircraft ready to go, which is what it needed for one service a day.

<This costs X million pounds.>

Already budgeted for.

<BA are in dire straits as far as cash flow is concerned.>

Again, not really. BA announced that they have £1 billion in cash reserves, plus £3 billion in disposable assets (building etc.)

<Not all the crews have been trained back on the aircraft yet.>

True. But they have fully trained all the crews they need for a daily JFK service. And the rest of them (they are needed for twice a day to JFK) are waiting for their courses, later this year.

<Those who have have been told they are likely to be going back to another fleet once again.>

Not true.

<I would LOVE to see the Concs back in the air again, but I am not holding my breath>

Oh go on, please?

<Maybe once BA gets a bit stronger again? >

Nope. November 7th.

fireflybob

16th Oct 2001, 02:55

This is really excellent news that Concorde is becoming operational again.

It is also highly symbolic in the sense that we can rebuild something better and stronger after a disaster and also the fact that it will be flying to New York as well.

I hope and expect that all parties concerned (BA, NY Authorities) will get every bit of good publicity they can from this event. I think we all need some good news at the moment and this would be a good start.

malanda

16th Oct 2001, 13:30

Question from thick passenger: Can someone explain to me why they need three planes to run a once-a-day service?

CRP5

16th Oct 2001, 15:06

Malanda because it (concord) is such a heap of $hit it breaks almost every flight, thus they always need a couple kicking around at short notice, also its a high maintenance machine (much like Mrs CRP5) so its down time in the hanger is also much longer than more economic, modern, safer airliners. :rolleyes:

Groundloop

16th Oct 2001, 16:00

>New York’s Mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, welcomed today’s announcement. He said: “Concorde’s return is symbolic of how all New Yorkers feel about rebuilding this great city. I am personally proud to welcome Concorde back to New York.”

It's probably not PC to say so at the moment but is this the first time the words "Concorde", "welcome" and "New York" have appeared in a sentence without the word "NOT"?

ALTSEL

16th Oct 2001, 16:17

Fantastic news and a boost to Aviation in the denocratic world. Why not put one airframe in the paintshop and emblazon it
all over with the flags of Great Britain, France, and the USA - A message if ever one were needed!

fruitbat

16th Oct 2001, 20:45

The first commercial service for BA on Nov 9th had sold over 50% of capacity in the first two hours of play this morning. Good news indeed!

TwoTun

16th Oct 2001, 22:43

CRP5, you said:
<Malanda because it (concord) is such a heap of $hit it breaks almost every flight, thus they always need a couple kicking around at short notice, also its a high maintenance machine (much like Mrs CRP5) so its down time in the hanger is also much longer than more economic, modern, safer airliners. >

You know, you'd think that with all the time I've spent in aviation (27+ years), I'd know better to rise to obvious trolls and sh*t stirers.........

......but what the hell.

CRP5, you're full of sh*t

There, I feel better now. :cool:

Analyser

16th Oct 2001, 22:58

This is the best news that the aviation industry has recieved in some time.

overstress

16th Oct 2001, 23:06

CRP5 & Mr Benn

As TwoTun has immaculate credentials for commenting on Concorde, I suggest you save your sh*t stirring for one of The Guvnor's posts.

Or perhaps you both are him? - he is known to have multiple i/d's!! :)

I was proud to hear (Sir) Rudi Giuliani's words.

ed 4 speling

[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: overstress ]

CRP5

17th Oct 2001, 00:15

Twotonto$$er just quoting “fly wise July 1997-July 2000” for six aircraft does seem to be a disproportionate number of incidence; perhaps I should post ALL OF THESE, for your benefit. Or maybe YOU know better than I. Since I live just 1 mile from 2 ex Concorde Captains, 2 Concorde FE’s and 1 Concorde FO, and meat with these guys I obviously know nothing. As a BA pilot I would NEVER fly on it and would caution my family from doing so!! Put up or shut up you ****, I am not so ill informed as you properly first imagined!

M.Mouse

17th Oct 2001, 00:28

CRP5

I won't resort to personal abuse although it is tempting.

If you are so sure of the accuracy of your sweeping generalisations would you be kind enough to actually state some facts in order that we can judge the veracity or otherwise of your claims?

