Air France Concorde for Dulles.

[Speedbird48]

Air France will deliver a Concorde to Washington, Dulles (IAD) on Thursday June 12 at 10-10. This will be it's last flight and it will then go to the new Smithsonian Museum on the SE corner of the field.

There is also a rumor that BA will run one as a flag waving exercise later in the year from LHR to IAD and then to JFK.

We are coming to the end of an era, shame.

[Tonic Please]

Id die to see them all fly in unison as a low pass over Heathrow. Id love to hear the noise complainers complain at that! I guarantee though, that they will be awe inspired by the, most likely, famous invent in aviation for many years. Dont you agree?

[Idunno]

Isn't it ironic that the country which contributed largely to the failure of Concorde as a commercial proposition should want one for display.

Trophy hunting perhaps?
A 'great white elephant' head for the collection.

[lomapaseo]

Isn't it ironic that the country which contributed largely to the failure of Concorde as a commercial proposition should want one for display.

Interesting twist on facts.

I always thought that it was doomed by economics , not by a country. Hell, there was the whole world to fly (and it tried) ignoring any country that didn't appreciate it fully. In the end it tried to be friends with the only foreign country that had the money to support it. Now at least that friendly country is willing to put up a monument to that friendship.

At least that's better than a graveyard without a tombstone.

[Al E. Vator]

.......er - no, lets get our 'facts' straight here. The USA killed Concorde from Day 1, make no mistake.
As Brimson (?) suggested, Americans love competition as long as they win. The Boeing product was way behind and was never to be a winner. Concorde was and they couldn't have it, hence the Congress approval of noise bans etc.
The success of Airbus must relly annoy!

[MacGriffyn]

If the USA killed the Concorde from day 1, it sure took a long 30+ years for the thing to die.

And I thought that it was BA and Air France maitenance woes that stopped the Concorde from flying. Airbus better not get too annoying or they'll be next...or so I hear.

K

[Captain104]

Airbus better not get too annoying or they'll be next...or so hear.

Your hearing aid must be hyper-sensitive. :confused:

Regards

[bluskis]

lomopaso

Your knowledge of history is non existant, it is not even worth trying to enlighten you.

[PlaneTruth]

Al E. Vator, et al,

Soooo, Stage II and Stage III (and soon to be Stage IV) noise restrictions in place throughout the world are some wierd hangover from the anti-Concorde crowd in Washington DC?

You are kidding right?

C'Mon guys! Lay off the Guinness for a moment. Boeing's SST was TWICE the size of the Concorde and even on that scale they realized they couldn't make it economically viable. With worldwide noise restrictions around the corner, betting the company on a VERY expensive program with no assurance the plane would be financially viable, Boeing pulled the plug.

Boeing is an independent corporation. The Concorde was paid for largely by the governments of England and France. Any suggestion that a billion dollar aerospace programme is a "winner"when it yielded less than two dozen aircraft being sold to their respective flagship carriers for one pound sterling each is pure hogwash!

Technological marvel? Yes, they are remarkable aircraft for their time. But please don't try to re-write history. Boeing simply chose not to do the programme --just like today with super-jumbo development. AirBus went down that road. Boeing has chosen another path. (Oh, and by the way A380 fans, the Boeing team originally designed the 747 as a double-decker. After millions in research, they redesigned it to it's current configuration. Evidently their data still shows two decks are not better than one. Time will tell.)

In todays cost-conscious world, you'll likely never see another aircraft like the Concorde. It was a good ride for us airplane buffs, but it is over.

PT

[norodnik]

If you look at the facts, at least as presented, you will see that the Concorde made a very nice profit for BA.

Sure you can point at the govt funding etc but that is the way it was in those days and the US does no less for Boeing et al with military and research funding.

In any event, all those Boeing 747's seem to be making a nice fat loss for most of the airlines around the world, maybe we should ground those as well.

Ah, but I forget, when its a US plane it will be the global economy, SARS, or a one off, when its Concorde, its the plane.

[BahrainLad]

PlaneTruth, you're speaking out of your backside I'm afraid.

The facts are that the US Government spent far more money on attempting to play Boeing off against Lockheed with the SST proposal, than the British and French spent on Concorde. You got a wooden mock-up.....we got the most beautiful machine designed by man.

And, the 747 was never designed to be a double-decker.....in fact it was never designed for carrying passengers! It originally started out as a freighter (the reason for the hump being that there was one continuous cargo area without a cockpit at the front to get in the way of loading).

