Concorde- Let her fly on [Archive]

coopervane

7th May 2003, 07:08

It is with despair that I read of Labour's hand washing of the Concorde affair.

My mind goes back to the TSR2 days and how Labour then saw fit to banish one of Britains greatest aviation acheivements.

British Airways and Air France have maintained these flagships of aviation for over a quarter of a century and despite protesting do gooders moaning about noise and the environment and over reacting media safety experts, she has graced our skies and brought pride to the nations that built her.

So what now?

Richard Branson seems to have always had an eye for Concorde and is perhaps the only piece of British Airways he would ever like to own! (Remember when he painted the model on the roundabout at Heathrow in Virgin colours much to the annoyance of Lord King and his merry men)

As Mr Branson ponted out recently,BA were given Concorde with all its debts underwritten so in effect it is the British tax payers property. Therefore it is not BA's to sell.

If Virgin can put up a credible bussiness plan, then the government should take a serious look at it to give the tax payer a further return on his investment.

Lets not see these wonderous beasts become museum pieces yet. There are already enough of them dotted around the UK and France to preserve the memory.

Lets keep as many as possible in the air as no other jet liner comes close to its grace and performance.

It is still looked upon by the worlds airlines as the jewel in the crown and if Virgin are not up to the task, then perhaps it should be put up for grabs by another.

What could replace it? Nothing around now or even on the drawing board.

When I first saw it appear at a rainy dark day in 1972 at Farnborough with Mr. Trubshaw at the helm, I thought science fiction had become science fact. Talk of this slim delta becoming the norm of all future airliners was the order of the day. In reality, it has been a miracle that it has manage to survive all the obstacles in its way.

If I am guilty of being an aviation romantic, then I hold my hands up. I am sure there are a lot of people out there, both aviators, engineers and Joe public who share my view.

Don't let Labour screw this one up as it maybe, not in this lifetime you will see anything like it again.

Write to your M.P. and Mr. Blair and tell them you want them to act in your interest. After all thats what the government is supposed to be there for.

The British Aircraft Industy has been desimated over the last fifty years to the extent that not a single airliner is now built in this country. Isnt it about time the trend was reversed and a little U turn in Labour's desimating history was made?

Speak up and be counted!

I challenge anyone not to feel shivers down the spine as four Olympus reheats thunder into the sky!

No appologies for the soap box....it had to be said.

Coopervane
:{

coopervane

7th May 2003, 07:48

Thank you blue sky. All suport gratefully received.

Coop

driftdown

7th May 2003, 15:01

Coopervane

I am with you on this.

During the summer months, should the sky be clear, I am able to watch Concorde flying overhead on its approach to LHR. It still astounds me with its beauty and so what if it is a dinosaur among all the modern equipment, so what if it is a gas guzzler.

Sometimes the beancounters should be overruled, after all not everything should be counted purely in terms of profit.

Rant over

Big Kahuna Burger

7th May 2003, 15:12

There is nothing I would like more than for Concorde to continue rattling my windows every day, but the world is not about state subsidies or Governments making decisions on who operates what these days, - its about hard, realistic, commercial decisions. And those might not always be the favoured option by all.

Branson is just seeking publicity. That’s his trade mark, nothing wrong with that, but you need to realise it. Something for nothing. And he has achieved this very well by latching onto that he knew the British public would side with him on.

He even fibbed when he said that he had the manufactures support, something that the boss of Airbus completely refuted the very next day !

BEagle

7th May 2003, 16:00

BKB - you have no soul!

Despite the attempts by the bean counters and other miseries to turn aviation into just another biscuit company balance sheet, thankfully there are still some like Sir Richard who are prepared to stand up and remind everyone that the intangibale asset of an icon like Concorde cannot be measured purely on the balance sheet.

I despair of the locked flight deck, 'take your shoes off at security', 'we're cheap as chips - take us as you find us' era that has turned aviation into Just Another Job. Although the real glamour may have gone, to be replaced by the bus company low cost airline approach to life, Concorde must not be killed off in the way ba propose. (Without Concorde, they'll no longer be BA to me; just 'a british airline').

Good luck to Sir Richard; he has a genuine enthusiasm and this is not just some publicity stunt - even though nigel's management (an oxymoron?) might bleat that it is.

ETOPS

7th May 2003, 16:14

As an avid fan of Concorde (I'm in the draw for one of the free seats!) I would love to see her continue. There is however a simple fact that will prevent this happening. The aircrafts' type approval and thus it's certificate of airworthiness is being withdrawn at the end of October. Not by BA mind you - we want to continue flying, but by EADS. As successor to BAC/Aerospatiale (who built Concorde) they have decreed that they will only continue their support i.e. spares/mods etc if the aircraft are put through a 15 year life extension programme. This will cost billions. Sir Richard Branson knows this and thus his posturing is seen as nothing but cheap publicity at the expense of BA.
In a way we should "give" him a couple of the AF aircraft and sit back and watch the attempt to operate them bankrupt VS.......

maninblack

7th May 2003, 16:43

The design authority will, in the end, do exactly what BA and Air France want and provide a paper reason to kill the Concorde fleet. BA and Air France will do their usual trick of ensuring that the manufacturer is compliant by threateneing to take their ball home and only buy from Boeing if they don't get their way. They did this before and killed Laker, they will do it again until somebody has the bravery to stand up to the bullying management style in Hounslow. If anyone wants to deny the management style in Hounslow then I would recommend that they talk to the locals who are currently re-applying for their own jobs.....Roll on the tribunals.