Thank you in anticipation.

CRP5

17th Oct 2001, 00:49

M.M since I know you are a BA pilot you could go and read "fly wise" and decide for yourself (I have), if you have not kept the back copies then perhaps U could collect them from your fleet MGR, read the post above that I have written, perhaps YOU could answer the question of reliability of Conc. yourself (or have you had the BA lobotomy???) and explain why 3 aircraft are needed!!!! For an 8 hour round trip!! : D: D: D

In all honesty try and convince me otherwise, as stated previously based upon what I know, I would not set foot in it, I state my point of view honestly and based upon information I have. Sorry if it offends you!

M.Mouse

17th Oct 2001, 03:04

CRP5

You are correct I am a BA pilot. I shall ignore your gratuitous insult about lobotomies.

I do read Flywise. I can't say that I have noticed any greater number (pro - rata ) of incidents involving Concorde than any other aircraft we operate.

I am sure you will accuse me of being blinkered or biased or something but you have avoided actually stating any facts to support your assertions.

The majority of intelligent readers of this BB are surely able to decide for themselves the merits of your opinions if presented with facts. At the moment you seem unable/unwilling to do other than cast serious aspersions with no evidence. Why?

overstress

17th Oct 2001, 03:16

CRP5 - don't remember you from the BA forum, must have a trawl back there to read some of your other posts.

Are you having a bad day today? You seem rather upset.

I hope you are feeling better before you take your next flight.

WRT your argument, what relevance to the discussion is the proximity of your home to that of Concorde crew? How does meeting them on a regular basis better qualify you to pronounce on the whole subject, as you suggest?

Does this mean if I move close to Prof Steven Hawking's house I will become an authority on astrophysics?

What fleet are you on?

BRL

17th Oct 2001, 03:56

Gentlemen pleeeeeease. Would you mind going off to the B.A. private forum to slag each other off as its getting a bit off subject here, thanks.

Back to the original thread, I bet they don't start flying untill January at least and then AF(the plane) not being around to fly either........

Can't wait to see it about again though....

Roadtrip

17th Oct 2001, 04:05

I'll bet Concorde will have the highest load factor of anybody. Also, I'll bet that the ticket prices won't make any difference.

I'll be good to see Concorde in the air again.

GeofJ

17th Oct 2001, 09:31

OK maybe a bit of heresy here even from a frequent traveller and airplane enthusiast but isn't the Concorde a marginal business proposition at best? I know there is a lot of national pride invested in the old bird but wouldn't the cash be better spent on the basics of running an airline?

CRP5

17th Oct 2001, 12:15

Overstress I am very well thanks, enjoying a week’s leave taking it easy. My absence from the BA private forum should not really concern you, and I feel you have used it to try a deliberately slur my posts.

I tried to answerer a question reference the need for 3 aircraft to service just on route. My assertion the Concorde was a heap of $hit may have been a bit strong for all the devoted Concorde fans amongst us.

However, why do they need three aircraft?

As a new Cadet in 1997 we were taken to the hangers to view Concorde and talk to the engineers ect. As you can tell I am not a massive fan of the slim pointy thing. However the Eng that was showing us round did explain that out of all the aircraft it is the most engineering intensive and therefore has a lot of downtime in the hanger. This was further highlighted some time later during a break in a simulator check whilst talking to another Concorde certified eng. Would you disagree with what I have said so far?

Furthermore my assertion that Concorde has more “in-flight problems” than other aircraft. You could start by reading fly wise, then look at the various graphs they produce from time to time with reference to ASRs filled for incidences to me it seems that per aircraft Concorde does have many more incidences of in-flight problems, this is further supported by verbal accounts by a Captain with rather frayed nerves who had, at his own request asked to be moved from the fleet. Yet further evidence came from talking to the various ex-Concorde crew who live in and around the village where I live (or perhaps they were being untruthful when telling of these problems and I have well and truly been taken in by them). No that does not make me an expert, you’re quite right! However I welcome any answerer from you, M.M, or Two Tun as to why three aircraft are needed!

PS soon to start reporting in the Compass Centre might see you around!!
:p :p :p

Meatbomber

17th Oct 2001, 15:44

CRP5 what you neglect is the fact that this Aircraft is being operated at some extreme conditions be that pressure and temperature and of course the change in both.

