Concorde to the sky?

[javelin]

If you think that the Vulcan flying is good - look at this !

CONCORDE FANS HOPE FOR LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT
British fans of the Concorde are not giving up in the fight to restore one of the elegant birds to airworthy condition, and they are focusing on the London Olympics of 2012 as an event that deserves to be commemorated with a Concorde fly-by. Last week, they won some support in the British House of Commons when a bill was introduced that would promote the maintenance and preservation of "certain vehicles of cultural value." The legislation, if it passes, would authorize the restoration of a Concorde to airworthy condition for use on ceremonial occasions. Britain's Save Concorde Group is encouraged by support for new legislation.

[Groundloop]

"maintenance and preservation" is a lot different to "restoration to airworthy condition".

Not a chance of Concorde flying again!

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Does this mean I'll have to buy another hat so i can eat that one as well as the one I'll eat when the Vulcan flies in 2 months time?

Maybe we can lobby Parliament to approve legislation to get the Titanic raised and get that seaworthy again, in time for the 2012 olympics?

Dreamers.......:ugh:

[flipflopman RB199]

Does this mean I'll have to buy another hat so i can eat that one as well as the one I'll eat when the Vulcan flies in 2 months time?


XH558 won't be flying in 2 months time "Chuffer", but I'd save that hat and the sarcastic comments for a little later, where you can enjoy eating them both at your leisure.

Chimp.......:ugh:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I've been an aircraft lover all my life, as is my wife. I worked with Concorde for 30+ years and shed a few tears when we saw the last take off. I can also remember Vulcans and recall the sound and the sheer beauty of the machines. But, I no longer agree with spending millions in restoring these aircraft to airworthiness. Supposing they did fly again, how much more is needed to retain them in airworthy condition and fly them regularly? The miond boggles.

God forbid but maybe one day, those who want to keep filling bottomless pits with cash might have relatives with incurable diseases.... then they might think again where their monies would be better spent.

[doubleu-anker]

The Concord could still be flying now if Branson had his way.

Strange thing is, that BA and AF and along with the builder, were given the the A/C in the first place, yet they were entrusted with the ultimate desision to take them out of the air IIRC.

[TimS]

Branson had no intention of operating Concorde -he knew it was impossible - so simply took a shed load of free publicity and goodwill without risking, let alone spending, a penny (something he is very, very good at).

[Globaliser]

The Concord could still be flying now if Branson had his way.

Strange thing is, that BA and AF and along with the builder, were given the the A/C in the first place, yet they were entrusted with the ultimate desision to take them out of the air IIRC.Wow, very good at swallowing PR-issued fiction, aren't you?

[doubleu-anker]

If that were the case AF and BA could have told RB to "put your money where your mouth is" IE., called his bluff. They didn't, so if what you are implying is correct, they missed a Golden opportunity to shut him up.
Think you will find BA and AF would rather have burnt the Concords rather than let RB get his hands on them.
Don't believe all you read and hear.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The Concord could still be flying now if Branson had his way.
Strange thing is, that BA and AF and along with the builder, were given the the A/C in the first place, yet they were entrusted with the ultimate desision to take them out of the air IIRC.

I am absolutely amazed at the number of people who actually beleive that!

Good marketing guy, the bearded one. :rolleyes:

[gordonroxburgh]

After a few weeks of talking about saving Concorde when BA announced the a/c's retirement, Branson went quiet....why?......because his people did the research and found out the costs!

The aircraft are Museum exhibits now and modified suitably to allow visitor access, If you had one flying that would deprive the public getting on board.

The aircraft are being preserved for the long term, not to showboat sloowwwlllyyy around airshows for 5-10 years.

[Trident man]

Spot on Gordon,i could not agree more.:rolleyes:

[Synthetic]

God forbid but maybe one day, those who want to keep filling bottomless pits with cash might have relatives with incurable diseases.... then they might think again where their monies would be better spent.

Surely the exact point of the HLF is to preserve our heritage.

We pay taxes and make donations to specific charities to look after those who have medical problems. The truth is that the gopherment waste our taxes on self preservation, ineffective policies and one generation of no-hopers begeting the next, therefore they cannot finance a decent NHS.

Branson had no intention of operating Concorde -he knew it was impossible - so simply took a shed load of free publicity and goodwill without risking, let alone spending, a penny (something he is very, very good at).

