Demand for Concorde to fly again

[EGHI_or_bust]

Just spotted this on the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3946327.stm

[Konkordski]

Ain't gonna happen. Next topic.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

If only everyone on Pprune signed the petition.... Save the Concorde (http://www.save-concorde.co.uk/index2.htm)

[Codman]

There's a world of difference between signing a petition at an airshow and putting your hand in your pocket to produce the substantial donations required to acquire one of these and get it operational again.

Why should the government front the money for a scheme like this? Concorde was cutting edge technology in the 60's and although it remains a beautiful machine the economics behind its demise prove its lack of viability.

If enthusiasts want to try, all power to them but don't involve the taxpayers anymore.

[NigelOnDraft]

Wasn't the chance effectively lost shortly after the last (BA) flight?

I believe BA carried out some "preservative" maintenance which effectively made the aircraft much harder to ever restore to flying condition. Others might use a different phrase to "maintenance" <G>

NoD

[Konkordski]

...it was negative attitudes such as the one above...


My attitude isn't negative at all. I think it would be quite something to see Concorde in the air once more. But it's no more deserving of airworthy preservation than several other aircraft - such as the TSR2.

I despair at those who think that their total contribution to the effort should simply be a couple of thousand signatures on a piece of paper. Signatures amount to nothing - a petition is just a cheap way of avoiding responsibility for dealing with the problem by handing it to the Government.

It's this delusional attitude, the product of an apparent inability to accept the realities of the situation, which will keep Concorde firmly on the ground.

[411A]

What about the present fuel price then?
Would it be economical to operate Concorde under the present circumstances, indeed, was it ever economical, except in the 1960's, when it was designed?

Lets face facts here.
Concorde's time has come and gone....for good.

[dudduddud]

ya-ha and the 737 was just an alsoran?

[JW411]

I would be very happy to support a campaign to return Concorde back to the air as long as it doesn't cost me anything and I don't have to pay any more tax. In other words, I will sign a piece of paper and no more.

I have paid quite enough over the last 40-odd years subsidising its development and providing a very exclusive flying club for the very few.

Apart from anything else, the Navy seemed to have far too much control over flying the thing!

[Rushton]

Hmmm redirecting those MPs' expenses would be a nice way to start a Concorde fund.:)

Rushy

[sisyphus1965]

saskatoon

Not meaning to be pedantic but the Soviets built a VTOL jet fighter and the Tu144 was supersonic.

Unfortunately Concorde, for all it's grace and technical achievement, was a short cul-de-sac in the history of civil aviation. Just an other example of British elitism.

[Arkroyal]

dudd.................

ya-ha and the 737 was just an alsoran? Err yes actually it was. Nothing special at all, just numerous, like the VW beetle.

[MarchRide]

Someone above did mention the fact that taxpayers money should not be used to get Concorde airbourne again for airshows. However, the Red Arrows are obviously government funded, and I for one know which aircraft I would rather see at an airshow.

[Re-Heat]

Let the old girl rest in peace and dignity.

It cost us a fortune to develop and produce, produced profits only in the latter years of its life that have not covered the costs, and none of us will ever convince Airbus to release the design authority - nor have the expertise to run a single-aircraft operation of a highy complex aircraft that, until last year, had a huge support network that cannot be replicated safely as a charitable foundation.

The money should go to developing new technologies to keep Britain and Europe at the forefront of aerospace, not languishing in a backward-looking misty-eyed veneration of the past.

We need those in charge of aerospace to take the lead and develop the next flagships and technologies, and not squander that expertise on maintaining the past.

[PPRuNe Radar]

1st and only supersonic aircraft - Concorde

Apart from the Bell X-1 and all that followed after it of course ;)

[BEagle]

The only Concorde which might fly again is the one which, allegedly, the French are keeping at Le Bourget ready to fly within about 48 hours if M le President so desires....

