Concorde to Retire?

[coachdriver]

Hi guys;
someone from Brit Air told me that they are planning on retiring Concorde real soon. They have laid off crews and have started cancelling flights.

Anyone else heard anything? It would be a real shame to she her go, especially after all the work they did to get her back flying again after that crash.

[Unwell_Raptor]

The big white bird is the SUV of civil aviation. It is old technology, a gas guzzler and has no logical justification. But like the SUV it attracts a certain type of customer who just wants to be seen in it.

And just like the SUV, so long as there are punters willing to pay, it will carry on.

[middlepath]

May be its due to after effect of Shuttle disaster.

[Konkordski]

Funny you should say that Coachdriver, because I've been hearing comments from within BA saying much the same thing - word of crews being shunted sideways, increasing lack of parts, very low demand on NAT routes. I've even heard talk of it being taken out of service within one year.

[Point Seven]

I heard from somwone very high up on the High Life magazine staff that they have been instructed that the magazine for Concorde will not be published after April 2004. The Rocket's always had her own version (apparently!) so the person who passed this on said that this spells the end for Speedbird 1. They also thought that Conc finishing was common knowledge!!

[jet_breeze]

Concorde had an emergency landing the other day at Halifax looks like its soon going to be grounded

[Hand Solo]

Concorde had an emergency landing the other day at Halifax looks like its soon going to be grounded

Well thats the stupidest thing I've read on PPRuNe today, and there's been some pretty stupid things posted. So AIR FRANCE divert a Concorde to Halifax and so BRITISH AIRWAYS' Concordes are to be retired? Next you'll be saying the 777 fleet is running down because Malaysian had an engine failure.

[wallabie]

Well Han

I actually 2 reasons why this aircraft should be retired :

1) I couldn't fly it although I would have given my left n.t and waited quite a few years hoping I would get on a course. The tooth fairy had some other business to attend to rather than bless me.

2) How long before something worse than " diverting to Gander " happens ?

[Hand Solo]

1) Daft point, if there was a point to it.

2) Best also ground all those old 747-100 and 200s, the 737-200s, all the old 707s, plus a few of those more modern aircraft with high cycles. You never know when one of those might just break up in mid-air, just like TWA800 did, or that China Airlines 747 last year. What, no aircraft left in the skies I hear you say?

[stormin norman]

Rumour has it 10 Concorde flight engineers have just been given the boot off the fleet. Anyone know any more ?

[woodpecker]

Assuming only three were modified after the Paris accident, and that the contracts were signed and sealed for the seats and interior, there may be some very collectable new seats on e-bay shorlty.

There were those within BA suggesting that the old lady should have been retired after Paris. The problem was what to do about these very expensive contracts to update the interior.

I feel for wallabie not being able to fly it. Many of us did have the chance (look at the seniority spread on the fleet... by no means top of the list) but for one reason or another turned it down. For me it was all about the lack of variety. JFK this week, next week .... with only an infrequent Barbados to ring the changes....not for me. I loved my flying, but it was about the variety and not the airplane!

We should be proud the Brits (and those others across the channel) built it but for me its time the old lady was retired.

[Wino]

Its a horrible yield killer for BA.

Even if it is mildly profitable. They charge the same fare that they get for 1st class on a 747/777. If you took those passangers and put em on the subsonic fleet the subsonic fleet would be wildly profitable.

What the concorde does is skim the high paying pax off the subsonic fleet, thereby destroying the yield. When the price of fuel spikes, the economic case for concorde gets even tougher.

Cheers
Wino

[Hand Solo]

I think it costs a bit more than regular first, and a lot more if you want a day return, which isn't realistic on subsonic transport. Its easy to say it skims the high-yield passengers from the subsonic services, but thats based on the assumption that those passengers would choose to fly on other BA services. The speed and the prestige are the attraction of Concorde, once you strip those away the passenger may well find they get better value on another carrier?

[Leclairage]

I agree it would be a great shame for this beautiful Old Lady to be retired.
However business is business, and the load factors (i.e. profitability) has been poor for BA since Paris, and some of its former users have either been scared off, or become used to other ways of making the journey. First Class 747 being that much cheaper!

But. Most people we all know would love to fly her, even just once. So who would blame the resourceful BA marketing department for letting everyone think that she is going to be retired soon. That would perk demand, and with it profitability, and BA's currently tarnished image no end!

[chuchoteur]

Huh,

I get the feeling that we are sliding backwards here.

I read the other day that the average flight from london to paris since the 70s has grown longer by 12-15 min due to ATC and Approach saturation.

If we lose concorde, we more than double again the time anybody can freely cross the Atlantic. Concorde is old, but it surely is not an impossible thing to design a replacement aircraft?