[BOEINGBOY1]

Sounds like our american friends are a tiny bit jealous of concordes success.

Seems like the americans are also pissed that airbus 320 family now has the top spot of worlds most popular a/c.
Pause for thought: Anyone know of any other commercial a/c that has flown for 30yrs and only suffered a single loss?

ps, as far as making it to the moon - well there's a whole new story.

[PPRuNe Radar]

The Concorde was paid for largely by the governments of England and France.

England hasn't had a Government for almost 300 years ... far sighted indeed to leave a fund for a supersonic aircraft ;)

[scotchontherock]

Why all this figthing guys Boeing and Airbus make airplanes for us to fly, :cool:

[PlaneTruth]

Norodnik,

You assert that BA made a tidy profit on the Concorde. If that is true, and I have heard the contrary from industry insiders, it must be minus the tremendous development costs. I know that is hard for someone from a socialist background to comprehend but there was a cost in the Concorde’s creation and that cost must be balanced against any income the aircraft generates..

BahrainLad,

One of us is speaking out of our backside, but I assure you, it is not I.

The 747:

The 747 was initially proposed as a cargo aircraft at Pan Am's (Juan Trippe’s) request --and a passenger aircraft. (Don’t confuse Boeings early design proposal for the CX-HLS –later the C-5 –with the 747.) It was envisioned by Boeing and the carriers that the 747 was a stop-gap people mover that would be killed stone dead by the SST. (see Flying magazine, May 1987 by Nigel Moll) It had to be a viable freighter after the hordes moved off to the SST. The cockpit was initially planned for below the freight deck but that was later changed to above. It was found that a first class section up top was cheaper than a longer aircraft to accommodate same. I just watched a new Wings episode where the 747 engineers and management staff talked about the conflict between what is technically feasible and what is financially viable. Remember, TWA and Pan Am were the launch customers. The double-decker 747 was the initial design but they were afraid you'd never be able to fill it past break-even. So, they opted for a small upper deck for first class -to fair the cockpit. (Only after detailed wind studies of why the SP version was so economical did they realize the impact of the upper deck fairing and it's relation to the wing. The Big Top evolved and spelled the end for the SP. It did more work for nearly the same fuel burn. )

The American SST Program:

Your assertion that more was spent by Uncle Sam “playing Boeing off against Lockheed” is way off the mark.

Boeing competed against North American in the B-70 contract --and lost. Boeing took their experience from the supersonic bomber and put it into NASA’s SCAT (Supersonic Commercial Air Transport). Boeing had set up a SST study group in 1958 and was fully prepared to embark on the project in 1963. After Pan Am’s announcement that year that they would buy Concorde, President Kennedy announced a national SST program for the US. In January of 1964, Boeing submitted a design against Lockheed’s and North American’s. Early in the program, North American was eliminated. Boeing and Lockheed were asked to redesign their studies to larger aircraft in order to lower seat mile costs. It was becoming readily apparent that if the SST was to become a transportation system readily accessible by the average public, something had to be done to lower costs.

Initially, all funding was from within the competing companies. As design work began it was obvious that this program was going to be financially unsustainable for one private company. Early in the competition and after detailed analysis on four different designs by the two companies, Boeing had devoted over 20 million to the project. In 1965, the US Government stepped in to help finance the design and construction. An 18 month competitive phase was commenced and Boeing was funded to build a mock-up as Lockheed was eliminated. By 1967, Boeing was given the green light to build two prototypes but they asked for more time to work out configuration development. In 1969 the configuration was finalized and Boeing was ready for construction. Boeings final design was for a 286 foot long 635K lb titanium beast capable of carrying 250-321 passengers at a cruise speed of 1800 mph (mach 2.7).

American politics in 1970 were polarizing around the Vietnam War and economic woes. The American public demanded to know why their tax funds were being used for private ventures. By 1971, 15% of the airframe was completed and all major technological hurdles were well within hand. The program was within budget and on schedule. On the 24th of March 1971, the US Government cancelled funding for the project under mounting pressure from both the taxpayers (a deep recession had begun in the US in 1969) and the environmentalists (noise and ozone questions). Boeing was refunded their design costs and the program cancellation turned out to be a blessing in disguise: By the oil embargo of 1973, seat mile computations were rendered obsolete for all jet aircraft then in existence. This spelled the end of inefficient aircraft. This is why the Concorde production was ceased after less than 20 aircraft

With a few Concordes already in existence, financial realities meant only flag carriers for France and Great Britain would fly the aircraft.