While I suspect this is true, I'm with doubleu-anker in wanderig why BA missed the oppertunity to call Branson's bluff, with all the dammage having to back down would cause to him.

To all of us who will probably never know the whole truth, I suggest the file be closed under the heading 'Politics kills engineering triumph'.

As to XH558, I hope there is a better chance.:sad:

[Fokkerwokker]

Instead of putting the two noisy fourjets back in the sky how about a wishlist of getting some other historical aircraft back in the sky for a fraction of the cost?

Suggestions?

My wishlist:

Blenheim (Ongoing but scratching for cash)
Mosquito
Sunderland
All realistic projects methinks?

[Synthetic]

Hi FW

In a perfect world I think the answer would be "all of the above".:\

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I'm with doubleu-anker in wanderig why BA missed the oppertunity to call Branson's bluff, with all the dammage having to back down would cause to him.


He'd have had the Concordes painted in Virgin colours, then 'discovered' that the manufacturer couldn't be persuaded to support further Concorde flight, so he'd say 'I tried but it just wasn't possible'. He'd have still been a hero in the eyes of the public for 'having a go' to keep the birds flying, and the Concordes would have gone to the museums in Virgin colours!

BA weren't about to let that happen!

[Synthetic]

Hi SSD

The honest truth is that I do not have the evidence to confirm or contradict what you say.

Bottom line - as far as I am concerned, loss of the Vulcan or the Concord is sad.

[doubleu-anker]

SSD

If all the sceptics and profits of doom had their way, they would say to the proposal of building a supersonic airliner, "it can't be done". Well it was done and someone pulled the plug and now the A/C that were serviceable (not on the drawing board) have been grounded. Are you trying to tell me "it can't be done" with reference to putting the thing back into the air? I think it can be done.

Ever heard of the story "The murder of the TSR2"? Might pay you to have a read of it, then you will find it was a Labour government that presided over that fiasco also.

[Groundloop]

SSD

Ever heard of the story "The murder of the TSR2"? Might pay you to have a read of it, then you will find it was a Labour government that presided over that fiasco also.

Now, I know old T. Bliar gets blamed for a lot of things these days - BUT the ending of Concorde services!!!???

[windriver]

Fascinating thread...

Assumimg for a moment that messrs Gates, Branson, Sugar, Brunei, Lottery, Dragons and Brown got together to help pay to to get Concorde back in the air...

In there a UK airfield it could operate from as a permanent base? (thinking performance, hangarage,environment, nimby etc etc ...)

[doubleu-anker]

What about Heathrow? Worked well out of there for 20+ years.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Now, I know old T. Bliar gets blamed for a lot of things these days - BUT the ending of Concorde services!!!???
Groundloop - it may come as a surprise to you, but there were Labour governments before BLiar's one. Their track record is why those of us old enough to remember them cried into our beer when BLiar's lot were elected by an electrorate largely too young to remember.....

SSD

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

SSD
If all the sceptics and profits of doom had their way, they would say to the proposal of building a supersonic airliner, "it can't be done". Well it was done and someone pulled the plug and now the A/C that were serviceable (not on the drawing board) have been grounded. Are you trying to tell me "it can't be done" with reference to putting the thing back into the air? I think it can be done.
Ever heard of the story "The murder of the TSR2"? Might pay you to have a read of it, then you will find it was a Labour government that presided over that fiasco also.

da - just where did I say it couldn't be done? Of course it could - it was done once, it could be done again. Who would pay the billions it would take is altogether another question.

Please check other's posts in future before crtitcising them.

SSD

[Flying Lawyer]

I am absolutely amazed at the number of people who actually beleive that!

Good marketing guy, the bearded one. :rolleyes:

It's possible that it was just a PR exercise, but I don't think it was.
He had several meetings with some very senior and experienced Concorde people, some ex BA Concorde fleet and some current (pilots and engineeering). You may be 'absolutely amazed', but my contact who was approached by Branson and had discussions with him had no doubt his investigation into the feasibility was genuine, and he's no gullible fool - far from it, one of the shrewdest men I know.
I don't think there's any doubt whatsoever that politics played a significant part in the Concorde's demise - Air France needed to dump it and wouldn't have wanted BA continuing. But, the design authority also wanted it taken out of service and wouldn't have supported Branson.
The question to which we'll never know the answer for sure is what their attitude would have been if it had been AF who wanted to continue. (But we can have our suspicions. ;) )
Sadly, I don't think it will ever fly again.