It was bad enough that Skippy allowed ba's Concorde fleet to be killed off with such scandalous indecent haste, thus ensuring that no-one else could ever fly them, but seeing the odious Marshall droning on at the farewell event was the crowning turd in the water pipe. And why on earth have the few surviving aircraft been dispersed to such totally unsuitable venues as an old American aircraft carrier?

The appalling way ba treated Concorde in the last few months sums up all that is wrong with the lack of inspirational leadership in that wretched apology for an airline. Much as there was plenty to dislike Thatcher for, I get the feeling that Skippy would have been given a stand-up, no tea, no biscuits chat with her if she, rather than Bliar, had still been in charge. And she'd probably have told Les Grenouilles to give Airbus Toolooze a kick up the jacksie as well!

[TDK mk2]

Arkroyal:

I'll not have the Beetle and the 737 mentioned in the same sentence. If you want comparisons check out the Dassault Mercure...

[WG774]

Do correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that the engineering infrastructure on Concorde was not only highly unique, costly and requiring numerous personnel with type-specific skills, that the result of keeping 1 airworthy would mean you might as well keep a fleet airworthy.

The best hope IMHO would have been Capt. Brodie’s proposal for an Anglo-French consortium to maintain an operating fleet of 3? aircraft, with the higher mileage airframes on-hand for spares.

With the Internet being what it is, there have been rumours that the Le Bourget aircraft could take to the skies for publicity during the A380 launch; besides the statistical likelihood of such an occurrence being on a par with your Rocking Horse fouling the carpet, I’m not entirely convinced such a publicity flight would be entirely good taste…

I don’t think the Vulcan-to-the-sky campaign is an entirely accurate comparison in terms of complexity or safety statistics. I wouldn’t want to see the BA Concorde (say what you want about the suits in charge, the ground staff did a fine job IMHO) safety record compromised for low-level “fly-bys” (a task that particular airframe was definitely not designed for).


Let the old girl rest in peace and dignity.


Hear! Hear! :{

[MercenaryAli]

BA should be ashamed. Sir Richard Branson approached them prior to the retirement of Concord (English spelling) but they snubbed him.
BA behaved like a spoilt child who had a toy they no longer wanted but would rather destroy it than let someone else play with it!
Aviation vanalism then took place as BA destroyed parts of the aircraft to ensure nobody could ever fly them again,
What makes matter even more annoying to me is that the taxpayer paid for those aircraft and BA simply, tired of them, so threw them away!
I personally will never fly BA again! as a gesture!!

[BEagle]

Nor will I!

[Harrier46]

I for one would happily see my tax used for a worthwhile purpose such as getting Concorde airborne again rather than being spent on 600+ freeloaders in the Commons, massive payments to Brussels etc etc. Need I go on? Fact is if the government spent £50 million on Concorde nobody on this forum would notice any change in their tax. Who would rather consign our aviation heritage to museums while at the same time not uttering a peep about billions wasted by governments (I include the US in this also!) on rubbish most people don't even understand. We can all appreciate the beauty of Concorde, who can appreciate an extra subsidy to Brussels or an MPs new (voter funded) London pad!

Rant over!

[Caslance]

I for one would happily see my tax used for a worthwhile purpose such as getting Concorde airborne again Isn't that a self-contradictory statement? :confused:

[Hand Solo]

Oh dear, the usual suspects are back with their uninformed BA bashing.

The appalling way ba treated Concorde in the last few months

What, like flying her full every day, taking her to cities she hadn't been able to visit on a commercial basis for years, setting new transatlantic and transcontinental speed records for a commercial jet that will probably never be surpassed, conducting a farewell tour of the UK so tens of thousands could catch a glimpse who couldn't travel to London. Not to mention resisting the French pressure to retire her in May but holding out until Airbus pulled the plug so that thousands more could travel on her. Face it BEagle, if BA kept every Concorde flying, bought up the Air France aircraft, handed them to Virgin with unlimited free technical support, gave a million pounds to every household in the in the UK, paid off all third world debt and discovered Rod Eddington could pee an AIDS vaccine it still wouldn't be enough for you.

