concorde this afternoon

[teifiboy]

Anyone know the reason that concorde was making several large orbits over south/west London at about 5pm?

[speed check]

holding?

[Fraudsquads]

I always thought Concorde didn't enter the hold and was given given direct approach due to manoeuving speeds.

[WOK]

Nope, no special handling sadly.

BA002 did 2 full holds plus one orbit, 13mins total.

Arrived on stand 4mins ahead of schedule.

All routine!

[spekesoftly]

"No special handling, sadly"

Well...... Concorde is the only aircraft that I know of that has a whole section of the UK CAA Manual of Air Traffic Services specifically covering its operation - I call that special !!! ;)

[411A]

Hmmm, and it makes all that.....noise...ouch !!!
Should be "retired"....to the supersonic graveyard.
Like B-47's. And the Vulcan.:D

[Rollingthunder]

Still the best looking aircraft in the skies, though.;)

[spekesoftly]

Yep, just so long as they don't spoil it with a naff paint job!

[antonovman]

i agree rollingthunder
and should be given special treatment
we should be proud of it

[Semaphore Sam]

Rollingthunder:
Why? Overpriced, over-noisy, elitist, fuel-guzzling anacronistic piece-of-sh*t as far as I can see. Airbus has taken over European expertise concerning aviation; I'd have thought Concorde by now is a huge embarrassment to Europe. So that a few celebrities can go in 3 hours instead of 6, huge quantities of fuel are wasted, and noise standards are ignored? What utter CRAP! Europe has forced (properly) the retirement of many noisy, wasteful aircraft; why not the MOST wasteful, and MOST NOISY? So Tony & Madonna can save 3 hours, & not be bothered with riff-raff? OK, be proud; they don't have to travel with the likes of us. Congrats.

[JB007]

Sam,

Thats a huge chip you've got to carry about with you....

Unfortuantly whether you like it or not our Uk national airlines flagship will be around for a while...alot of investment has gone its way in the past few years and it's still an attention grabber...and as a plus point for BA - it makes money!..

I agree with everyone - a fantastic aircraft..

[crab]

411A------------I hadn`t realised that B47s and Vulcans were supersonic unless of course the definition of supersonic has been redefined as Boeing appear to be doing with their current transonic project.I realise that Concorde could not possibly be any good as it was not built in the US.I seem to remember that contemporary American projects fell by the wayside.Maybe they were not able to poach enough European knowhow at that time!

[steely]

Sam

Good job we don't all think like you, we'd all be living in caves throwing stones at each other.

Suppose you think landing on the moon was a waste of time, and quite why the Wright brothers bothered with that flying bicycle must cause you many sleepless nights.

I guess you are welcome to your opinions, but this is progress. And if it had been invented on the other side of the Atlantic, there would be loads of them!

[JW411]

It always makes me smile when I see someone claim that Concorde makes money. They must have very short memories. It was taxpayers such as me who forked out an absolute fortune in income tax to pay for the building of the thing, the R & D costs etc etc.

British Airways got them for nothing (along with everything else) when the company was privatised. Even I could make a profit if I was given an entire airline and all of its assets for free.

Technical achievement "oui" - commercial success "non"!

[Lord Lucan]

Surely we can separate the technical achievement from the politics.

It was (and really, still is) quite a remarkable engineering achievement. And a very beautiful airplane. I for one am pleased that it is still in operation.

However, I must agree with Sam about the politics of the operation. (Which I acknowledge, is probably the only way it could be operated.

Things are not always simple!


(spelling edited!)

[Flight Detent]

You've got to be kidding:
"Airbus has taken over European expertise as far as aviation is concerned"

Apart from the B4, they have not yet built anything I would want to fly in!!

If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!!!

Cheers

[BahrainLad]

I was reading (something, somewhere) that if you take its development costs etc., each Concorde airframe is worth about £1.5 billion at 2000 prices.