Advances in technology should also mean that sector yields would be increased...

[Roobarb]

There will come a day when she has to be retired, but that shouldn’t be for some time yet. Don’t forget, the people who make these decisions are the same ones who dropped the Tristar because engine for engine it was more expensive to maintain than other four engine aeroplanes, and the same people who wanted to withdraw the 767 post 9/11 because our customers don’t like flying on single aisled aircraft. The Concorde is a nuclear jet with ten engines that irradiates its passengers and crew with bad waves. It kills all butterflies in the path of its transonic bloom, and disturbs the breeding cycles of badgers.

Since Ayling Bob left them out in the wet for a year (he’d sold their hanger to make a car park), there is an increased maintenance load, as you would expect if you parked your Aston out in the London weather for twelve months. In service, skin temperatures reach over 100C, and so corrosion was never a problem.

Wouldn’t it be nice if just for once the beancounters would say ‘So it’s expensive, but it’s beautiful and no-one else has one. There are no competitors.’. But we live in a World devoid of nostalgia and sentiment. Hard ball accounting, big bonuses and KRA’s have probably set the wheels in motion already. You can tell from the absence of Concorde in the advertising that BA runs.

I remember watching the Vulcan just before it flew for the last time and how I felt. I hope the same is not about to happen to Concorde.

http://www.80scartoons.8k.com/roobarb10wee.gif
I’ll take on the opposition anyday. It’s my management I can’t beat!

[sss]

but who is going to be first to buy it privately and run a part share scheme in it.

[amanoffewwords]

European Aviation of course ;)

[WOK]

Well, noone has told me it's about to retire.

To answer a few points made earlier:

BA are not dropping services - we fly 7 JFKs in Summer and 6 jfks plus one BGI in Winter. Occasionally, a JFK is left out of the timetable (not cancelled) e.g. Christmas or when the extra BGIs are run near xmas.

Five BA Concs (not 3) have returned to flight status, the sixth is on hold until market conditions are more favourable, the seventh would only be required when a board decision was taken to return to running a very comprehensive charter programme. The Liners and seats were purchased for all seven.

Some parts have always been hard to procure, there is no significant change there.

Someone said Load factors had been low - we ran all Summer, Autumn and most of the Winter with LFs in excess of 80%. Break even is dependent onfuel prices but is 15-25%. There are hard times ahead, which is why there are no plans to restart a double-daily at this time.

Yield eater? Not so - a glance at the PIL shows the high-paying pax are more often than no connecting to or from the Conc. These are pax who, but for SSC, would be travelling First from the nearest hub and so often not with BA.

The Fes are a more sensitive matter. The fleet was deliberately over-established with FEs when the classic retired in order to maintain the programme to 2010-2015. Since Gonesse the fleet has gone from double-daily JFK plus Winter BGI plus a BIG charter programme, to just 7 flights a week. Even before Gonesse a surplus of flt crew was caused by the decision to curtail the charters and some were going to leave the fleet. Post Gonesse only a few pilots made it back (approx 2/5 of the previous). The FEs had nowhere to go and 10 are apparently not going to be required owing to the reduced flying programme. They have our utmost sympathy.

There are grim times ahead, not just for Conc but for everyone flying the Atlantic. There are going to be low load-factors for all premium traffic. But - when the current tribulations are over - the core market is still there and there will be no replacement. A company that grounded this aircraft because of the current climate would be so short-sighted it probably would not weather the storm anyway. I give them more credit at the moment.

[Big Tudor]

I can't help thinking that if the USA had been involved in the design & construction, history would show a totally different career for SST. The only one of its' kind in the world and all we Brits can do is complain about the noise and how much of a gas guzzler it is. What happened to having pride in your nations achievements?
One of aviations greatest missed opportunities. :(

[Lucifer]

Big Tudor - that would assume that the world economy didn't perform quite as badly as it did when Concorde was available - it did of course actually have a large number of orders, all of which were cancelled eventually. This included American carriers such as (I believe) Pan Am. Besides that I don't quite see how American involvement would have given it a difference career, since the costs were absorbed by the UK and French governments (which I am sure the US would also have done) and certainly the current state of United and American is a lot less robust than BA and Air France.

The rumour that is going the rounds is not exactly that BA will no longer keep it flying, but that if it came to such a situation such as losing its CAA certificate, then BA and AF would not bother to invest in ANY futher modifications.

The investment made post Paris certainly demonstrates to me that there was a certain pride in this aircraft, don't you?