Gentleman, the point is two parties chose to go down a road. One party was forced to turn back. The other was too far down the road. One is no better for the decision it made . The Europeans built a beautiful machine that was state of the art. The American XB-70 was equally elegant. The Tupelov was slightly bovine from certain angles but it too had it's charm. No aircraft lover can deny the planes that were built are stunning.

But, to say the SST players who built their aircraft were anything more than technologically successful is pure hallucination. It is widely agreed upon that the Boeing SST would have met the same dismal fate. Perhaps BA did make some money with the Concorde. That's easy when you only pay a pound per aircraft. To conveniently omit the fact that the development costs of the aircraft came from the taxpayers of the two countries involved (the vast majority of which never traveled on the aircraft) in disingenuous.


FURTHERMORE, The Concorde vs 747 argument is like arguing which is better: Apples or Oranges? They are two distinctly different approaches to moving people around the globe.

One thing is for sure: The 747 program has paid for itself over and over. It created a new market by lowering airfares. More people have traveled the world thanks to the 747 than any other aircraft in commercial history.

Each new Boeing program literally bets the farm. The same is now true for AirBus. The failure of the 707, 747, 777 would have killed the company. Remember, the 747 was seen as Boeing as a stop-gap to the SST. Only by the failure of the SST to be financially viable did the 747 realize the success we have seen over the past three decades. The 747 has been made in numbers that far exceed those of Concorde and each 747 has been paid for by someone other than the US taxpayer. In fact, Air Force One and it's stand-in were former airline aircraft. Same with the Airborne Laser Laboratory. Even with that level of success, Boeing nearly closed it's doors after not receiving any orders from 1969-72. It’s because they are an independent entity.

That doesn't make the Boeing team winners and the European teams losers. It's just the way the different programs worked out. Now the Europeans have decided to go big and slow. They may be very successful but one thing is certain, they are trying desperately to pay the bills as they go along because the realize, as did Boeing many times in the past, if this design is unsuccessful, it may mean an end to their company.

Jealousy has nothing to do with it. It's simply a matter of economics. I am not trying to take one atom of credit away from the team who designed and built Concorde. She’s a splendid machine. I merely want to point out the fact that as a revenue producing appliance, she never had a chance.

BoeingBoy1 – The 737 family is the commercial aircraft which has been built in more numbers than any other commercial jet aircraft in history. It hold a hull loss record half that of the rest of the industry. If you are suggesting that only one A-320 aircraft has been involved in an accident, I believe you are also incorrect.


PT
:ok:

[Idunno]

Errr...I believe he was referring to The Concorde. ;)

[nooluv]

It's a crying shame that an aircraft made in the 60's which can perform better than anything flying today on this planet is lost!.
We will spend most of our lives trying to watch it stooging around at airshows aka (vulcan) if granted a.w.c.
IDEA ... Fly it up & down the north sea supersonic (VIRGIN CONCORDE) loads of americans will come over here on a 380's (745) obsolete.......
Come on Tony & Richard get your ar$e into gear......

[newarksmells]

Planetruth;

Your article was one of the best I ever have read on PPrune. While I don't agree with 100% of your points, it was very well written and extremely thoughtful.

As for why Air France stopped flying the Concorde to N.Y, it ws strictly economics. They were averaging only 20 passengers a flight which will kill any airline rather quickly!!! I will always remember playing rugby next to the airport in the early '80s and seeing this thing take-off. The ground shook and the both teams stood around to admire it's beauty and grace....and after the ground stopped shaking, the match continued.


Newark

[PlaneTruth]

Newarksmells,

Exactly! Economics finally won out. (Well, that and those pesky rudders that Concorde kept shedding at cruise speed.)

People or Planes: Parts is parts and sadly they don't last forever.

PT.

[Wycombe]

You are wrong about the Air Force 1's and the Flying Laser Lab.

They were/are all new-build airframes AFAIK (the presidential a/c being highly modified 747-200s and the Flying Laser being based on the 744F I believe).

Of course, the US Govt is now helping Boeing's lean order book by giving them 100 tankers (KC767) to build....it's called politics & it goes on everywhere!

[JJflyer]

Wycombe


You are 100% correct. Politics rule and go on around the world affecting everything.

You are, however, giving the impression that US gov suddenly decided to order 100 B767 tankers to support thing Boeing orderbook. This is somewhat misleading as this project has been under works since the early nineties.