Sure it has to undergo lots of maintenance but at these operating conditions it's no wonders .. also considering the type of operation, e.g stage length of what 3 and 1/2 hour per cycle? the maintenance requirements slightly differe from your usual long hauler..

Cheers
MB

M.Mouse

17th Oct 2001, 18:10

So CRP5 I take it that you are not going to try and back up your assertions?

Slickster

17th Oct 2001, 18:41

Well, at the end of the day, it flies twice as fast as anything else, it's glamourous and good for BA's image, it makes money, it looks like the mutt's nuts, really pisses off those nimbies trying to close Heathrow down, and the Americans don't have any. Can't wait til it flies again! :D

GeofJ

17th Oct 2001, 19:51

It is hard to argue with anything that interferes with the nimby's that want to affect airport ops anywhere - even if it is an antique

CRP5

17th Oct 2001, 20:35

M.M. so you have had the BA lobotomy!! :confused:

[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: CRP5 ]

gas path

17th Oct 2001, 21:18

Ladies and gents
I believe that the requirement to have 3 a/c serviceable before a daily scheduled service could begin was at the request of the CAA.
1 for the service, 1 standby, and the other to cover for maintenance.
I think the 4th a/c is being modded now.... and the rest? that depends on future traffic.
Also FWIW plans in hand for the installation of 21st century supersonic vacuum bogs. :)

M.Mouse

17th Oct 2001, 23:27

CRP%

So because you are unable/unwilling to back up your assertions you resort to childish accusations.

Frankly you sound like someone with a personal axe to grind, for whatever reason, and in these difficult times I find it disappointing that you are trying to harm the company that gives you a good living.

It is easy to make statements behind the cloak of anonymity especially when you have no facts with which to justify your claims.

You do yourself little credit either as a person or a pilot.

CRP5

17th Oct 2001, 23:43

M.M. I direct you to Gas paths post, more eloquent than my original post I agree but overall that’s what I was trying to put across, issues of reliability and maintenance resulting in the need for three aircraft and if Gas Path is correct, all this at the behest of the CAA!

PS I am allowed an opinion, I am allowed to express that opinion and will continue to do so! YOU may have been brainwashed but I have not. Good night
;) ;)

The Guvnor

18th Oct 2001, 00:32

Having flown on Concorde 35 times, I can confirm that it has statistically been more prone to technical delays - off the top of my head I can think of five technical delays of more than 30 minutes and two where the standby aircraft had to be substituted. Both times the substitutions were for fuel leaks.

BA in fact operates a scheme where if the flight is delayed more than either 90 minutes or 2 hours - can't remember which - they will refund the fare paid by passengers. Obviously, the cost of doing this is pretty high, which is why I suspect they have the backup aircraft there - just in case!

The new interiors look great - I'm looking forward to seeing the 'lightwash' in action in the not too-distant future!

WOK

18th Oct 2001, 00:40

Anyone is entitled to an opinion. Just don't try to pass it off as fact if you cannot back it up.

Twotun is a current Concorde Flight Eng and I am a current Conc. pilot. Please allow for that in our posts - I am afraid that our opinions are somewhat clouded by fact.

The requirement for three aircraft is easy to explain, one in LHR, one in JFK and one spare to cover planned line maintenance. Count them - it comes to three.

As it happens, given the initial revised schedule for the BAW002 it would, in fact, be possible to to operate a daily service with two a/c, but only until the first B check.

As for your tendentious quoting of the horror comic, I would be fascinated to see some statistical back up, since I can personally vouch for more engine failures/shutdowns, hydraulic, electrics, etc probs on EACH of my three previous 'blunt' types. Guess I'm just lucky??????

I do concede that the SSC generates a higher proportion of ASRs relating to RTOs than other types, but these are generally reheat related and are, in safety terms, a non-event owing to the low speeds pertaining.

Sorry if I've spoiled a good argument with facts.

M.Mouse

18th Oct 2001, 01:53

Thank you WOK.

I was thinking that I was alone in being a brainwashed, frontal lobotomied BA pilot to quote a certain contributor!

I'd fly on it anyday.