Although I'd love to see a Vulcan fly again and hope it will, I can see the force of Fokker Wokker's point, and I have an affection for the Mosquito in particular. I had a ride in the BAe aircraft during an a display at an airshow in the mid 80s - when such things were allowed. Wonderful aeroplane and an experience to remember.
That said, I'm torn because I think we should keep historic jets in flying state to pass on to future generations as part of our aviation heritage. Aircraft are build to be flown, not on static display in some museum.

Government money to help preserve our aviation heritage?
Yes, provided the aircraft is publicly owned, or owned by a charitable trust structured so that no-one can take any money out. I have strong reservations about public money being put into private ventures.

I feel the same way about certain owners (thankfully a minority) collecting money from enthusiasts at airshows to 'Keep the X flying' etc - when the overwhelming majority of those enthusiasts who donate to a 'good cause' have nowhere near the owner's wealth and don't realise what they are actually doing is subsidising the owner's flying and helping them keep an ever-increasing asset which they'll sell for a fortune when they are ready to retire.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Air France needed to dump it and wouldn't have wanted BA continuing. But, the design authority also wanted it taken out of service and wouldn't have supported Branson.


FL - interesting post - I've never before heard how far Branson went in serious discussions on keeping Concorde flying. However, you quite rightly make the point that the Design Authority wanted out, and that was an insurmountable obstacle. Branson must have known this (he's no fool either), which is why I think the whole thing was a Virgin / Branson publicity excercise.

The lack of support from the Design Authority is, in my opinion, the one obstacle to return to flight that is probably insurmountable, even if money was no object (which, of course, it always is). But everyone has their price, and I think that's where any 'return-to-flight' budget would reach into the billions - getting EADS on board again.

SSD

[Groundloop]

Groundloop - it may come as a surprise to you, but there were Labour governments before BLiar's one. Their track record is why those of us old enough to remember them cried into our beer when BLiar's lot were elected by an electrorate largely too young to remember.....
SSD
SSD, I hate to admit it but I CAN remember the Wilson Government being elected and the TSR-2 decision. The point of my post is the seemingly incredible blaming of Labour for the end of Concorde.
In fact, it was actually a Labour Government, principally through a certain Anthony Wedgewood-Benn (anyone else remember his pre "Tony Benn" days) who actually saved Concorde from cancellation. It did help that Benn's constituency covered a large part of Bristol, I suppose!!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

SSD, I hate to admit it but I CAN remember the Wilson Government being elected and the TSR-2 decision. The point of my post is the seemingly incredible blaming of Labour for the end of Concorde.
In fact, it was actually a Labour Government, principally through a certain Anthony Wedgewood-Benn (anyone else remember his pre "Tony Benn" days) who actually saved Concorde from cancellation. It did help that Benn's constituency covered a large part of Bristol, I suppose!!


Indeed, Benn has always been a great supporter of Concorde and the cynic in me says that's because it was produced in his constituency. But That may be doing him a dis-service. He is certainly very enthusiastic about the aeroplane in the 'BA Tribute' video produced when she stopped flying.

It was Conservative minister Julian Amery who devised the 'both sides locked in' contract with the French, ironically to prevent the French pulling out and leaving Britain with all the costs. In fact, it was us Brits who later wanted out (including Dennis Healy wanting to cancel it along with TSR2), but that same contract locked us in. Thankfully! :)

SSD

[Octane]

No laughing please! Just curious, could there possibly be any military application for concorde? I wasn't thinking of fitting a bomb bay necessarily! More thinking of payload and range at high speed?

Octane

[Groundloop]

Actually Fillton was not in Benn's constituency - but a lot of BAC workers homes were!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Actually Fillton was not in Benn's constituency - but a lot of BAC workers homes were!

I stand corrected. :)

SSD

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

No laughing please! Just curious, could there possibly be any military application for concorde? I wasn't thinking of fitting a bomb bay necessarily! More thinking of payload and range at high speed?
Octane

She could carry 100 passengers at mach 2.02 for up to 4.5 hours, so presumably could have been used as a bomber. Certainly no military aeroplane before or since has that speed combined with that range without in-flight refuelling. I do remember seeing, back in the '60s before Concorde flew, an artist's impression of a Conc wearing RAF colours, so someone was thinking of it.