Order could not have been better timed for Boeing. ( I agree that it was probably politicians that accelerated the process) USAF was likely to order these aircraft regardless of the difficulties Boeing is facing now.

Cheers

JJ

[MarkD]

Newarksmells/Planetruth

surely the only thing proved by AF's poor loads to NYC is that the French aren't as up for SSTs these days or that Big are better at marketing it! Fair enough considering the accident but loads on Big weren't that bad?

Big must be doing OK from the "end of Conc" given that a lot of people are going to Club or First it in one direction subsonic. Pity politics seems to be killing the bird both sides of the Channel, rather than AF/Airbus killing all SST flights.

[PlaneTruth]

Wycombe,

You are correct.

PT:ok:

[Globaliser]

MarkD: surely the only thing proved by AF's poor loads to NYC is that the French aren't as up for SSTs these days or that Big are better at marketing it! Fair enough considering the accident but loads on Big weren't that bad?

Big must be doing OK from the "end of Conc" given that a lot of people are going to Club or First it in one direction subsonic. Pity politics seems to be killing the bird both sides of the Channel, rather than AF/Airbus killing all SST flights.My guess is that BA might have been prepared to hang in there to see if things were going to get better as the economy picked up. The halo effect is worth something even if the operation is not making much money. But once AF decided that it was going to stop because it was doing so badly, residual maintenance costs for the remaining fleet would have gone from gulp to we can't do this any more.

IMHO, BA has been very clever about accounting for the end of Concorde. The £84m writeoff was taken in the year to 31.03.03. All of the extra sales from the retirement boom will be booked in the year to 31.03.04, as the announcement wasn't made until 10.04.03. So last year's profits depressed (but still a decent size), and next year's profits cushioned - possibly even better than that - by current loads.

It is a real pity to see the end of the career of the (again, IMHO) most beautiful machine ever to fly.

[Bellerophon]

PlaneTruth

You make some good points which, it may surprise you to learn, I agree with - even if they are rather painful to British ears - but there are also one or two that do not stand up to scrutiny.

Let's start with some we can agree upon:

...Technological marvel? Yes, they are remarkable aircraft for their time...
...you'll likely never see another aircraft like the Concorde. It was a good ride for us airplane buffs, but it is over...
…two parties chose to go down a road. One party was forced to turn back. The other was too far down the road. One is no better for the decision it made...Sad, but true.

However, when you talk about why Boeing dropped out of the SST race, which of the three reasons you give is it?

...Boeing simply chose not to do the programme...
...On the 24th of March 1971, the US Government cancelled funding for the project...
...with no assurance the plane would be financially viable, Boeing pulled the plug...?Or was it because Boeing were still having technical problems making the design work and were getting cold feet?

The Senate vote on 24 May 1971 was the end of the US SST project, but I suspect it was greeted with relief as well as dismay by Boeing, for, despite your confident assertions, the technical aspects of the 2707 design still left much to be desired.

...Boeing's SST was TWICE the size of the Concorde and even on that scale they realized they couldn't make it economically viable...

In 1969 Boeing were still talking about the 2707-200, with swing wings, flaps, slats and canards. Even Boeing eventually realised this aircraft was so heavy as to be unworkable.

They revamped the entire design later in 1969, and came out with the 2707-300, minus swing wings, canards and now sporting a tailplane. Still unrealistically aiming for Mach 2.7, and requiring a new and as yet unfinalised Aluminium alloy to withstand the associated temperatures.

So to say

...By 1971...all major technological hurdles were well within hand...

seems just a touch optimistic.

In hindsight, always a wonderful tool, it seems clear that the US government picked the wrong manufacturer for the US SST project, and that Lockheed had, by far, the superior technical design in the L-2000.

Would it have mattered in the long run? Probably not, given the oil crisis and the anti-SST campaigning of influential politicians such as Senator William Proxmire.

Speaking of hogwash, this fits the bill perfectly:

...aircraft being sold to their respective flagship carriers for one pound sterling each...

Sorry, but that is rubbish. Believe it if you wish, or do the financial research.

...You assert that BA made a tidy profit on the Concorde. If that is true, and I have heard the contrary from industry insiders...

You've been listening to the wrong insiders. As far as BA as a company are concerned, Concorde did, until very recently, make a tidy profit. It operates in a luxury market, as such is very susceptible to any downturn in the Global economy, and is suffering badly at the moment. However, make no mistake, it was for many years, the highest yielding profit centre in BA.