[Big Tudor]

By a different career I mean that a long-term investment and development program would have been created with the project to create a successor when the time came. What we have is the pride of the British Airways fleet suffering criticism from a British public who don't seem to recognise what an achievement Concorde was for Anglo-French industry. Such achievements seem to receive far more recognition amongst the US public than over here.

The economic climate was hardly conducive to such an expensive aircraft but it was no different when the B747 first took to the skies, and it is hard to see how that project could not be called a success. The order book was looking quite healthy at first for Concorde but, in my opinion, the sway of public opinion in the US contributed to the cancellation of those orders. Would US public opinion have been so anti if the SST was part/wholly US designed & built? Who am I to say.

It seems a great shame that no aircraft manufacturer is prepared to look to high speed aircraft as a viable solution for the future. It seems ironic that the average flying time across the Atlantic is now 10 mins longer than when Concorde first flew!

[newswatcher]

Wino,

For a return trip to JFK, out 10/3 back 14/3, First Class return is £6,576 and Concorde return is £8,272.

So I guess that there is still a "premium" for Concorde.

[DuncanF]

I was lucky enough to realise a long held ambition to fly on Concorde to JFK and back recently.

Talking to the CC on the flight over I was asking about the long term prospects. I was told that there were no plans at present to retire her, but that the ever increasing maintenance costs were an issue. A break even point of around 32 full fare payers (I was on an upgrade both ways!) was quoted for covering the running/non-maintenance costs. Something backed up in WOK's post above.

However the key point made was that all Concorde decisions were in tandem with Air France ... the innaugural flights, the return to service dates etc.. So the last flights would be the same for both fleets. Part of some original agreement or something. If this is so then a) what is AF's view on the matter, and b) is there any truth in the date of 2007 for the AF Concorde's I read elswhere? Doesn't that tie BA into 2007, if the "Concorde" agreement holds true?

I'm no accountant, but isn't having Concorde on your fleet like invisible income from tourism etc.? It's simple to tally up the running costs, drop in yields elsewhere, etc. but how many punters does it bring to the airlines because of it's fame/notoriety/anorak factor (me!) etc.?

Duncan

[BRISTOLRE]

It is sad to hear this news & rumours but no smoke without fire as they say. The reports of people being "given the boot" is maybe a result as a continued drive by the bean counters to drive efficiency and work appropriate levels of staff (overheads) in proportion to aircraft utilisation and revenue.

It is fair to say there are 5 of these aircraft "air worthy" currently - BA might see it as how much overhead do we need to support the amount of aircraft, small number off flights, low utilisation and volatile NAT market.

Parts - yes, remains an issue for any old aircraft or vehicle indeed.

Is there any plans to use the Concordes "not in service" of the G-BOAA to BOAG airframes for cannibalisation as the source of parts on the other airframes expire?

[Max Angle]

Someone said that Concorde creams the high yield pax. from the subsonic fleets. In fact Concorde is used as a marketing tool by the airline when selling large corporate accounts (which must be the life blood of biz. and first class) by offering a certain number of Concorde upgrades per year in the deal thereby making BA more attractive than it's transatlantic rivals.

[Globaliser]

WOK: Five BA Concs (not 3) have returned to flight status, the sixth is on hold until market conditions are more favourable, the seventh would only be required when a board decision was taken to return to running a very comprehensive charter programme.BRISTOLRE: Is there any plans to use the Concordes "not in service" of the G-BOAA to BOAG airframes for cannibalisation as the source of parts on the other airframes expire?I thought I had read somewhere that it had already been decided that the seventh aircraft (presumably G-BOAA, the last in the queue for the safety modifications) would not be modified and would be cannibalised. I hope that these posts indicate that that isn't true.

[WOK]

It has not *definitely* been decided to retire/cannibalise AA but, bluntly, unless the worlds economy makes a spectacular unexpected recovery or BA decides to run a massive charter programme, she is unlikely to be needed for years to come. The airframe is entirely intact, minus elevons, pcus and some windows, and is safely stored under cover. She even has three Olympus' on board.

AB is in another hangar, again structurally intact, sans engines, elevons and rudders but with pfcus and with the engineering work on the new lavatories complete. Both still await spar72 mod and liners. AB would be the next airframe out when required.

AG is just about to emerge with the phase 2 flt deck door, C,D,E &F will folllow soon.

With a very large FD door modification programme ongoing through the airline it is hard commit enough engineers to the operation to move things any faster, so it is probable that even without the dismal economic climate AB would be waiting for a while yet.

"....rumours of the Conc fleet's demise are greatly exaggerated........."

[Few Cloudy]

Stelios' dad got rich by buying tankers at a time when no-one could operate them profitably and then waiting. Last year's rumour about easyConc could yet come to fruition...;)

[covertwar]

withdraw the 767 post 9/11 because our customers don’t like flying on single aisled aircraft

Umm, the 767 has two aisles.....