Mercenary Ali - extraordinarily wrong on almost very count. Branson made an approach to BA secure in the knowledge that he would NEVER have to make good on his PR stunt. The CAA said no way. Airbus said no way. The idea was dead long before it even got to BA. Branson was NEVER in a position to make good the proposition and well he knew it. BA had HUNDREDS of technical staff dedicated to Concorde with THOUSANDS of man-years of experience. They had developed their own tooling at their own expense over many years to maintain it. Over half of all BA engineering stores (for a fleet of 200+ aircraft) was Concorde spares. BOAC paid for the first few Concordes and bought the later ones at a token price on the basis that a large chunk of any profits (note the use of the word 'any' as profitablity was very far from assured) went to the government. BA later bought out the contract for a large sum of cash and set about making them profitable off their own bat. BA tired of the aircraft so threw them away? Do please join us in the real world. The aircraft went because it's core customer market disappeared after Sept 11th. Many of its best customers died in the attacks. The remainder told BA in no uncertain times that in the prevailing business climate they could neither fly nor be seen to fly Concorde. Even it if only cost a First class fare. Even if we gave them the tickets for free. The image of luxurious business travel was out of favour for the foreseeable future with the only people who could afford to support the aircraft. Throw in the decision of Air France to scrap the aircraft pre-privatisation and the refusal of Airbus to either support the aircraft or release the design authority at anything lke a commercialy viable fee and the whole project was doomed. Branson knew this only too well, but figured he could lure the gullible and uninformed into believing that he could deliver. I guess thats why he's the billionairre.

Oh I thought I'd add BA didn't destroy parts so nobody could fly the aircraft again. They drained the oil and hydraulics systems so they wouldn't leak toxic fluids, they removed pressurised components to eliminate the risk of explosion as they corroded, they removed the batteries for similar reasons and blanked the ground power connection to ensure nobody could connect a GPU 'just to see what happens' and set fire to the damn thing. Coming from the land of litigation I'd have thought you'd have considered that.

[niknak]

I understand that when it came down to it, Branson's "bid" to get one of the Concorde back into the air consisted of a lot of his (probably well meant) PR/spin, but had no real financial commitment behind it.
I doubt that even he could have privately funded one aircraft to operate on the display circuit, never mind keep it in sufficiant condition for passenger charters, if that were the case, there are far richer folk than he who would have done so already.

I can't think of a single aircraft on the display circuit which operates with contributions from Gordon Brown, nor can I think why we should fund any.

[maxalt]

I understand that when it came down to it, Branson's "bid" to get one of the Concorde back into the air consisted of a lot of his (probably well meant) PR/spin, but had no real financial commitment behind it.

Why didn't BA just call his bluff then. They could have handed him a hot potato that could ruin his reputation and make him bankrupt (if you believe whats written here).

I'm sure that'd have been worth a laugh for BA.

[BEagle]

Methinks hand-solo doth protest too much......

[Anti-ice]

Very comprehensive answer BEagle. NOT.

Branson is all about PR hype and not much more.

He can't even pay his staff a decent salary , let alone keep aloft an aged and extremely expensive supersonic airliner.

BA did ALL they could to get Concorde back in the air after the Air France tragedy, spending £,000s on not only technical upgrades, but complete new amazing cabins and retraining etc...
They regularly invited her regular customers to come and see these developments before recertification , and certainly wanted to see her fly long into the future.

It was only the fact that bookings/revenue didn't hold out in the following months, and the fact that AF withdrew their fleet, thereby signing the deathnail ,as Airbus were no longer willing to support it technically that BA reluctantly had to do the same.

Perhaps you now have the real facts, you may see things differently, though it appears you have a loathing for BA anyway......

[MercenaryAli]

BA, Air France and Airbus Industries connived long before the announcement was made to ensure that NOBODY could ever fly Concorde as BA and AF had decided to ground their fleets.

Methinks you protest too much and anyway it is and will go down in histrory, as Aviation Vandalism to destroy these wonderful aircraft.