Roobarb

7th May 2003, 16:55

I have to say that this is a very sad moment in British aviation. Whether or not there is a business case for continuing to operate Concorde is debatable to say the least. British Airways has in the recent past withdrawn from many activities from which it has been unable to make a profit. During that period it has consistently failed to recognise that its failure to operate commercially stems from the company’s inability to run anything without a leviathan ‘civil service’ style management.

The loss of routes from BA to franchise operators in the past is by their own admission the fact that BA’s operating costs are far higher than the franchisee, and that the only way the route can make a profit is to ‘buy-in’ the services of a contractor. Given that the contractor operates the same aircraft in many cases, it’s a pretty long shot to blame it all on the Captain’s wallet. The truth is that the costs that BA faces are not disproportionately attributed to the aircraft, crew costs, or operating charges levied on the carrier. The overheads are still, even after BEP, even after FSS, a 3:2 overburden of management and ‘support’ activities. Since theses costs are not reduced by withdrawing from a route, the closure of any service simply spreads those overheads over fewer routes and increases unit costs. Until BA closes offices instead of routes, the problem will simply get worse!

And so to Concorde. Of all of the criticisms that can be levelled at the culture in BA, I would have to say that their ability to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing is surpassed only by their poor judgement. Even Tesco’s knows that you can sell some things at a loss in order to get the customers in through the door. That’s why we have sales and special offers. If one were to analyse the returns on some lines of stock, I’m sure that BA’s supermarket would not offer posh loo paper or avocados because they don’t make a profit.

The supersonic service offered by Concorde to cross the Atlantic is a unique enhancement to BA’s portfolio. There is little doubt that many customers are attracted to Heathrow by the ability to do the Atlantic quickly before or after connecting on to another destination. By divesting themselves of this strategic advantage, BA will now have to compete head to head with all of the other airlines who offer superior service levels to more attractive hubs than Heathrow. The battle lines will be drawn on the basis of customer service and cabin quality, something that BA is reducing by a death of a thousand cuts.

I hope that someone comes up with a way to keep Concorde in the air, and if that’s Richard Branson then so be it. But the fact that BA feel they can’t operate it at a profit comes as no surprise to me at all. There is still a ‘Harvard Hardman’ attitude within the management who have to prove their machismo by chopping off their limbs to show how they can bleed. Coupled with strategic myopia, we have a recipe for administrative decline. This they demonstrated clearly by their decision to spend £60m on renovating the jet, only to ground it in little over a year.

Lack of vision, lack of backbone, and indolence to commercial challenge. Such are the greatest threats to British Airways.:ugh:

http://www.80scartoons.8k.com/roobarb10wee.gif

I’ll take on the opposition anyday. It’s my management I can’t beat!

frb98mf

7th May 2003, 21:00

Agree with the positive comments, am incredulous that BA's share price hasn't taken a battering over this - surely investor confidence should be dented at BA's inability to use this as a neat loss-leader (or even break-even if they managed it better) - must reflect appallingly on the strategists at Watership Down.

I have a couple of performance questions re Concorde's future viability if by some miracle Sir Richard actually would invest in a 15 year programme to keep the things flying. I'm assuming some major technical changes would be made, but can we do the following? I'm not an engineer or pilot so no clue.

1. Make it land on 2500m of runway?
2. Improve range so it can fly to Rio and Buenos Aires, or even Tokyo via the Arctic?

If not, what about starting from scratch to develop a new version supersonic passenger jet, same type of design, maybe slightly larger to allow say 150 passengers, improved noise and fuel consumption to allow more distance and flights over low-density population at least (I'm thinking in particular over north Canada and down to LA or even Mexico and up, or via Siberia to Far East).

Lots of the design is already there from Concorde, other supersonic projects and the laughable and very ugly thing Boeing were toying with. And there was a project to do with flights even higher than Concorde, I think over 90,000ft, to pick up some of the pull of orbit - not saying this is feasible but could tap the design technology.

From a passenger perspective, if you can better than halve flight times to these places, and rig the whole thing entirely business and first class, you could probably make it viable with 150 seats and >80% loads. Concorde's problem has been size and reliability (they have to keep adequate seat cover in Club and 1st 747's in case they cock up, meaning artificially lowering yields and turning it into a big loss-leader), and issues as to limited destinations due to range, noise and runway.

Thoughts please? Am I just a dreamer? Seems a shame to be taking retrogressive steps instead of going forward. Anyone got Clive Sinclair's number?

Cheers

frb98mf

PPRuNe Pop

7th May 2003, 21:09

Hopefully, after Sir Richard reminds Airbus who is the launch customer is for the 380, and who is also planning other considerable Airbus aquisitions. They just might have to reconsider their position on whether to withdraw their support for Concorde.

Well it is worth hoping.

fireflybob

7th May 2003, 22:41

One presumes that if Concorde is not taken over by another operator (say Virgin) that perhaps a larger proportion of these pax going to New York would transfer to BA First Class.

If Branson does get to operate Concorde then BA will lose the revenue from these pax which will do little to improve their profitability.