[TwoTun]

WOK, you said;
BA are not dropping services - we fly 7 JFKs in Summer and 6 jfks plus one BGI in Winter. Occasionally, a JFK is left out of the timetable (not cancelled) e.g. Christmas or when the extra BGIs are run near xmas.

Not quite true. With only 2 of the aircraft current serviceable out of 5, BA are cancelling services in March.....so that they don't have to cancel services in March, in order that they can produce a rubust service. So they are pre-cancelling services so that they can point to the operation and say "Look, it works". Mickey Mouse or what.

Someone said Load factors had been low - we ran all Summer, Autumn and most of the Winter with LFs in excess of 80%. Break even is dependent onfuel prices but is 15-25%. There are hard times ahead, which is why there are no plans to restart a double-daily at this time.

Load factors were at 70-80%, but the majority of those were upgrades from passengers who had paid for a full fare Club World ticket.

The Fes are a more sensitive matter. The fleet was deliberately over-established with FEs when the classic retired in order to maintain the programme to 2010-2015.

Actually, to 2007.

The FEs had nowhere to go and 10 are apparently not going to be required owing to the reduced flying programme. They have our utmost sympathy.

So BA kicked them out just one day before they were due to get a pay rise on the Concorde Fleet.

Getting back to the thread topic, the remaining Flight Engineers on the Concorde Fleet will be able to provide one flight a day only up to September 2004 - 18 months away. This is due to retirements. So the original posters comments about Concorde about to retire may very well come true within the next 18 months or so, won't it?

regards

[qwertyuiop]

covertwar.

Yes the 767 has two isles and the tristar has 3 engines. I think it was a bit of sarcasm. A typical british habit i'm affraid.

[Unwell_Raptor]

Which isles are those then?

Wight?

Iona?

Wherever?

[norodnik]

Retiring Concorde would be a typically stupid British thing to do.

Its the only thing we have left to be proud of.

BA Beancounters do not realise that Conc is good for Morale, good for Corporate and Frequent fliers alike. However, as usual they are trying their best to kill her off, just like BR did with the railways

Death by a thousand cuts.

As I have mentioned before. Look what you get for your 9K pounds now.

1) New seats - absolutely awful. Plastic with a bit of leather. Lean back too fast and they break

2) Cut down cabin service who can hardly get round the PAX

3) All the little gifts taken away, like seat back cards etc

It used to be a pleasure, but now its just a time saving device. After 25 trips on the old girl its not the fun it used to be. I used to find all sorts of creative ways to get the company to pay but I can't be bothered any more.

Don't get me wrong, BA is the best Airline bar none, look at the ridiculous efforts of Virgin et al to produce flat beds in business class, but either offer a service comparable with the price or give it up.

[broadreach]

Whilst I expect there will continue to be plenty of people out there willing to fork over £2 grand more than first class return transatlantic for the financial exclusivity of flying Concorde, the combination of diminishing yields and prestige must be wearing somewhat thin.

Consider, what importance do the 99.9% (or whatever the percentage really is) of BA's customers attach to the fact that BA also operate Concordes? Does that mental association really influence their ticket decisions? Do they really think BA's operating Concorde makes their own flight better/safer/more exclusive etc? What do they really think of the people who DO pay nearly twenty times as much just to save a few hours of transatlantic flight time. Having thought, does that make them buy BA again, or not?

Don't shoot me; I'm just asking questions of myself. But put national pride and aversion to beancounters aside for a moment. There comes a stage when you do have to step back and try to see what the world is thinking and where you fit into it all. On that basis and considering the rumours posted herein, I'd bet on termination this year.

Back 31/12/03
broadreach

[woodpecker]

Excellent reply by TwoTun to the first post by WOK

I wonder if he (or she) will respond

[BRISTOLRE]

It now appears that the UK TV has got to hear about this!!!

As a snippet piece of news today GMTV and BBC Breakfast news in the UK at 0630hrs this morning reports "speculation brewing over the early retirement of Concorde since the Air France accident".
Pictures of a BA Conc in new livery landing on 27L shown.

I wonder if the breakfast news teams peruse PPRUNE in search of stories?

Either way it will be a sad day when she dissapears.
I hope that it will be a long long time from now.

[amanoffewwords]

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2800519.stm) has it too...

[barrymung]

Sky news confirmed it about half an hour ago.

Presumably BA will take into account the imminent rise in fuel costs and the fact it is a major terrorist target.

I feel the fat lady is singing for Concorde..