TwoTun

18th Oct 2001, 14:37

CRP5, you said:

<<Twotonto$$er>>

before we get into the meat of your message,you should be thankful this is an anonymous forum. I don't take too kindly to little boys with 1,000 flying hours calling me a tosser. They normally get a good spanking and get sent off to bed.

you then continued to dribble:
<<just quoting “fly wise July 1997-July 2000” for six aircraft does seem to be a disproportionate number of incidence; perhaps I should post ALL OF THESE, for your benefit.>

Not needed - I fly it, and know full well the technical problems peculiar to flying a supersonic aircraft.

<< Or maybe YOU know better than I.>>

As it happens, I do. And probably always will. And I won't confine that to just flying Concorde either.

<Since I live just 1 mile from 2 ex Concorde Captains, 2 Concorde FE’s and 1 Concorde FO, and meat with these guys I obviously know nothing.>

First thing you've said that's right.

<As a BA pilot I would NEVER fly on it and would caution my family from doing so!!>

Thankfully, I don't think you'll ever have the opportunity.

<Put up or shut up you ****, I am not so ill informed as you properly first imagined! >

Oh, I think you are. Still, you are resourceful, I'll give you that. You managed to convince someone to train you.

//endit

gordonroxburgh

20th Oct 2001, 03:21

More good news today,

3rd BA aircraft to be modifed, G-BOAG, flew successful verification flight.

Another one for the doubters:

All 3 BA aircraft that have had the modifications done have flown successfully at the first time of asking with nearly zero techncial problems....not bad for aircraft that have been on the ground for 14-16 months!

Georgeablelovehowindia

20th Oct 2001, 04:07

God, if CRP5 is an example of what is coming into aviation today, thank Ch***st I'm retiring!

Heliport

20th Oct 2001, 09:23

If CRP5 really is a BA pilot, I agree 100% with you.
But
"Well I know a pilot who lives near me, and he told me ....... etc" is spotter talk.
Would any genuine professional, even if he didn't work for BA, make such ill-informed, scare-mongering comments at a time like this?
Would a BA pilot be so disloyal to his company and colleagues on a public forum?

If CRP5 is the genuine article, I feel sorry for those unfortunate souls who'll have to fly with him. People who think they know it all are not only a pain to work with, but a liability.

I, for one, intend to do as soon as possible what I've been meaning to do for years ..... treat myself to a flight on the magnificent bird!

mainfrog2

20th Oct 2001, 12:45

I might be wrong (again) but I thought that the Concorde fleet did make a bit of profit, a bit is better than none at all.

WOK

20th Oct 2001, 15:25

More than a bit of a profit prior to the grounding. Wouldn't be flying now, otherwise.

vertigo

20th Oct 2001, 18:03

Wok and Two tun,
Have those nice air traffic controllers that provide the special concorde spacing requirements at Heathrow been liased with appropriately ? ;)

Human Factor

20th Oct 2001, 20:25

CRP5,

I think you'll probably find that three airframes are needed for the LHR-JFK run to allow for a morning flight (out am, back pm), an evening flight (out pm, back the following am) and a spare. Certainly when services operated normally, there was a spare airframe available in case of unserviceability. It's amazing what £5000 per seat can do!!

As far as it being an 'unreliable heap', it operates in extreme conditions of stress so it's very likely to need a bit more TLC than your average airliner.

High Volt

22nd Oct 2001, 01:48

Frankly, I am appalled at the prospect of bumping into Concorde crews in the hotel once again. Their whole outfit's in a mess - at the end of the day, the share price says it all (Sep 11 irrelavent).

Dick Deadeye

23rd Oct 2001, 06:06

Don't worry High Volt, as you obviously don't work for BA, you have no chance of getting anywhere near the crew hotel in question, so kindly disappear back to your MS Flight Sim 2000.

And take that other tosser CRP5 with you. If he is a BA pilot, which I doubt, then thank God I don't work for them.