I say let's keep her flying - I am with Branson on this one!

JB007

8th May 2003, 01:25

Paul Stobbart told a friend he had an option on Concorde at his charity "Thunder In The Park" last year....the only time Minardi came 1st - cos all the cars were Minardi's !!!!!

Does he still own a % of EAAC or did he sell the lot ?

It was probably only a joke....

t'aint natural

8th May 2003, 03:27

I'm not stirring it, honest, but for gawd's sake let's ditch the mawkish rose-tinted sentimentality and face a few facts. Concorde was a technological blind alley, probably the worst exemplar of the British bent for chasing engineering chimera when others were building useful stuff. As a taxpayer I've poured in my share of the mountain of money that's gone into the maw of this machine, and my sentiments have been mixed. Personally I'd rather the Americans had built Concorde and we'd built the 747, because then we'd still have an aircraft industry. Instead, we've got a bunch of nostalgia-tripping duffers with hearts bursting with pride. Knock it off.

Bellerophon

8th May 2003, 03:52

frb98mf

...Make it land on 2500m of runway?...

It already has, can and does. EMA, EWR, GLA, ORY and YHZ are all airports with runways under 2,500m, on which Concorde can land on at MLW, and BOS, BDL and LGW are all airports with runways under 2,150m which Concorde can land on at typical landing weights.

The shortest ever used is - probably - R/W 14 at LBA, with a promulgated LDA of 1,802m (5,912 ft) when Concorde last visited.

...they have to keep adequate seat cover in Club and 1st 747's in case they cock up, meaning artificially lowering yields...

Interesting theory, but wrong. Quite the reverse in fact.

There was (most days) a standby Concorde available, in case either of the front line Concordes went unserviceable, but there was never any seat cover reserved on the subsonic flights.

One of the benefits of Concorde was that it allowed the overbooking profiles in First and Club, on some JFK flights, to be raised, thus maximising corporate yield.

Any overbooked passenger in First, say on the BA179, could expect to be put on the late Concorde, BA3, and still arrive in JFK earlier than they had planned, usually with a big grin on their face.

...BA's inability to use this as a neat loss-leader (or even break-even if they managed it better) - must reflect appallingly on the strategists at Watership Down...

Ah, well, you may think that, I couldn't possibly comment!

Regards

Bellerophon

Miserlou

8th May 2003, 04:16

Another fly in the ointment regarding the sums 'Concorde to other BA flights' is the fact that people are coming from all over europe and arranging their travel plans via London or Paris for the sole purpose of flying on Concorde.

With no Concorde they'll go direct Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Brussels and the connecting flights will also be lost.

If any-one can keep Concorde flying it'll be Branson.

Good Luck, Sir Richard.

coopervane

8th May 2003, 05:32

Well I read through all your comments on the Concorde issue and to be frank, there seems to be (apart from the odd sentiment), a resignation to the fact that nothing can be done.

How about looking at it from the other angle.......

What happens when Concorde is withdrawn? Answer ........Nothing and a big nothing at that. We are years away from seeing anything like its kind again. Look what happened to the sonic(Super?) cruiser......a Boeing pipe dream just like all the other design sketches that have gone before.

Someone commented that the British built it in an engineering blind alley......instead of building something useful!! What a bore!

If the car industry adopted that attitude, we would all be driving around in three box mono coloured clones.

If you look at the Boeing 707/DC8 and the A340......Ok the Airbus is full of fly by wire and computers, but at the end of the day what does it look like......it looks like nothing has happened in 45 years with regard to looks.

And what does the bus do that the first generation jets didnt......not a lot. Ok there is fuel efficiency and a bit more comfort, but regarding speed and impact at its launch?? No big crowd puller there.

Just imagine you were a spotter in the fifties and you were used to seeing DC6's, Super Connies and Stratocruisers......then along comes the first 707. It must have been like seeing a UFO for real for the first time. Dan Dare has arrived .....am I dreaming?

Concorde had that effect when it took to the Air in 69. It was the next great advance in aviation. And 24 years later there is still nothing to touch its speed and beauty.

Regarding the British Aerospace (waste of space) design authority. Well you built it so you should dam well support it. It is not up to the manufacturer to tell the customer that he cant fly his plane no more because its uneconomical to provide the bits to fix it.

I am not asking the government to step in and bail it out...that is immoral these days. I am asking for them to have a concerted effort (instead of washing its hands) to direct the powers that be to all pull in the same direction. As I said in my original post......there is past tax payers money written off in Concorde so why not let the public have what they want for a change..... a return on there past investment.

Come on Sir Richard......you can do this.....there is great support for your efforts from a big percentage of the population. Let the public speak.....get th SUN involved with one of its campaigns and tell the bureaucrats that sentiment in this case should out weigh profit.

As for British Airways......where has your pride gone...you are the British Flag carrier (yes you realised that at last with your new paint job)......you have an obligation to keep Great Britain great and what better way to do it than to support a real British icon.

Lets have some more positive posts and a few more positive suggestions insted of letting BA, BAE, Labour, CAA and worst of all.........the French dictate the end!

Coop:ok:

Northern Highflyer

8th May 2003, 22:11

Why has there never been any new Concordes built ?
or why is there no modern day equivalent waiting to be built ?