Since we pay Brussels £14million a day yes! a day for nothing much more than over regulation, a nanny state and complete and utter interference in our sovereign matters (EU costs us about 4% of GDP - EU Commision's own bean counters figures not mine) some money spent on Concorde would be worth every penny and I do not believe one word of your BA propaganda that Sir Richard Branson never had any intention of operating the aircraft had he been given a chance. I wrote to him and received a very nice reply, he had even offered BA a joint BA/Virgin effort to keep one or two airborne but NO ! BA vandalised them !!

I rest my case and will never fly BA again!!

[BEagle]

Anti-Ice, my opinion of ba stems directly from the utterly despicable 'Dirty Tricks' era..........

Sir Richard Branson once said that the only thing he admired ba for was Concorde. I agree - and now that Skippy has killed off Concorde, there's nothing at all to admire them for.

[Skylion]

Dirty Tricks? Hmm. Nothing was ever proved other than BA too timid to properly refute the allegations, which should have been robustly attacked. A number of the alleged filmed events later turned out to be " reconstructions".

As for Concorde itself, BA had no option but to discontinue having single handedly fought to get it back in the air after the Paris crash. As others have recorded above, the core market had disappeared and the high loads of the final few months were artificially generated by the one-off " must fly on it before it goes" market.

Throughout its career, BA, unlike AF, had fought to create new markets , including the worldwide charters, and persued its commercial success with huge energy. To turn away from being a BA customer in protest at their performance in this respect makes no sense at all. Virgin could never have operated it and its unlikely that they ever wanted to. The PR coup was enough.

[dudduddud]

Sorry guys but ah... wouldnt common mean numerous? I'm sure there are many more 737's in service than airbus A32 family.

I'm not a UK taxpayer but if i was and i was a pensioner knocked back on the hip replacement queue when HM govt was paying millions to restore Concord to entertain at airshows, i would be mighty pissed.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Dirty Tricks? Hmm. Nothing was ever proved other than BA too timid to properly refute the allegations, which should have been robustly attacked. A number of the alleged filmed events later turned out to be " reconstructions".


A very expensive and strange way to run a business if you have done nothing wrong !!

1993: BA dirty tricks against Virgin cost £3m

British Airways has ended one of the most bitter and protracted libel actions in aviation history in a humiliating climb-down.
At the High Court Christopher Clarke QC, counsel for BA, apologised "unreservedly" for an alleged "dirty tricks" campaign against Virgin Atlantic.

BA also agreed to pay damages of £500,000 to Virgin boss Richard Branson and £110,000 to his airline, as well as incurring legal costs of up to £3m.

Counsel for Virgin and Mr Branson, George Carman QC, had told Mr Justice Drake of "distinctly hostile" rumours that had been circulating about his client.

The traditional rivalry between the two airlines intensified from July 1991 when Virgin moved the centre of its operations from Heathrow to Gatwick, in direct competition with BA.

'Sharp business practices'

By October Mr Branson had accumulated evidence of BA employees poaching Virgin customers and tampering with confidential company files.

He also claimed that BA's PR consultant, Brian Basham, had been undermining him and his company's reputation in the City and the press.

Mr Branson confronted BA's non-executive directors about these "sharp business practises" in an open letter. They dismissed the allegations and said he was simply seeking publicity.

In February 1992, after an investigative report by Thames Television, BA bosses, including chairman Lord King, repeated their claims that Virgin was "securing publicity" in an internal magazine and various letters.

These written statements formed the basis of Mr Branson's libel case. BA and Lord King then counter-sued over Mr Branson's original allegations.

The counter-claim was also withdrawn today.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I'm not a UK taxpayer but if i was and i was a pensioner knocked back on the hip replacement queue when HM govt was paying millions to restore Concord to entertain at airshows, i would be mighty pissed.

You may be interested to know, dudduddud, that in UK parlance that means you'd be very drunk. ;)

But perhaps that was your meaning? (sorry, feeling pedantic tonight :cool: ).