However, by the time she could have been developed as a bomber, the nuclear deterant had been passed to the Navy subs (high altitude aeroplanes being no longer safe from shoot-down), and in-flight refuelling was a regular military practice, so there probably wasn't a military role for her.

SSD

[cessna l plate]

I think there is a crossed purpose amongst some posters here. What we are talking about is getting a concorde back into the skies as a tribute to those that designed and built her, and to celebrate the finest engineers of their generation who overcame all the "cannot be done" obstacles to actually get it done. A display of true grit and determination if you like, and that isn't forgetting that the French did have more than a passing interest in the design & build as well. But to look at the British angle it was a one off, and something that the British nation should be proud of! Like him or loath him, Jeremy Clarkson has it right when he says that something that well engineered has a soul of it own!

But let's forget about the sentimentality of getting her in the air again, we are not talking about putting paying passengers on board, and re-starting BA001/002 every day. We are talking about an aircraft flown to please the crowds at airshows. No-one suggest that we return the spitfire to front line service, but we are happy to see them flying at displays all around the country in the summer, in that we as a nation can pay tribute to a machine that we in fact owe a great deal to, and the same rule of thumb applies, and that being the case, then surely Concorde can return to flight on a "permit". If this is possible, then why not. Let us not forget that according to a recent thread on the site that the French are continually ensuring that one is available should the need arise. Perhaps the time to start doing that is now. I understand that all the machines are without the engines and certain other parts, apart from AC at Manchester that by all accounts is still fully equipped. So why not?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Passengers or no, makes no difference. She's either legal and safe for flight or she isn't.

SSD

[mfaff]

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...?

[Globaliser]

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...In addition to this, one shouldn't forget the revenue side of BA's operation. As I understand it, this was badly affected by the events of 11 September 2001, sadly in a very direct way. Although the Concorde operation re-started afterwards, there was never a replacement for the lost demand from that customer, so that the double daily was never again viable. And with only a daily service, some more of Concorde's commercial appeal was lost.

[cessna l plate]

As I said, I am not expecting our taxes to be frittered away (more than they are already) on providing an airframe for public transport. But surely there must be some way of getting one up again for airshows and other public display, and is that not what this new law is about??

I totally understand traceablility (I work as a CRS inspector amongst other things I do) and agree that a lot of the parts are out of those limits now, especially as most of it went onto e-bay. However, if the needed parts could be aquired, then surely all they need is a full inspection against the relevant CMM to ensure cmpliance with the design standard ??

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

clp - To fly a complex aeroplane like Concorde (and they don't come any more complex than that) you need manufacturer support. Not only (as BA and AF did) to keep her flying, but also as part of the re-certification process with the CAA.

As I said before, there is no 'reduced requirement' for non-passenger flights. She would have to be fully re-certificated for flight (type certificate, C of A) or remain grounded. She would not qualify for a permit. Cricky, the CAA won't even let a Lightning fly again - and that is a tiny fraction as complex as a Concorde.;)

[betterfromabove]

Was amazed to read it as anyone, ...but read in the French press a few weeks ago that the AF Concorde at Le Bourget is indeed being maintained with a long-term possibility to it flying again.

Article concerned a female AF engineer who previously worked on the fleet & now pops over to Le Bourget (once a week I think it was...) to conduct the work.

Anyone else know any more about this...? Is it an AF-sponsored intiative or pure volunteer effort??

Struck me as all the more strange since there is practically no talk of this & far less interest in the topic this side of the Channel...

[Flying Lawyer]

Shaggy Sheep Driver

"an insurmountable obstacle. Branson must have known this"
I didn’t say there was an insurmountable obstacle. As mfaff points out, there is more than one way of complying with an obligation. See his paragraph beginning ‘What is more difficult to know ......’
It would be a mistake to assume that, at the time Branson talked about Virgin taking over Concorde, he knew what we all learned later. Many share your view, especially those who don’t care for him. I’ve said all I properly can without asking my contact how much I’m allowed to repeat, but what I've said isn't based on a hunch.

mfaffAn 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. I happened to be sitting next to a senior chap from Airbus at the RAeS Centenary of Flight dinner who worked in the department directly relevant to this subject. He put forward very compelling arguments (although he didn’t change my mind as a committed Concorde fan) which were broadly what you suggest. In a nutshell - as Concorde got older, Airbus was spending more time on Concorde DA matters than on all the other models (combined) for which they are the DA. And, that they were effectively subsidising BA/AF ops by not charging the full cost. He conceded Concorde had another 8, possibly 10, years life left and, had BA and AF both wanted to continue, not only would the bare obligations have been honoured but they would have continued to assist as before. I assume the profits from supplying/supporting the Airbus fleets of both airlines would have been a factor in that.