Is it down to :

cost of development ?
cost of operating ?
political reasons ?

or is there some other reason ?

Would be a shame to see it fade into history :(

skeet surfer

10th May 2003, 06:01

At about 18:50 this evening, as I was walking to work (in Reading), I saw Concorde on it's climb out from Heathrow. Absolutely beautiful and still in a league of it's own 34 years after it first flew.

I'm sure that BA have done their sums and found it doesn't add up. I'm also sure that given favourable conditions Virgin could make it work, certainly for the next 10 years.

Maybe the ticket prices need to be increased to cover the costs of the refit. I'm pretty sure that it won't make a difference to me or Sting/Elton John if the prices doubled. I can't afford it anyway and they wouldn't notice the loss of a little more "pocket change"

Concorde is a wonder of the world. Lets not consign it to history just yet.

christep

10th May 2003, 10:56

Having been partying with Sir Richard last night in HK [ :clang: ] it seems he is pretty serious about this. Whether he pulls it off is another matter, but he clearly had the support of his top frequent flyers in the room.

One of his colleagues commented that BA made a big mistake in declaring it "uneconomic" in that they can't really refuse someone else a chance to make it economic since Concorde is in some sense a British national asset. If they had declared it "unsafe" they would have been able to justify scrapping them.

NineEighteen

10th May 2003, 14:11

I'm with you coopervane and I still feel bereaved. She flies over my house every day on the approach to LHR and this compounds my distress.

I've not heard any comment from the regular passengers (e.g. Sir David Frost) but for them, the fact that in November there will be no supersonic service to NYC must seem quite absurd.

One giant leap backwards for mankind...:(

sky9

10th May 2003, 15:24

Come on Guys, lets face the facts.
Concorde was never a commercial success, its one success was it convinced governments that it should not interfere in commercial projects. The project was more to do with 1960's politics than aviation.

If Richard Branson wants the "keys", let him have them but the only flight it would make in Virgin colours was to Duxford, unless of course he would expect BA to give him the spares, engineers and pilots for nothing.

Mr Branson doesn't want the aircraft he wants publicity. BA should suggest that he "puts up" or "shuts up". What they should do is offer it to him from Monday next.

PAXboy

10th May 2003, 20:15

sky9, the reason that Concorde did not make it commercially is the sonic boom. That is also one of the main reasons why no new SST has been developed.

If Richard Branson wants the "keys", let him have them but the only flight it would make in Virgin colours was to Duxford, unless of course he would expect BA to give him the spares, engineers and pilots for nothing.
He is saying nothing of the sort! He wants to be given a price, so that he can make a business case. depending upon the price of hardware and staff and ongoing manufacturer support, he could then see if he could make it work.

Mr Branson doesn't want the aircraft he wants publicity. BA should suggest that he "puts up" or "shuts up". What they should do is offer it to him from Monday next.
Well, that is impractical for a dozen reasons. To the matter of publicity, I recall him saying on a number of occasions, once when I was in an auidence, "I have done many of the antics to get publicity for my companies. Paid-for corporate advertising is very expensive. When we started the airline - we had no spare money, so I did things that I knew the press would follow. The balooning and Atlantic Ribbon events - those were for me - although company publicity was still a spin-off."

I do not work for any Branson company, nor ever have, I am simply a satisfied customer. I have no doubt that if you examined mistakes and poor staff relations, Branson would have as many bad marks as any company chairman. For example, have you any idea what Big Airways did to him? They had already colluded in putting Laker out of business and nearly did the same to Branson.

Running the risk of the moderator saying "Attack the issue, not the person" ... Since you have attacked Branson as a person, I ask: Why are you so against Branson? What has he done to you for this repulsive language about him?

If Branson gets a deal (and I doubt that he will) would you be cross that he had saved jobs and was providing a service that people are prepared to pay for?

I am tempted to suggest that you "puts up" or "shuts up".

gas path

10th May 2003, 22:31

Sky9 sums it up quite well Politics The aircraft only flew because the French forced the then (British)government of the day to see the project through.
If RB wants some why doesn't he have the AF ones as they will stop flying at the end of May.
I wonder if it's to do with the mod state?????
Who will pay for the crown skin replacement work? I doubt if RB could afford it and the phase 2 life extension will also be due very shortly on the BA aircraft!
I would imagine that RR would also like to can the Olympus 593 another '50s technology, and as for the avionic suite, more 50s and 60s stuff that is beginning to sadly show it's age.
Just a few points.
:sad: :sad:
Don't get me wrong I think it's a beautiful looking piece of kit and am going to try for a ride in June.

sky9

10th May 2003, 23:48

Paxboy,

If RB was serious he would make his offer privately after examining the facts rather than on the Richard and Judy show.

I cannot see where I have attacked the person (RB); all I have said is that he is using the issue of Concorde to try and make BA look stupid over what is a proper commercial decision by both BA, AF and Airbus.

It wasn't the sonic boom that killed of Concorde, the aircraft was designed with the knowledge of the effects. What killed of the commercial viability of Concorde was the spiralling development costs and the economics of operating at supersonic speeds. In the early 60's kerosene was almost a by-product of gasoline refining, with the growth in jet aviation the value of the product increased.