[Dop]

It'll be a sad day when Concorde flies no more. It's such a beautiful plane, with style as well as good engineering.
It's also very sad that in the 21st century we don't have anything to beat it. We should be travelling London- Sydney in less than half a day on a hypersonic sub-orbital jet by now...!
If not that, then you'd think with modern materials we could build a super-concorde capable to taking more passengers with greater efficiency?

I hope when BA do withdraw it that they can give them to the Red Arrows for special formations... That was bloody impressive at the Jubilee last year!

[Dr. Hibbert]

looks like this thread is in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy!

[Cahlibahn]

Evening Standard article (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/3567723?source=Evening%20Standard)

[Happy Landings]

Commenting on the newspaper and evening news stories, this post was started yesterday, do you reckon PPrune is powerful enough to start a rumour that even the journalists in London can get hold of, and knowing journo's they probably just went with the story to sell papers without even bothering to ring BA to get a comment.

I have two points to make.

1) Concorde service's would struggle if either BA or AF stopped them, i.e one cant run without the other (in theory). But After Paris BA suggested it would go it alone if AF stopped flying.

2) I use to buy a few spare parts for the old girl, and believe me after the last refurbishment there are loads of Concorde spare parts lying about, problem is finding them or finding someone's grandad who knows how to make them!!! (that is a Joke)

Oh and an after thought would be that Air France are most likely to be the first to ground Concorde, cos if BA are having a bad time chances are AF are having it harder!

Thats my opinion anyway - Keep on flying the old girl ( you can ground her in ten years, once I've saved enough money to fly day return to JFK on her!!!!!!!)

[cb9002]

Up here in Vermont they don't seem to do sarcasm too well either... can lead to some interesting conversations when it goes straight over them.

[DarkStar]

OAA/OAB will never fly again.

I'm sure any retirement will be timed exactly together by BA and AF and probably the end of Mar 2004 will see a tearful goodbye.

Apparently, Monty Python are going to make a sequel to Live of Brian....Life of Brian II and the words uttered are ' What have the French ever done for us?'

[twistedenginestarter]

What is going on here? BA have clearly set a big PR snowball in motion but all they are saying is 'We will review Concorde". In other words there is no news here except that there is news that is no news.

Are they trying to drum up interest? Are they playing some internal politics to strengthen their hand in negotiations with flight crew or BALPA? Are they just completly incompetent?

Basically no-one hardly is paying for Concorde tickets. What a surpise. The World is in a major depression. It's a wonder anyone can afford to fly anywhere. But if Concorde is thought to be uneconomical (like First Class) then just announce you are shutting it down. Or shut up. Why have indecision on prime time news?

What pisses me off is none of these overpaid/underworked journos has had the balls to ask the question "What is this all about BA? What are you trying to say because if you don't tell us then you can f**k off and come back when you've got something cogent to tell the public"

[RatherBeFlying]

Bad timing in my book.

The Conc on AB is one flare no shoulder launched SAM's gonna catch:E

[411A]

OLD aeroplanes go to the desert to die, and Concorde is indeed OLD and will be retired sooner or later...more than likely, sooner.
Great while it lasted, but with fewer and fewer high rollers available to pay the price of admission, afraid Concorde is doomed.

[twistedenginestarter]

Concorde isn't in any sense old. If this super-premium sector is uneconomic for the next few years, then just say you are going to mothball everything with a view to re-starting when things pick up. We know, even though that might be 10 years away, no-one is going to come up with another Mach 2 transport in the meantime.

They got the planes for free. I think they have a duty to pay for hangarage for a few years.

Maybe, however, the punters are leaking away to executive jets. They don't take much longer by the time you add the bits at each end and you can have proper meetings etc

[Leclairage]

Great suggestion Dop - More combined displays with the Red Arrows after Concs retirement would be awesome.

They were all gifted to BA by the british government, so all they have to face is increased maintenance costs to keep them flying. They have done extremely well by the aircraft in both financial and marketing terms, so, if the BA management are as great as appears to be the opinion in the posts above, then hopefully they will repay the debt they owe to her and keep her flying within their fleet, even though they seem to be papering the loads to get bums on seats, and thus losing financial yield.

Or at least have the decency whenever she DOES retire from revenue service, to make the same gesture as the brit government made to them, and pass them on to another organisation, be it a revenue or display operation in the condition in which they received it. i.e. in good working order, financially unencumbered.

[Conc]

Agreements are already in place that at least some of the Concordes are to be given to museums when they are retired. The National Air and Space Museum in Washington is going to get one. How many others already have an agreed home to go to I don't know.