As far as dear old Concorde goes, I was sad to see her go and treasure my one and only (jump seat) flight on her. I'm involved with showing folks around G-BOAC at Manchester and the more I learn about this fanatasic machine (from ex-Conc air and ground crew, as well as loads of other sources) the more it amazes and impresses me. It is very, very complex. And then some. In many ways it is more like a space rocket than an aeroplane.

The work that went into its development must have been mind boggling - I take my hat off to the guys that designed and built it back in the 60s and 70s. I'm frankly surprised it was kept in service as long as it was, such a complex, unique, and (let's face it) aging old lady she was.

SSD

[gordonroxburgh]

The only Concorde which might fly again is the one which, allegedly, the French are keeping at Le Bourget ready to fly within about 48 hours if M le President so desires....

That will be the one then where the Air and Space museum took the wall down of the Concorde hall (where prototype F-WTSS is), to get Concorde F-BTSD in.......and then put the wall back up

[Taildragger67]

M. Ali,

Isn't it a bit hard for one to 'vandalise' something to which one already has legal title to?

ATEOTD, the BA board have a legal duty to maximise shareholder value, as long as they and their company don't break any other laws. So if the resources involved in keeping Concorde (and that's the actual name of the type, agreed by the English, irrespective of any similar word in any language) operational are not earning the best rate of return that they can, then the BA board and management must deploy the resources elsewhere, or face being fined and/or thrown in the clink. That is the law; if you don't like it, you're welcome to lobby your MP (or try to become one yourself) and change it.

To say that BA management retired Concorde just to be bloody-minded is further misguided as the type was a massive PR draw for the airline. That is why BA have for years paid for the model at the entrance to the M4 spur tunnel and why there is a real one parked mid-field at Heathrow. It also explains why BA have retained legal ownership of all their airframes, which are to be kept in BA colours - it's free marketing, very attractive to any company.

But that level of free marketing is limited to a very few places; the marketing coming from flying over many other cities would have been even greater (and has been over the years).

So on many levels, there were strong commercial arguments to keep the type flying - hence it must (by the legal necessity I have mentioned) have been an even more compelling one to ground it.

Such a compelling argument would have been the withdrawal, by Airbus, of its type certificate - hence making it illegal for BA to fly the type even if it had wanted to. Same thing the Vulcan faces.

Personally, I would love to see Concorde fly again - it's the sexiest bit of kit ever to fly and it's one of those things which looks as if it's going fast even when standing forlornly in the rain on 23. I'll never forget flying in it or feeling the whole 747 rumble when it departed ahead of us.

But these days, commercial reality can dictate otherwise. 707s are also deserving of preservation and our undying love but plenty of those are rusting off backwater taxiways. They are no longer in widespread service because there are types able to do the same job, which is moving people and freight, cheaper.

Maybe if GE, RR and PW can come up with supersonic-capable engines which offer similar operating economics to Trents, GE90s etc. then we'll see them retrofitted into the old girl - especially if we can all sign disclaimers, agreeing not to sue if it all goes pear-shaped, so that the insurance industry take its ever-greater slice of the pie.

[Cornholio]

It was bad enough that Skippy allowed ba's Concord fleet to be killed off Well he shafted thousands of AN and CX folk, why should poms be treated any different. (by the way, don’t send him back… taaa.)

Let the Cooncords rot in peace, soon all those needy families will have their much-needed second frying pan in the house hold. Good riddance to an old dinosaur.

If it came down to the Concords or the red arrows, who are also past their prime, I’d vote to send the cash to the yanks and have the blue angels come over a few times a year. Now there’s a team/aircraft/display. Or the Chunderbirds.

:ok:

[Re-Heat]

Except that Hawks are still in production.

[ZQA297/30]

History, technology, so what?
And who needs the silly airshows anyway? Just a bunch of showoffs doing useless and dangerous stunts. What does that contribute to the national economy, I ask.