BA got the aircraft for nothing; yes they did get a halo effect from operating it (although it was often cheaper to buy a ticket from Rome to New York via London on Concorde than from London to New York) but a commercial success it was never going to be.

We all love to see it go overhead but let's not loose sight of our commercial perspective.

If BA cannot make a profit on its marginal operating costs neither will Virgin, although no doubt RB would love to be photographed with his head out the cockpit window at the next British Open flypast
:D

PAXboy

11th May 2003, 00:26

sky9

We all love to see it go overhead but let's not loose sight of our commercial perspective.
On this subject, I don't think that I have. From the outset of this in the numerous threads, I have always said that the chances of a reprieve for the a/c are nil. It only made money under limited conditions.

It appears that the drive behind the grounding is Airbus & AF, not BA. However the end comes about BA will never allow VS to have the machines unless forced by a court of law!

I cannot see where I have attacked the person (RB); all I have said is that he is using the issue of Concorde to try and make BA look stupid over what is a proper commercial decision by both BA, AF and Airbus.
I might be jumping too soon but there has been a string of people saying that RB only wants publicity and not the machines. I challenge that.

As to whether he should be saying what he is publicly? He knows that he cannot get BA to respond in private. If he approaches them in private, he would get no where. He has to goad them in public in order to get any reply from them. He wants to see the offer or be refused the offer - in public. Then he can prove that he tried, thus he needs publicity. Sadly, the bad blood that exists between BA and VS makes any negotiation all but impossible.

BA appear to be highly irritated at Airbus and AF pulling the plug when they spent all the money on the refurbishment programme. The end has come very suddenly and, as with all aspects of her life, Concorde has politics running through every wire and strut.

Moonraker2003

16th May 2003, 14:01

If anyone can do it, it is Sir Branson. After all its Virgin that has topped the list for profits where all others have the thumbs down sign. WHY? is anyones guess now is it not?
A Maverick like RB is what is needed today and he fits the bill.
I also have a personal reason! have never flown in a Concorde so may get the opportunity.

mjenkinsblackdog

17th May 2003, 19:11

It seems a shame to ground an aircraft that has had extensive inspections after the paris disaster.
I dont remember boeings or airbuses being put under the microscope as severly as CONCORD.
Ba and air france are both financial disasters at the moment.
The weak excuse by Lord Marshall about spares is total rubbish.
Its merely about having control.
If Ba dont want concord and someone with the British aviation circle {doesnt have to be Branson}is willing to make a sensible bid then Eddington should let it go.

Keep it flying since all uk tax payers paid for it in the first place.:cool:

PAXboy

18th May 2003, 23:39

mjenkins, I think the root of this is with Airbus and AF. They made a decision. BA may have challenged this or accepted it.

Once the decision was made, BA have tried to make the best of it by ensuring that VS do not get the machines.

Whilst I do not blame BA for trying to prevent their competitor from gaining a uniqye advantage (and a massive financial problem!) anyone seeking to assign 'blame' for shutting Concorde down - look at Airbus Industrie and Air France. This is not anti French, just a view on where the decision stems from.

The machines are clearly able to operate for another period of time. If they were not, the insurance companies would never have allowed it. One hull loss in 30 years? Not sure if any other a/c can match that? (I sit to be corrected).

NW1

19th May 2003, 09:06

It really is quite sad reading all this "if anyone can do it then RB can" stuff. The manufacturer has dictated that it is "game over". Even VS knows this.

BA bought the aircraft for millions (sorry, but the £1 per plane story is just another attempt at white-knightdom by the PR sponge called Branson), they paid further millions to maintain and develop it, paid millions to be released from Government contractual claims to it, and finally paid millions to re-launch and rebrand it. And Branson wants BA to give it to him?? Yeah right.

But even if they did (and this is the real point) - with the manufacturer's withdrawal of support for the type and lacking the 30 years of operational and engineering support experience for this unique aircraft, how could he expect to even taxy it to the holding point? No type certificate, no fly. Yet Branson can't stop his playground jibes at BA - I just wish BA would call his bluff (and bluff it is) and give him what he knows he can't use: 5 Concorde airframes gift wrapped and fully fuelled. What would he do next? It would be illegal to fly them even if he could muster the staff to do it - and that ain't BA's fault.

BA have made this bird soar with massive monetary and technological investment and commercial confidence in the 80s and 90s: it has reached the end of its career (and almost 3 decades is bloody good by any aviation standard), and the only reason it really hurts is that there is nothing remotely close to replace it. We must now accept a more than 50% cut in cruising speed. And for Branson to seek PR gain from this is risable.

RB fans: you really must read "Branson" by Tom Bower.

GlueBall

19th May 2003, 22:36

And what could or would Sir Branson do differently from what AF and BA have done for the past 27 years?

It doesn't matter who operates Concorde; if the operator(s) can't attract at least 80 pax who are willing to fork over USD4000 for each one-way fare, then Concorde is burning cash.
:{

fireflybob

19th May 2003, 22:46

>And what could or would Sir Branson do differently from what AF and BA have done for the past 27 years? <

It's called Marketing! You can have an "inferior" product but if you get your marketing right you are in business, at least for a while.

Look at the top of many successful enterprises and you will see an entrepreneur. Whether you love him or you hate him that is what Branson is. He wins some and he loses some but, on balance, he seems to win more than he loses.