[Leclairage]

Well that's good news, Conc.
I just believe that there is no good reason why at least one shouldent be kept in the air for display purposes.
BA have been the very fortunate custodians of the type when others have wanted to operate her commercially and been denied - they therefore have a duty to do all that they can to keep this wonderful piece of British history flying, even when they have finished with it for whhatever reason - financial or mechanical.

[PhilD]

The reason that one will not be kept in the air 'for display purposes' is that it is not financially viable. BA have a duty to their shareholders not to fritter money on nostalgia. If the RAF won't pay to keep a Vulcan airworthy I can't see why BA should pay for a conc.

[Anti-ice]

To think that this amazing piece of aviation technology first flew 34 years ago (in the 60's) is incredible.

If BA do break even at 34 pax + then good luck to them keeping her in the skies where she rightfully belongs .
Heaven knows they have invested enough in her in more recent times.

She is still right at the forefront of civil aviation in the 2000's and is a beautiful testament to it.



Current world climate and commercial pressure deny us of having anything close to it in the foreseeable future.

She may be a privelege to the (farepaying) few,but more than that , in a world where travel is second nature, she is the ultimate symbol . (and a stunning one too).

gorgeous bird (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=321901&WxsIERv=QWVyb3NwYXRpYWxlLUJBQyBDb25jb3JkZQ%3D%3D&WdsYXMg=QnJpdGlzaCBBaXJ3YXlz&QtODMg=TmV3IFlvcmsgLSBKb2huIEYuIEtlbm5lZHkgSW50ZXJuYXRpb25hb CAoSWRsZXdpbGQpIChKRksgLyBLSkZLKQ%3D%3D&ERDLTkt=VVNBIC0gTmV3IFlvcms%3D&ktODMp=QXVndXN0IDIwMDI%3D&WNEb25u=Sm9lIFByaWVz&xsIERvdWdsY=&MgTUQtODMgKE=RXZlcnkgdGltZSBpIHNlZSBpdCBpIHBob3RvZ3JhcGggaXQ sIG5vdCB0aXJlZCBvZiBpdCB5ZXQu&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=MTA4MQ%3D%3D&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwMy0wMi0yMg%3D%3D&static=yes&size=L)

[Point Seven]

Guys and Gals

I'm not one of you aviating folk, merely a lowly Controller at LHR, but in response to the questioning of Conc's importance may I volunteer the following...?

We don't have quite as many visitors up there as we like (come on guys, bring us some coffee and chocolates!!) but it AMAZING that 99% turn up at 1045 and, oh yes, BAW1 departs at @1100. They watch the old bird get up off 09L, fly the hair raising CPT, then they vanish. The Rocket pulls punters, plane enthsiasts and the public like no other in the business. Ok, so no-one can afford to fly on her regularly, but everyone still aspires to have a trip on the old girl once. If BA can afford to, and want to try to keep her going, then I for one say good on them. Folks are to quick to try and knock down something that we have if it against the grain and captures the public's imagination. Yes she guzzles fuel, yes she's elitist, but if you're lining up on 27R behind her, my how she looks impressive.;)

[Leclairage]

PhilD I may not have made my view quite clear, for which I apologise.
Of course BA shouldent have to pay for ongoing flying once they have finished with her, however I do believe that they have a duty to pass her on as they were given her (for free) originally - i.e. in flying condition, and financially unencumbered. In short, for Free.

They have indeed invested heavily in her, and also done extremely well by her, both financially and (even more so) in marketing terms. Well done BA for this, but I am sure that most would share my view that BA, having secured her commercially for themselves whilst others sought to operate her, should not seek to gain by her 'sale'.
Speaking as a significant shareholder in the company, I take the view that the company will be better served in the public eye by being magnanimous and making it possible for her to remain flying.

[WOK]

This has become a self-regenerating thread

It starts as a request for information about a rumour based on surmise, as with everything connected with this aeroplane considerable interest is generated, expanding the thread, much personal opinion is written.

On a "quiet news" day, the thread is trawled by a representative of the "popular" press who takes the opportunity to round up a couple of low key quotes from engineers in despair of the way they are managed and underresourced, and melds the two to create an instant article. Said article is picked up for free by other elements of the media, to the extent that the execrable Mail even plagiarises verbatim some of the Sun aricle.

So another dozen people post on this thread in the knowledge that the story is true.

It's not!

BA have made at least two press releases, neither has been published to my knowledge except for the "no decision has been made" element which is easy to dress up to make it look like something else.

twotun:

I am now aware of the two dropped services in March owing to projected lack of hulls. It's a very poor situation but it is not a problem inherent with the aeroplane but the chronic underresourcing of engineers, justified by the door mods.