Not my cup of tea, but good luck to the BA supersonic brigade, great to see it flying again.

the_fat_maintroller

23rd Oct 2001, 06:56

Well what can I add to this....I'm a ex heavy from the fleet, spent four years in the sheds on nights then spent a few years line maintenance'flying spanner' on the Concorde including round the world in '99 and charters to some strange destinations, mostly high profile. Yeah the aeroplane experiences it's fair share of tech problems, and gets plenty of tender loving care in the hangar.
I now sit here in a maintrol for a busy charter airline and these modern jets they break down just as much beleive me, but spares are easier to come by, still the number of ADD's carried by the modern fleets far out numbers any figure I ever saw on a Concorde, I hear a lot of pilots moaning about 'lack of Mx' on their aeroplanes, never heard a concorde crew complain about that.
I'm licenced on 757/767/744/DC10/A330/A340 and SSC. The physical location of alot of the components on the concorde means that you don't change them in a rush or without a lot of swearing and the hangar is a natural place to work defects properly.
Number of technical ASR's raised per flying hour, may be higher, most of them related to the intakes or air-con systems I seem to remember, systems working in fairly hostile climates.
The crew take care of them problems, and the aircraft continues to operate safely, but reporting criteria are laid down and reports are made, thats what you see.

As for the profit it creates, well let the bean counters come up with that, they are generally unbiased in there axe waving opinion.

So good luck to her crew and passengers may they all enjoy the experience.
I miss the times I had, but I was lucky enough to have them!!!

cyclops

24th Oct 2001, 16:23

Happy to see Concorde flying again. The actual trip should be London - New York via a low pass over Paris. Good for EU solidarity ;)

Vortex what...ouch!

25th Oct 2001, 13:46

So glad the sexy pointy thing has finally made it back after all the setbacks. :)

While we have got the crew in here, how much fuel capacity was lost by fitting the armour to the tanks? Each piece looked quite substantial in size and would reduce the capacity some. Is the reduction a big deal for fuel management or relatively minor? I seem remember reading that Shannon had to be the primary destination for some transatlantic crossings to ensure the flight remained legal, then a divert was made to Heathrow.

Any enlightenment would be appreciated.

WOK

25th Oct 2001, 14:46

Loss of usable capacity is 2-400kgs, full tanks was 94630kgs (SG.79) prior to mods, so a negligible loss as you can see.

Vortex what...ouch!

25th Oct 2001, 14:54

The reduction is hardly worth mentioning really is it.

I am very envious of you crew. It Must be great to get up in the morning and go to work knowing you are going to fly Concorde today :)

Is it true it was once barrel rolled?

Tricky Woo

25th Oct 2001, 15:35

Also: Is it true that the Queen Mary cruise ship was once Eskimo rolled?

swashplate

25th Oct 2001, 15:58

PUKKA news about Concorde!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone got £5K I can borrow.....? :D :D :D

Think 707 prototype was barrel-rolled, dunno about Concorde.......

Slickster

25th Oct 2001, 17:15

Saw a TV programme a while back about concorde; BA concorde skipper explained how on test flight the testpilot did a roll one way, then invited him to unwind it the other way. So it must be true! :cool:

moggie

25th Oct 2001, 19:38

Delighted to see it back in the air - it may have been a commercial flop for BAC/Aerospatial but what a technological marvel. I see BA now reckon to push the service life to 2016 - that should give us a chance to see if Boeing's (sub)sonic cruiser comes anywhere near Concorde for grace, pace and class. No chance!

Please remeber all those of you who knock it that tech wise it is a 1960's design - and how many other 1960's designs are still carrying pax without having had major redesign work? Closest is the 737 but even that has new engines (apart from the old 200's that are now on borrowed time).

As for the fuel tank linings - I understand that weight wise the extra has been balanced out by the new lighter cabin fittings, so at least the ZFW is the same.

However, if BA really want to make a bigger profit then the crews should do the double crossing as a day trip! I used to do that in the RAF on VC10s - Wildenrath in Germany to Goose Bay in Canada AND BACK after turnround. Concorde to NY and back will take less time than Wildenrath-Goose-Wildenrath. So come on Nigel, stop tha captains slacking.

Seriously - welcome back chaps. It was/is a good money spinner and has a "rub off" effect on the rest of the company because it is so high profile. Annoying the nimbies, greens, Americans and jealous wannabes (CRP5 - you listening?) has just got to be an added bonus.

Long may she boom.

Edited for additional thoughts.

[ 25 October 2001: Message edited by: moggie ]