Me? I think its wonderful. Finishing morning lessons at school, walking out of classrooms with a brilliant deep blue sky and a small white dart thundering across it......Rule Brittania and all that...

[WOK]

My my, 26yrs in service and still a hot topic!

Spekesoftly - good point re MATS! Of course if all these modern aircraft didn't fly round the TMA so slooooowly it wouldn't be necessary...

Semaphore sam:

"....Airbus has taken over European expertise....etc"

And where, pray, do you think Airbus came from? Concorde was the progenitor of Airbus, indeed some of the very clever modern things that A320/330/340s do are straight from the Conc program. No benefit?

As far as R&D costs go - the US SST projects burnt more funds and did not produce an aircraft. However, that is not relevant to the topic:

Concorde a Commercial success for BAC/Aerospat? Not if measured by the manufacturers in cost terms, BUT, as mentioned above a lot of Concorde R&D was actually to the benefit of the modern Airbus'
So not all the costs are attributable solely to SSC.

A commercial success for BA? YES! It's very simple, they would not be back in the air now if the monies were not going to be regained. As for the argument that they were 'given' to BA (Not actually the case) and thus any profit doesn't count - any a/c in service for 20 years would have entirely amortised its initial capital cost so it does not now matter what was paid for the hulls, only what revenues they generate minus the costs of running them.

Sad to see the the same old tired rants - as far as I'm concerned the politics are irrelevant, not least because they occurred over 2 decades ago. However you look at it the conc programme produced a remarkable aircraft, with unique capabilities even today, having innovatively solved some very tricky technical problems, AND provided a lot of the groundwork technically, politically and commercially for what is now the world's second-largest commercial aircraft manufacturer.

I know my opinion is hardly unbiased BUT at least it's informed, and I know it's the DB's. :p And it means I get to look forward to going to work. :D

Lecture over!

[sennadog]

Having been lucky enough to have flown on Concorde I can only say that it was one of the highlights of my life so far! Given the amount of people who were standing round in anticipatioin at JFK the day we flew on it, just waiting for it to move off leads me to believe that there is still plenty of support for the aircraft on both sides of the Atlantic.

It's easy to sling mud at success and you can argue the merits of it technically/politically and from a cost point of view but you can bet that in 100 years time when people look back on the history of aviation, Concorde will be one of the icons that is instantly recognised.

:D

[Semaphore Sam]

Hi WOK, et al!
I never intended anybody to be personally insulted; but maybe I have inadvertently. For that, sorry.
But, to continue, quoting WOK
----------
My my, 26yrs in service and still a hot topic! ......

And where, pray, do you think Airbus came from? Concorde was the progenitor of Airbus, indeed some of the very clever modern things that A320/330/340s do are straight from the Conc program. No benefit?
-----------
Absolutely agree. Much benefit, kinda like the V2's contribution to the modern space program. But, are we still launching V2s for the Space Station? Modern aircraft developed from previous generations, but who these days still flies Comets or 707's, even though they were brilliant in their day. My, my...26 years in service; back then gas was cheap, nobody cared about noise. Even then, as beautiful as it was/is (no argument there), it couldn't be sold except as a political toy to AF & BA. Everybody knew it was uneconomic. It was anachronistic then, how much more so today!

[Northern Lights]

Odd that someone calling himself semaphore.. should use a word like anachronistic as an insult :D

[Mycroft]

Semaphore sam
B707 approx 200 in service with 30 operators, mainly government/military + 600 C135+variants in USAF service
Comet=Nimrod, 24 in RAF Service
V2=SS1 (Scud) still in service
And don't forget NASA's input into US SST programs, including use of a modified Tu144 1996-1998

[terminal_area]

just ground it: noisy, environment nightmare...

just drop in the graveyard... by the way drop there the "Sonic Cruiser thingy"... flying at M0.97???

just stinks!!!
:cool: :cool: :cool:

[Semaphore Sam]