If Branson thinks he can operate Concorde profitably then I say let's let him get on with it.

Ozzy

20th May 2003, 00:19

Why is it that some people get so distressed about RB's ability to gain PR when it suits him? Why doesn't BA take a lesson from him and try to outdo him?

However, this discussion of the shelf life of Concorde has me thinking of analogies from other industries. To quote NW1 But even if they did (and this is the real point) - with the manufacturer's withdrawal of support for the type
What would happen if other airliner manufacturers behaved like this? Why, it would be like the software industry - upgrade or lose support! The first commercial flights of the 747, for example, took place in 1970. What if Boeing turned round today and said, "Look, the plane's over 30 years old, we don't want to support that type any longer - you must buy more 777s as you will lose all tech support for your 747 fleet by summer. Would that be taken lying down by the operators - not likely.

As for the operational experience, I'm sure there would be some folks who, instead of being laid off or transferred, would move over to VS to continue to work on the aircraft. I hope RB does succeed, with tie-ins to his other businesses, introducing two classes, and with a lower cost basis he should be given the chance to succeed or fail. But he should not be prevented the opportunity of doing so.

Ozzy

NW1

20th May 2003, 02:27

Ozzy, you need to bear in mind that the 747 is a totally different situation. It has been developed, advanced and is still in production.

The Concorde went out of production after just 16 production aircraft were manufactured two and a half decades ago, and those self same airframes are the ones being maintained and operated now. This creates a massive onus on manufacturer (now Airbus) support and one which is technically harder and harder to muster. It was a uniquely complex machine even then, using advanced designs which didn't subsequently benefit from modernisation and advancement and so the costs, and the actual technical ability to keep it on the ever evolving civil certification, are spiralling exponentially. Concorde is not Windows XP Pro!!

Concorde II, Concorde B, or whatever may well have had Virgin Atlantic liveries on it as well - but it doesn't exist, and that is why it is hard for everybody (me included) to accept Concorde's retirement. Believe me, I would have teeth pulled to continue flying this unique aeroplane - I believe it is the best airliner ever built for many reasons - but we have to accept (kicking and screaming admittedly) that all good things must come to and end.

Yes, RB is a brilliant self-publicist and hats off to him for it. But the constant cheap shots at BA for a situation which is not of their doing (if it wasn't for some quite brilliant marketing and millions and millions of technical and commercial investment from BA in the '80s Concorde would not be here now to argue about) are unfair and often downright wrong (e.g. the £1 per plane myth) - that's where the frustration comes from.

GlueBall

20th May 2003, 03:37

It's a topic that's easily understood,FireFlyBob. But no matter how much razzle-dazzle Sir Branson could cook up about Concorde, it's hard to better the tried ways of 27 years' experience by the current operators.

And mind you that when VS had introduced trans Atlantic service many moons ago, BA didn't suddenly fly lots of empty seats across the pond. I well remember sitting in a VS 74 sardine can coach cabin with a seat pitch at the time of no more than what felt like 29 inches.

Even in Virgin livery, it would continue to be a very expensive machine to operate. The bottom line is that it's a numbers game, and the numbers haven't been in the black primarily because of the global recession. Maybe that's why Boeing had shelved its Sonic Cruiser program for now.

Last month when BA had made an emergency landing on Nova Scotia, it was discovered that only 47 pax were aboard! Needless to say, today there just aren't enough well to do travellers who are prepared to part with USD4000 for a 3.4 hour flight, no matter what livery the airframe sports.

gordonroxburgh

20th May 2003, 06:14

GlueBall

I'd think you will find that it was an AF aircraft that diverted to Nova-Scotia with 48Pax.

BA numbers were averaging in the 70s, in recent weeks that have been averaging 100.

What killed Concorde at BA, apart from Airbus, was that to fund these massive investement sums in 2004/5 (£40M+), BA needed the BA003 and 4 flights, but as was correctly mentioned, there was not the market for them.

If these big sums had not come along, BA would quite happy have operated Concorde till 2006/7, as it was making a tidy profit, although nothing like the tens of millions is made in the late 90s

My big issue is that these costs were not required until late 2004, so why did the manufacturer pull the support early? BA had bookings past October and there were no technical issues stopping flying until then. I wonder who was pulling Airbus' strings?

BA had to loose a big earning BGI season; you can't help thinking that the 84 Million write off would have come down a bit if they have flown for another 6-12 months. I guess contracts that were getting bought out early in 2003 would also have run longer, as well as giving the airline more tiem to pay back the reft and mods.

spekesoftly

20th May 2003, 07:37

Airbus Support Costs - Concorde

Just a few sample figures recently published in some aviation journals:-

"New cockpit security doors cost as little as $25,000 for a Boeing aircraft, but $300,000 for Concorde"

"AF Concordes would soon require terrain awareness and other near-term mandatory upgrades costing some
$40 million - far more than fitting to modern aircraft"

As mentioned elsewhere, with comparative figures like these, I'm amazed (and pleased) that Concorde has been operational for so long.