Then there's Christmas, all those presents-a waste of money if ever there was one.

:* :* Bah Humbug!

Bottom line rules.
Down with waste.

It's all about the oil, stupid! ;)

Scrooge for PM.

Your friend,
The Grinch.

[Taildragger67]

Cornholio,

Isn't it TV, not TP?

If the latter, what does 'TP' stand for?

[Beechsim]

Hmm, well, maybe get one into taxying condition? AT least we could all see and hear it run and maybe our kids could marvel at a piece of history.

Please don't rip me to pieces, I'm just an aircraft enthusiast who would like my kids and others to enjoy a piece of aviation/technological history. Perhaps that's rather more emotion that good economical sense, but you could say that about a lot of old aircraft.

I don't mind mind paying for the BBMF( an example), and yes I know that's a bit different , as I make sure I educate my children to know.

[Cornholio]

I really have no idea. I thought it was "TV" too but I did a google and sure enough..........

[Jerricho]

As arguing over the demise of Concorde is over................AGAIN.

Cornholio wanted "TP" or toilet paper, for his bunghole. Stemmed from a very early episode of Beavis and Butthead where one of their friends, Stewart, had a bad case of diarrhea (sp!). The boys visit Stewart and Stewart's mother feeds them breakfast, which they don' t like, so they ransack the kitchen. Beavis then eats some sugar and has "a sugar fit".

The next time we see this is in the movie "Beavis and Butthead Do America", where Beavis consumes too many sweets given to him by the lady sitting next to him on a plane, and the might Cornholio makes an appearance.

It is nothing to be ashamed of!

[The Right Stuff]

Concorde: what a waste

Does Concorde belong to the public, since it was bought when British Airways was a public corporation?
Our shareholders purchased British Airways from the government for over GBP900 million, including the Concorde fleet. British Airways is the owner and operator of the UK Concorde fleet.
The latest statement issued by DTI states: "It is not for this Department or the government to either make decisions on either the cessation of Concorde services or the disposal of the aircraft concerned."

Is there a clause in the sale agreement which states that if British Airways was to go out of business then another British carrier should be allowed to operate the Concorde fleet?
We cannot find such a provision in the sale agreement and in any case, British Airways is not going out of business.

Concorde is seen as a 'state asset' therefore does another operator have the right to buy it?
The government sold its interest in the airline in 1987 when it privatised British Airways and collected the entire proceeds, more than GBP900 million. Our shareholders purchased British Airways, including Concorde. We are the owner and operator of the UK Concorde fleet.
The latest statement from the DTI clarifies the situation: "It is not for this Department or for the Government to make a decision on either the cessation of Concorde services or the disposal of the aircraft concerned."

Could the full fleet still be flying in 20 to 25 years?
Airbus specifies the maintenance regime and supplies spare parts which make Concorde fly. Airbus has made it clear that it will not support Concorde operations, by any airline, beyond October 2003.
Noel Forgeard, Airbus chief executive is quoted recently in the Financial Times : "The costs of operating Concorde, and in particular maintenance and support, have become such that operations are unrealistic for any operator."

Did Concorde cost the British public billions of pounds to develop?
We do not know what it cost the governments - the development of Concorde was a joint decision taken by the French and British governments in the early 1960s.

Does Airbus have an obligation to maintain the fleet if another British airline wants to take the plane over under a treaty between Britain and France signed in 1962?
We can find no such clause in our copy of the 1962 treaty between the French and British governments.

Was the GBP155m purchase price funded by a government loan, which was subsequently written off when British Airways was privatised?
The proceeds raised from privatisation, in excess of GBP900 million, more than covered the government's investment in British Airways, including the Concorde fleet.



Could the Government force British Airways to sell the Concorde fleet?
The latest statement issued by the DTI says: "It is not for this department or for the government to make a decision on either the cessation of Concorde services or the disposal of the aircraft concerned.
The government sold its interest in the airline when it collected more than GBP900 million from the privatisation of British Airways in 1987."