Globaliser
You're right about the passenger loads/revenue when ops resumed post crash - a number of different factors, not all related to the crash. However, in stark contrast to AF, BA's Concorde fleet had previously consistently made a profit. Those in BA in a position to make an informed assessment were divided about whether BA could weather the fall in revenue. The decision was overtaken by events when AF pulled out, so we'll never know.

[mfaff]

FL,

Your comments complete the 'circle' as it were. It would appear that had the demand (and hence finances) been there Airbus would have supported Concorde ops as long as was reasonable...rather than a 'vendetta' against her...
Thanks.


Better,

Le Bourget has two Concordes within its very confined Concorde display Hall.

In order to get one outside they would need to remove a 'fixed' wall, which they did to get the production bird in after retirement.
Secondly there is a small team of AF/ ex-Af and other volunteers who maintain a very few and very limited number of native systems in limited operation using no native power souces.
This is more akin to a moving museum display than an active or even live aircraft. Its better than nothing for sure, but in no way reduces the potential demands to return her to flight.

CLP,

You will probably know more than me, but repurchasing items and tryin to get them re certified seems like a fraught route to me..can this really be done to full C of A status....unlike getting bits of a Spit overhauled etc this is full certification....

GLobaliser,

Absolutely correct. Diminishing revenues and worse a prediction of further reductions meant that the additional 'fixed' cost would negate any operating profit for the programme.
I know that major (and possibly individual) shareholders would not have been impressed had BA continued to operate Concorde at a loss, evne when their own predictions showed no return to profit in the future.

We may decry the retirement (and I'm one who misses her every single day... no 5.25pm walk outside to see her fly over head, just as she goes 'dirty') when BA were operating an icon as much as plane, but its a private company who purchased them legally (albeit on a pretty good deal) and were 'free' to do as they saw best. That said the pssing away of millions to teach Civil Servants to have tidy desks does seem insane... I'm sure an additional £7M would have helped a Heritage case....who knows.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Shaggy Sheep Driver

"an insurmountable obstacle. Branson must have known this"

I didn’t say there was an insurmountable obstacle.


I didn't say you said it was insurmountable - or at least that's not what I intended to say. I said "However, you quite rightly make the point that the Design Authority wanted out, and that was an insurmountable obstacle". I could, perhaps, have phrased it better - what I meant to say was you made the point that the DA wanted out, and in my (that is, SSD's) opinion that was an insurmountable obstacle.

Aplogies for the lack of clarity.

SSD

[Flying Lawyer]

mfaff

That's correct. Airbus were pleased/relieved when AF made its decison, but I saw no indication whatsoever in my conversation with him of a 'vendetta' - just the harsh application of business considerations. Too harsh IMHO but, as I've already declared, I was a committed Concorde fan.

I remain of the view that if AF had wanted to continue (even alone), Airbus might have taken a different approach and the result might have been very different. Nothing he said led me to think that hunch was wrong but, interestingly, he changed the topic when I touched on that aspect. ;)


ssd

The lack of clarity is mine. I was trying to answer your assumption that Branson must have known at the time.
Nothing I've read in the public domain (by way of facts, as opposed to supposition) leads me to think that assumption is correct and, in contrast, everything I've been told privately by people in a position to know points to it being incorrect.

His hope was certainly ambitious, but Branson isn't averse to trying ambitious projects which many others regard as too ambitious. Remember all the prophets of doom who forecast that the new and under-funded Virgin airline couldn't possibly succeed? The only disagreement was about how long it would last before failing. :)

[Cypherus]

I have not had the chance too follow this thread for a number of months now but I see from the content that the original ideal of returning a Concorde to flight has not been totally lost, however since last calling in I have had a lot of time to research Concorde in detail from it’s inception to it’s demise and might offer this post for consideration,

Concorde in it’s operational lifetime was for ever a work in progress, in as much as almost every airframe was different in some respects and it’s operations took account of that fact.
It was also handicapped from day one by the limitations placed upon it, not only by it’s design but by political constraints that time did nothing too alleviate.
It was always destined as a result for retirement from service though this retirement was deferred by both BA and AF for as long as possible for which I suppose we should thank them both, and since almost all the service airframes of both companies fleets have in someway been preserved, again we might take a moment to thank them.