Joles

26th May 2003, 03:17

Dear Coppervane,
I am Joe Public. I was all of four years in 1971 and all of ten when in 1977 ( or thereabouts ) the Concorde came to India - Bombay on a world tour for the first time. The fascination with the Concorde started then . :o
It continued 25 years later, when my ex-Chairman an intrepid traveller to London ( he's a crazy guy who's done Bombay-London- Bombay via the morning arrival evening departure flights but more on him later ) used to describe how one lady used to live in London and travel to New York for work and back every day on the Concorde.
Without the Concorde, the Parent Trap would not have a climax !
The romance of flying would be lost forever in the bean counters of accounts and balance sheets ( incidentally I work among them, but then thats a different story)

Let's build up all the support folks for Coppervane's Concorde Cause and hope that Branson ( may his tribe increase :) ) keeps the magic flying

YA
Joles

Ozzy

27th May 2003, 21:05

Hi NW1 I've read and reread your post in reply to my analogy with the software industry and have come to a couple of conclusions. First, it is clear you love the aircraft and I guess if it were possible, you would want to see it continue to fly.

However, I still don't see a good rebuttle to my previous post. If Boeing were to say, "Okay we no longer sell or support 747s" as a leverage point to increase sales of newer design - would the airline operators accept this as BA and AF have accepted the Airbus position re Concorde. In fact, you explain this when addressing RB's publicity campaign re: "cheap shots at BA for a situation which is not of their doing".

Secondly, operating costs. If Virgin could either run it breakeven, deploy it as a loss leader, or perish the idea, actually make a small profit, then you could not fault RB for wanting to do so.

Again, I don't think it's fair to not allow RB to succeed or fail. If he is willing to pay the Airbus support and maintenance fees, then why can't he get it right or wrong on his own nickel (or 7.5 pence!)

Ozzy

Bellerophon

28th May 2003, 05:45

Ozzy

Those who think it is merely a question of Virgin agreeing to stump up the increased maintenance fees to Airbus, where BA have declined to do so, are missing a crucial point.

Here is a recent quote from Noel Forgeard, Chief Executive of Airbus, in the Financial Times:

“We will absolutely not support any initiative to put Concorde back into operation by any other operator."

Regrettable though it may be, this is the current position of Airbus, and Forgeard has been clear and consistent in making this point to anyone who will listen.

Unless Virgin can get Airbus to change their stance about supporting Concorde with a new operator, they won't be flying it.

Had they been seen to make a strong, serious, genuine and well-planned attempt to change Airbus's view, then they would have attracted considerable goodwill and support from those associated with Concorde in BA, none of whom want to see her stop flying.

Sadly, they haven't, and that leaves many of us sharing NW1's suspicion that this is all just too good a chance to miss for some cheap shots at BA's expense.

If it is solely BA blocking the Virgin attempt to fly Concorde, then why not acquire the lower-hour AF Concordes, available from the end of this month, and start operations much earlier, possibly running a service in direct competition with BA?

I wonder why they’re not?

Regards

Bellerophon

Ozzy

28th May 2003, 07:45

Bellerophon I accept that BA is not blocking Virgin, I agreed with NW1's point that "it was not of BA's doing". That's not my argument.

My point still stands, if Boeing's chairman and CEO Philip M. Condit
stood up and stated categorically that 747's were being withdrawn from sale and not supported from July 1 so they could increase sales of newer designs to increase margins, would BA take this lying down as they have the Airbus decision? No, they would fight it.

Ozzy

WOK

28th May 2003, 18:54

Ozzy asks a very sensible question: Why didn't BA fight the decision to end Concorde's manufacturer's support?

We mere line crews will never know the full details of negotiations between BA/Airbus/AF, but it has been made clear that at least some effort was made to keep flying the aeroplane longer.

AF operations were far more financially problematic than BA's - it is understandable that they wanted to end them. As I write, the final AF flight is 4 days away, yet BA is continuing to the end of October. THAT is the limited success achieved in these negotiations. We know that BA wanted to continue to at least the end of next Winter's schedule in order to capitalise on the profitable BGI season but was flatly prevented by Airbus.

Why would Airbus take this stance and why would BA apparently not take a firmer stand? To consider the scenario raised by Ozzy where Boeing announced the cessation of support for the 747:

There are hundreds of 747's flying. It would be financial and commercial suicide to do such a thing, so it is a remote possibility, but should such a thing come to pass then the market would be there for a third party to take on design authority and manufacture of components. This is what generally happens in this scenario - consider the multitudes of GA aircraft supported in this way, plus after-market freighter conversions, the support of Fokker types and so on. (I am aware that none of the foregoing example are of manufacturers wilfully withdrawing support while still in business, but that's because it doesn't generally happen).
So there would be little need for BA or anyone else to apply massive pressure.

Concorde is a different matter - I won't reiterate the same old arguments about how much manpower it costs Airbus to provide support, and how much more profitably these resources could be employed elsewhere - but it can be seen that the possibility of third-party support is non-existent. (The design is simply going to be outside the experience of anyone else, and the market too small). So Airbus has BA by the proverbials, and there is really very little that can be done.

There is a further aspect - this aeroplane was born of politics and multi-national agreements, and some elements of these will still be extant. It was long rumoured that a tripartite obligation existed which compelled each element (arlines and builders) to support the aircraft so long as the others wished. Clearly that is not now the case, but it could possibly be assumed that the inverse applies; removing the manufacturer's compulsion to support the programme if either airline wished to cease operations. Whatever, we won't know the truth in the near future, but it seems unlikely that the continued operation of this machine was as free from conditions as conventional types.