As for FE establishment, I'll say again that I am as unhappy that the 'surplus' engineers have been dropped as anyone, but you know as well as I of the contingency planning which will allow services to be run for some time after '04. I'm not defending the principle, just stating the fact.

To give the lie to the reportage - the articles make great play of ststing that pilots and cabin crew have bben redeployed. THEY HAVE NOT, in fact there are three Captains returning to the fleet this Summer and there are new Cabin crew undergoing training today.

All this and more in BA's response to the articles, which was apparently not newsworthy enough to publish.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Oh and an after thought would be that Air France are most likely to be the first to ground Concorde, cos if BA are having a bad time chances are AF are having it harder!

But doesn't AF have a bottomless money pit - the French taxpayer? BA has to make its numbers.

Why haven't we seen any Concs at Manchester since the return to service? Have all the charters stopped? I lived my dream a few years ago with a Conc jumpseat ride from Manch supersonic to Paris (which I wrote-up as a 'Pilot' mag article). Post 11/9 I don't suppose that will ever be possible again.

The day wil come, of course, when she will just be a memory. But I think It's a while off yet.

SSD

[BRL]

WOK Please check your PM's.........

[Atropos]

The word is that there are 3 dates that they are looking at: 2005(favoured by AF), 2007 and 2010(BA's preference). The smart money is on 2007. They can't afford to close the old girl down now because it would cost about £60mill in cancelled spares and support contracts, the suppliers have to be given an end date so that they can run down the stocks economically.

[MarkD]

Funny that the Spams want one when protests greeted the entry to service, especially in NYC.

[twistedenginestarter]

I suggested earlier that journalists are nothing but spineless layabouts who will sieze on any old tittle tattle so they can bung together a few library pictures and aimless quotes before belting down the pub.

Not entirely true, as it happens. My apologies in particular to the gentlemen of The Guardian. I am pleased to report they did not fall for this nonsense. They merely added a one liner to another story, mentioning that the Sun was speculating about Concorde and that was the last we heard on the subject.

[NW1]

WOK's right - we seem to be stuck in a feedback loop here with very few facts.

Particularly the regular posting "BA, having secured her commercially for themselves whilst others sought to operate her".

When Concorde entered commercial service absolutely nobody, not even BA, wanted it. Every airline with an option on purchase had cancelled and the government (who built it) had to run it under their own airline's (unwilling) operation. No one else "sought to operate her".

After selling the Concorde and the rest of the airline into the private sector, BA was required to pay millions toward Concorde R&D (far from the "free gift" story trotted out by the uninformed) in order to keep the operation and in very brave and ingenious "sink or swim" style made the operation work commercially and launched the supersonic transport into the success it became. BA built the successful SST operation from the economically bankrupt nationalised start and earned every penny of it, other airlines may have looked on enviously in the late '80s & '90s, but they had missed the boat by then.

Branson keeps needling that he'd "condsider it" or words to that effect, but the truth is nobody else could or would take it on now - it would be like trying to transplant a 200-year old oak tree into a garden allotment. Good for headline-grabbing, but BA has no duty to "give" Concorde to anyone else and nor would anyone else want it - they couldn't run it because the whole support infrastructure is so massive.

All that has happened here is that someone has noticed that all aeroplanes have a finite life, Concorde has served many more years than most others (maybe all? I don't know) and have then asked BA when is it due to retire. BA quite reasonably said "at some stage, but we don't yet know when - we'll tell you when the decision is made" and that didn't satisfy the hacks, who interpreted "sometime" as meaning gloom and failure. For heaven's sake even the Daily T. said something along the lines of "early retirment looms for Concorde" - early retirement??? Almost 30 years from introduction into service and 34 years from her first flight - "early retirement"!!!.

The capricious high cost / high revenue nature of an SST means that the commercially sensible operator will carefully monitor the latter years of the aircraft's life. That is all that is happening here - ultimately we must accept that all good things must come to an end. But not just yet, there are some years still left to serve, and even then - we bloody did it, didn't we!

[twistedenginestarter]

This notion of Concorde being old is as bizarre as suggesting we stop playing Vivaldi's Four Seasons because it first went into production nearly 300 years ago. In techonolgy terms it is as new as any supersonic transport and as a plane it is very young in its service life due to very low utilisation. It is thirsty and expensive to run but that's because it is half airliner; half spacecraft. It's flight deck is a bit 'classic' but functions as well as any glass version - just a touch more expensively.

Concorde is special for two reasons. Firstly other capitalist products can be removed and re-launched at will but Concorde is a unique product - across the whole world. Once lost it cannot be replaced.

Secondly we, the British taxpayers, forked out a shed-load of money. Someone ought to take care of that investment.