However, there is always a ‘However’, we should not thank the respective governments for the criminal lack of judgement they exhibited when they not only stopped further production and research of SST’s but as a result consigned the Mk 2 version of Concorde to silent history, it was after all a far better aircraft than the Mk 1 could ever have been as larger, greater passenger and freight capacity, quieter with no requirement for re-heat and with longer range it may just have been the redeeming factor in all of this that would have led today to SST transport being an everyday thing once more, I would agree it was a sad day and a mammoth backward step for the aviation industry in the UK when Concorde was finally retired and returning in the process as it did, BA too the status of a small provincial airline, but the sadness comes for the fact that without ongoing development of the Mark Concorde was always on the slippery slope to oblivion, but the UK has for generations been unable to come to terms with it’s aviation history and how successive governments have squandered that in favour of reliance on Uncle Sam who after all we have little to thank for in this respect as long before the oil crises finally sealed Concorde’s fate were the main sticking point in it’s introduction to revenue service, Sad to see her go, but inevitable.

[BEagle]

"Was amazed to read it as anyone, ...but read in the French press a few weeks ago that the AF Concorde at Le Bourget is indeed being maintained with a long-term possibility to it flying again.

Article concerned a female AF engineer who previously worked on the fleet & now pops over to Le Bourget (once a week I think it was...) to conduct the work.

Anyone else know any more about this...? Is it an AF-sponsored intiative or pure volunteer effort??"

Whispers have it that the French president ordered that at least 1 Concorde had to be maintained in flightworthy status.....

Allegedly.

And I still think that, had mad old Maggie still been running the shop at No. 10, then Skippy would have been hauled in for a no-tea-or-biscuits interview. Followed by Le Grand Grenouille..............

[treadigraph]

Le Grand Grenouille means bu@@er all to me , but if it's Froggy for a good handbagging, then I totally agree. One might say "en concorde"... (wish my French was better than CSE Grade Fail... Un cidre sil-vous-plais)

[BEagle]

It means 'The Big Frog'... In other words, Le President des singes qui mangent du fromage et se rendent! Who would have been invited in for a lamb and handbagging lunch avec Mrs T.....

[treadigraph]

Merci! Serveur ! Un cidre pour moi et pour vous briquet ? Et pour votre singe ? Fromage...?

(I don't know how BEagle becomes Briquet, but I hope to God it's not an insult!)

[gordonroxburgh]

Some great discussion points on here:

A couple of things from the French side of things.

When AF decided it wanted to get out of its loss making Concorde operation it was right in the midst of the yet unannounced KLM merger. After their near miss early in 2003 when they nearly lost a 2 airframe, they corporately decided enough was enough.

None of the French birds can fly without UK help, so lets not worry about our friends on the other side of the channel pulling a fast one and ignoring the rules. Airbus in TLS would lose all credibility if they held type certificate without have the UK DA engineers as part of the team. The UK engineers are now mostly retired. The engines were British and the Type certificate for them was held by Rolls-Royce. That was surrendered around the same time as the a/c type certificate. The actual piece of paper was handed over to the Rolls-Royce heritage trust.

The AF a/c at Le Bourget, although looks the part, it is leaking hydraulic and Jet A1 all over the floor. Imagine what would happen if all its systems were pressurised!


The end of Concorde's flying days are very much the same as what NASA is going though now in closing down the shuttle programme; you have literally hundreds of supporting OEMs all doing their little bit. Once you make the call to close that down they is no going back....not for all the tea in china.

If Concorde was to stand any chance of flying, BA and AF would have had to put their considerable supplies of spares into a very very large store and then beg all the OEMs to donate their spares too. Sadly that did not happen, so really she will never grace the skies again.



You would think that I personally would be shouting from the tallest building to get our girls back in the air, but I must admit my view has been for the past few years now that Concorde was built to fly at Mach2 across the Atlantic, not buzzing the crowds at 170knts at an airshow.

Finally what do we gain from spending millions for Concorde to fly for 5-10 years at Airshows: If that money was ever flowing from corporate and, I, and I guess everyone else here, would rather have every Concorde in the world be put into a purpose build building to be preserver for future generations.