Did British Airways offer to sell a redundant Concorde to a music industry figure?
We have not offered to sell Concorde to anyone.
Was it a mistake to re-launch?
Absolutely not. At the time of re-launch, there was no way of knowing that the downturn in business and premium travel would take effect to the extent it has. Indeed, for a period after the re-launch, services were profitable.
Modification work and testing programmes were virtually complete and paid for by the time of the tragic September 11 terrorist attacks, which also impacted negatively on business travel greatly.
Is the retirement announcement about safety?
Absolutely not. It is purely a commercial decision based on the significant downturn in demand coupled with the rising costs of maintenance.

Is this announcement related to the Air France crash?
Absolutely not. Today's decision was not based on any safety concerns. It is solely a commercial decision based on our assessment of the long-term commercial viability of the Concorde service. If we had any doubt about the safety of any of our aircraft we would not fly them.


In short:

BA says it’s uneconomic to run.
The DTI says it’s nothing to do with us.
Airbus says we’re not going to make spares for it anymore.

This all stems from the privatisation of BA in 1987.

Noel Forgeard, Airbus chief executive is quoted recently in the Financial Times : "The costs of operating Concorde, and in particular maintenance and support, have become such that operations are unrealistic for any operator."

Wasn’t this man in charge of the spares prices?


The result:

Britain has lost it’s premier state engineering asset, not because it’s worn out, been superceded, or no longer fit for purpose.

:sad:

[411A]

< Britian has lost its premier state engineering asset >

It did?

Thought this happened when RADAR was invented.

[Globaliser]

maxalt: Why didn't BA just call his bluff then. They could have handed him a hot potato that could ruin his reputation and make him bankrupt (if you believe whats written here).Because if it had happened, it would have been obvious to everyone that palming off an uneconomic Concorde onto VS would have been yet another dirty trick played by BA on that poor unsuspecting company to bring it to its knees, compounded by the knavish schadenfreude of BA saying "We told you so."

That's the reality of asymmetric media coverage, and I have a suspicion that BA were wise enough to realise this and take the flak now, rather than later.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
maxalt: Why didn't BA just call his bluff then. They could have handed him a hot potato that could ruin his reputation and make him bankrupt (if you believe whats written here).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If BA had handed them to Virgin, they still wouldn't have flown for all the reasons stated already on here. But Branson could have played that as 'not fair, they won't let me fly them, but at least I tried', then handed them on to the museums - after painting them in Virgin colours, of course ;)

SSD

[gordonroxburgh]

BA invested over £30M in the upgrades when she was put back into service (cabin and safety mods), none of which was recovered. This was written off along with the spares holdings to the tune of £84M in 2003.

Now we never heard VS offering to pay BA for any of this, I think the most they got to was £5m for the 5 serviceable aircraft.

It may have been different if SRB had put his money where his mouth was. BA may have listened if he had made offers for the spares and paid for the mods. they may have then come to agreement on the aircraft, but he came out and said he wanted the 2 (3, inc G-BBDG) unserviceable aircraft and all the spares for free!

[BikerMark]

All the foregoing discussion is very reminiscent of when BR announced the death of steam.

[BEagle]

Hardly - the replacement locomotives were somewhat quicker, though less romantic. And if I recall correctly, they often broke down in the early days on Western Region. We used to stand at the platform edge waiting for the London train from Taunton hoping that it would be steam hauled "Ohh - it's a diesel" was the disappointed comment we'd make if it wasn't steam hauled....

But with Concorde no longer flying, it's more like turning the clock back to a previous era.

Concorde was peerless when she first flew. Remember how inferior the contemporary 707/DC8/VC10s were compared to today's 330/340/744 aircraft? Or how awful your car was compared to the one you drive today? And yet even after her last flight, there was nothing to touch her.....

As I've said before, if that old dragon with the handbag had still been running things in No 10, then Skippy and the Frogs would have been in for a no tea, no biscuits chat pretty sharpish and Concorde would probably still be flying.