[Leclairage]

Thanks for the passion NW1. You speak with great authority and can no doubt provide full reference for your assertions!

If my view that BA should make one available for display purposes unencumbered after they have finished with it, I am sorry.

There seems to me a splendid marketing opportunity for BA to help keep one flying in existing livery. Don't you think so ?

[newswatcher]

How much does this affect the "charter" trade, e.g. Goodwood Travel? Does a charter "fee" contribute to the cost of keeping Concorde flying?

How much service contraction can BA make before they(GT) can no longer offer 3 night's in NY with return flight on Concorde for £4,560?

[In trim]

A lot of nostalgia and emotion on this thread......and quite right too, as Concorde is a fantastic machine. I for one hope it keeps flying forever.

However, we need to be realistic. BA are not going to keep the machine flying out of 'goodwill' or a sense of history. Their responsibility is to their shareholders, and as soon as Concorde becomes uneconomic its flying days will be over.

Of course, any number of accountants will come up with totally different arguments as to what is 'economic'. How do you value the "PR" and "Advertising" which Concorde gives them?

Equally, further 'rudder separations' or other events (even though blown out of proportion by the press) will add more nails in the coffin as the consensus of public opinion, rightly or wrongly, adopts the view that the machine is too old.

[VnV2178B]

Just to add a little bit of circumstantial evidence here, apparently R-R at Filton are chucking out the Olympus jigs, test kit and spares as part of the redevelopment announced this week. Now, why would they do that unless someone had tipped them as to the likelyhood of no future need ?
Perhaps a Patchway Ppruner could check this

VnV

[Diesel8]

http://www.airliners.net/photos/small/3/5/3/304353.jpg

Retire this airplane? Hopefully, not for a very long time and certainly not until I have had the pleasure of flying on her!

[Captain104]

Several sources today( Liberation France, NTV Germany) report that Air France will retire the Concorde 2007. Details and specific dates to follow soon.

Regards

[Jet II]

In todays Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-640048,00.html) there is speculation that the old bird could be retired within months.

[Bright-Ling]

Any truth in the rumour that 2 aircraft (airframes never updates ofter the AFR crash) are off to Lasham for storage?

B-L

[wryly smiling]

must be true it's front page of the Bristol evening post today

[newswatcher]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2934257.stm

[DrSyn]

I will be as sad as all but the cynics on this thread to see Concorde retire. It is still the one aircraft that people stop to watch when she flies over. I suppose that with the turmoil that is enveloping the industry at the moment it is inevitable that such decisions have to be made. I can only agree with those here who suggest not burning any bridges at this stage. After all, unless we're heading back to the Dark Ages, there should be an economic recovery one day in the future.

On a lighter note, I had to chuckle at the LBC Radio news this evening (17:30z) . "From October, Londoners will no longer hear Concorde's sonic boom in the skies . . . . " Excellent research there, LBC!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I'm immensely proud to have worked with Concorde during my 30+ years as a Heathrow Air Traffic Controller. I retired last November so she's beaten me, and she still goes as fast as when she started which is more than I can say for myself!

I never did get a ride in it, but we bought #1 son a "trip round the bay" for his 21st which blew his mind and which he'll remember for ever!

To all the Concorde crews I had the pleasure of working with, thanks for the fun.... especially to the Captain who slipped us a bottle of fizz one night after I gave him a "fighter" circuit.. but that was long, long ago and such things don't happen, except in dreams, do they?

[PAXboy]

H.D. For those of us that are on the outside of the biz, could you expand on what a 'fighter' circuit is?

I realise, of course, that no machine operating into or out of LHR would ever be given a circuit that might be just a shade too tight, or too fast, for normal operations. Such instructions would never be given by dedicated professionals, however bored they might get one night. So, this is purely an academic exercise of how such things might be run in a simulator.

If you are concerned about the journos, then a PM would be fine!

Cannot resist adding that I am now awaiting arrival of my ticket for 8th August, as I was able to get one of the 1,000 seat special one-way Conc that were sold on Thursday. :ok:

I first saw the Lady when she visited South Africa for Hot and High tests and sales pitch in (I think) 1971. Now it's time.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

PAXboy wrote: "I realise, of course, that no machine operating into or out of LHR would ever be given a circuit that might be just a shade too tight, or too fast, for normal operations. Such instructions would never be given by dedicated professionals, however bored they might get one night. So, this is purely an academic exercise of how such things might be run in a simulator."

Of course, silly me, you must be right. But did you ever see the film The Snowman? Where the little boy dreams his snowman is really alive? When he wakes up next morning he has a scarf given to him "in his dreams". I just can't recall where I got this Champagne cork.......

Enjoy the trip; I truly envy you.