Hi Mycroft

B707 approx 200 in service with 30 operators, mainly government/military + 600 C135+variants in USAF service
Comet=Nimrod, 24 in RAF Service
V2=SS1 (Scud) still in service

Notice...Gov 'Service'. Now, do governments/militaries care about fuel efficiency, noise pollution, as for-profit companies adhering to market discipline MUST? I operated military transport for 9 years (C-141A); one of my great memories, during the fuel 'crisis' of the early '70's, was slowing to M.74 from M.78 for enroute trips, yet being REQUIRED (as a local training IP at McGuire AFB) to fly a certain amount of time at the end of a quarter to fill allotted time, regardless of training requirements. One IP at McGuire was told to fly 3.8 hours, for 3 2&2's (6 approaches and landings). He finished in 1.3 hours, terminated "in the interest of fuel savings", and was immediately 'rewarded' with an immediate downgrade from IP status. Does anyone think anything has changed? Yes, Concorde can fly with government support; BFD, the Brabazon could also, as well as the R101. Those 3 make a trio.

[Semaphore Sam]

Hi Northern Lights
By acknowledging my fast approaching 'anachronism', I don't insult myself, just sadly face reality. I've loved many aircraft I flew, probably most of all the C141A & the L-1011 (Lockheed rocked). Their days are over; to acknowledge this is not to insult them. When I travel by rail, I savor each anachronistic semaphore I see; but their use now (in premeir ops) is inefficient & stupid. Not insulting, just reality.

[spekesoftly]

Amazing ! This thread started with an innocent enquiry about a Concorde sighting - some 25 posts later, and it's developed into an 'International slanging match' :rolleyes:

[Jhieminga]

Hmm, would somebody care to look up when the 747 first flew?

Me thinks it must be over 26 years ago......

Concorde is still a lovely aircraft to see, that's what we all seem to agree on! As for the rest of the discussion: a lot of it is also over 26 years old, and still noisy, energy consuming and not about to be grounded it looks like!

[mikegreatrex]

Sam,

We have great pleasure in announcing that you have one this weeks rollover jackpot a cool £20 million.

Concorde still a no no for you.

I doubt it!

British invention still years ahead of its time and proud of it

[Capt. Crosswind]

The Princess of the Skies
I'd have sold my soul to have flown it.

Those who had/have the good fortune to be Concorde pilots have reached the pinnacle of the profession.

[Mowgli]

Lighten up guys! Your tax burden is hardly going to be affected by the development costs of Concorde in the sixties. A bit of variety in the skies is ok with me, and one man's noise is another man's music. Let's be proud of our technological achievements, both sides of the pond. Uncle Sam landed a man on the moon, and Jonny Brit and Monsieur Toulouse developed a supersonic commercial jet.

411a, you and I will always disagree, life would be too boring for me in your world.

[regor]

Concorde's presence today has more to do with the short sightedness of the worlds' governments at the time it first started flying.

The fact that Concorde is still flying is because it remains the only supersonic airliner in existence.

If the majority of the world hadn't sulked because England and France had stolen the march on supersonic travel, then I have no doubt that there would have been a modern replacement by now.

If it had been more readily accepted, then the technology could have been developed to meet today's more rigorous environmental and financial considerations. We might all have been travelling supersonic by now, but as usual politics overrules common sense every time!

It's difficult not to get sentimental about an aircraft that could have transformed air travel 26 years ago.

'Nough said.

[jongar]

Well I dont care what anyone says about the bird. Yes she is fuel inefficent, noisy and represents everything evil about meritocrisy, but when I fly her for what will i guess be my first and last time in July I wont care. I doubt that my children or grand children will ever have the opportunity to fly her, but hey I will know that I was one of only 500,000 to fly her. When you compare that to the number of people who have flown in a 747, thats put you on somewhat of a pedastool. Oh and for whats its worh, its stll the only flight to get into JFK beofre 10.00, and from that point of view, great - If I was, I could get a full days work in.

Jon Gar
V50