Finally - it has been long suspected by line crews and line engineers that the end was in sight anyway; it did appear to all of us that the fleet was been positioned to be wound up in the next couple of years anyway. So - if the decision had been made to kill it off in 2004 there would be little point in having a massive and fruitless fight to extend beyond 2003.

None of this, of course, detracts from the fact that structurally these machines could continue to perform in this unique operation
for years to come.

PS: Hasn't the Grinning Cardigan been awfully quiet since he met with Airbus?? Obviously BA have threatened awful things to the little Airbus company to force them to do BA's bidding......

NW1

30th May 2003, 08:30

Partly right - I would like to see the fleet fly out to its potential.

But your 747 analogy (and more so the Windows thing) is a non sequitur.

However, I still don't see a good rebuttle to my previous post. If Boeing were to say, "Okay we no longer sell or support 747s" as a leverage point to increase sales of newer design - would the airline operators accept this as BA and AF have accepted the Airbus position re ConcordeYou are starting from a false assumption - this is NOT the Airbus position. How can you imagine Airbus might be able to use the ditching of Concorde "to increase sales of a newer design" as you claim? Do you really think Airbus would imagine that BA or AF would grab the 'phone and order up fleets of Airbi on hearing that Concorde's days were ended? Of course not - there is no such lever simply because there is nothing anywhere to replace them, and the comparison between the commercial situation of the maintenance and operation of Concorde and 747 types is absurd.

There are hundreds more 747s than Concordes. Many, many airlines operate 747s; but only 2 fly Concordes (and one has load factors in single percentage points). 747s are still in production, and have been developed on to be a 21st Century aircraft using 21st century techniques and technology; but there are a mere 9 airworthy Concordes on the planet, the jigs were destroyed decades ago and engineers need to be expert with 1950/60's technology and techniques - using skills and knowlege quickly receding into history, and the manufacturer needs to guarantee these components and the costs of doing this are rising exponentially - the 747 maintenance and support operation is modern, cost effective and well established. Its like comparing a 1930s Le Mans Bentley with a Vauxhall Vectra. I know which I'd rather drive to work next time, but a time and money comparison should convince you which one to equip your taxi rank with (clue: ring up Vauxhall and ask them for a price on a new head gasket for a 1999 Vectra, now try the same thing for the Bentley.... now do it for a commercial transport operation....)

The other thing you need to remember is that the Concorde is and always was a bi-national operation tied up in acres of legal contacts. Both sides of the channel are needed - BA cannot sanction another operator to go it alone, it is simply not in their power to do so even if the price made it worth their while (and investment). Which it wouldn't.

Ozzy

30th May 2003, 21:36

Well I have said what I wanted to say NW1 and you are closer to the issue than most of us. I didn't mean to suggest Airbus was using their position to leverage sales of other aircraft, I was using that motive only in the context of the Boeing example.

Sorry to see Concorde go that's all.

Ozzy

SuperStreaker

2nd Jun 2003, 01:11

Most (if not all) want to see Concorde continue to fly well into the future, Airbus can jack up the cost of the support or farm out the parts production to a contracter (Boeing :E ) but I'm sure they looked into that:confused:

I loved the software analogy, but it's crap. Concorde is far superior to WindowsXP, it's only crashed once and it's 30+ years old:ok:

If the grinning sweater wants to try and make a go of it, let him, it's after all his business decision and he wants to remain profitable, I'm pretty sure that BA would have no problem with VS going tits up over this. I'm also sure Airbus don't want to support the aircraft at a loss, so why not make a decision to make a profit on it, or very least break even, Airbus do after all (from what I can see) hold the cards. If I purchase something should the manufacturer then be obligated to support it to obselescance?

When all is said and done, I would love to see the avionics and other 50's/60's kit replaced in a new production run but who would buy/operate this unique example of British-French cooperation?

WelshFlyer

2nd Jun 2003, 02:09

As far as staff go, what is going to happen to the "ex" Concord pilots - do you think they'd be happy flying s***ty A380s? of course they wouldnt be happy flying anything less than concord.

To the point that if RB bought the A/Cs he'd have a load of ex BA aircrew suddenly joining virgin.

As far as technology goes - if the Mod took that attitude we'd still be flying spitfires (well that's good, but you know what I mean) the RAF have new fighters being developed all the time. So why not airlines?

Concord is a big big national asset.

Don't let it be scrapped. And remember RB is a pilot himself, I bet he would like to keep one of the concords as his personal A/C.

anyway, that's my two penneth.

WelshFlyer

IFTB

2nd Jun 2003, 19:06

May I remind previous posters that most aircraft contracts state on the subject of technical and spare parts support that the manufacturer shall support the aircraft type when there are an x number of this type STILL IN OPERATION.
Fairly standard commitment.
Now compare the 747, or Fokkers, and Concord again.
It's a contractual obligation.
If the x number is is low as three, Branson or whoever will not be able to make any commercial sense out of that.

I stand corrected if there is a person around who actually knows the Concord contract to be different , but I doubt it.

Nothing to do with Airbus/Boeing attitude/ new sales opportunities or whatever cr@p is being spouted in this thread.