...but there was a cost in the Concorde’s creation and that cost must be balanced against any income the aircraft generates...

Yes, if you are a government, spending public money on private projects, but not as far as BA as a private company is concerned.

If I run a profitable taxi company, I couldn't care less about the costs incurred by Ford or Chrysler in building the taxis I buy. Whether they make a profit or a loss is their problem, and is irrelevant to whether I do or not. That's Capitalism.

I'm not in any way trying to suggest that the UK taxpayer got a good deal, or that the UK government should have funded it, far from it, but remember the US government put as much money into its program, got a wooden mock-up to show for it, and refunded Boeing all its development costs! How does that cost look compared to revenue generated?

BA spent a lot of money, time and effort on Concorde, and the end result was a safe, profitable and prestigious operation for nearly 27 years, something those connected with the fleet are very proud of.

When US government forced Boeing out of the SST program, for all the wrong reasons, but at the right time, it was a monumental stroke of good luck for Boeing. They built a magnificent aircraft in the B747, an aircraft that did change air travel for the masses, and of which they can rightfully feel proud, but they were still many years away, if ever, from making the 2707-300 work as an SST.

The UK, it must be admitted, also tried to get out of the SST program, but were kept in by the French, who insisted that we continued to support Concorde.

Ironic, wouldn't you say, in the light of recent events!

Best regards

Bellerophon

[seacue]

From Washington Business Journal:

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2003/06/09/daily8.html

Air France's first Concorde is Dulles-bound
Jeff Clabaugh
Staff Reporter

June 12 will mark the final flight of Air France's Concorde F-BVFA, the first Concorde the carrier added to its fleet. The destination will be Dulles Airport and its final resting spot will be the Smithsonian.

Air France actually promised the Air and Space Museum the jet in 1989.

[Speedbird48]

As I previously posted it will arrive in Dulles at 10-10am on Thursday 12th.

[BahrainLad]

PlaneTruth, you still haven't countered the facts that the US spent more on her supersonic 'project' than the UK/France!

Brian Trubshaw......"Concorde: The Inside Story"....."It is worth remembering that the US spent more money on their SST....and came up with nothing....than was ever spent on Concorde".


Along with Bellerophon, I encourage you to read the Concorde FAQ on the BA website......BA paid $155 million or thereabouts for the Concorde infrastructure (and it was only the last 3 aircraft that were given a nominal value of £1, but only for accounting purposes). But what is more revealing is the huge sums that shareholders bought the company for at privatisation from the government, a value of which Concorde was part.

[JW411]

I know that I am a lot older than most of you so here are some of my memories.

I well remember Sir George Edwards being interviewed by BBC about Concorde and being asked if they had built the thing too small, for Boeing's 2707 was going to be at least twice as big.

He responded that he rather hoped that Boeing would persevere with their project for he was having such huge problems making the Concorde work that something the size of the 2707 would be impossible!

Boeing sensibly realised the impossibility of what they were trying to achieve and got on with what they did best.

Concorde was an amazing technical achievement. Sadly it cost me and everyone else in the country at that time a bloody fortune in income tax. Interestingly enough, it was a Labour minister who saved the project. Dear old Tony Benn (who managed to forget that he was really Viscount Stansgate) managed to convince the country that it was more tax-efficient to continue with the programme than it was to have 5,000 workers put out of work and claiming benefits in Bristol.

To the American lobby I have to say that your memory is also rather selective. The New York Port Authority for example fought tooth and nail to try and prevent Concorde from kabding at JFK. I can well remember the vitriol (for I was there at that time) that appeared in the newspapers and upon the TV. The trouble was that aircraft in the supersonic category were exempt from ICAO noise regulations. That was fine until Boeing gave up on the 2707!

There is surely not a single pilot on pprune who does not watch Concorde every time it takes off and lands.

With the great advantage of hindsight I think its real role should have been to have been given to the Royal Air Force with a stand-off bomb underneath (as was indeed proposed).

As a sop to the politicians, then maybe two of the pre-production prototypes could have been given to No.10 Squadron at Brize Norton and to No.10 Downing Street so that Viscount Stansgate (sorry Tony) and his mates could have gone backwards and forwards to Washington avec grande vitesse.

BA and Air France crews have made great efforts over the years to try to operate these wonderful aircraft successfully and should be congratulated but they have always been farting against thunder when it comes to economics.

There is no way that The Grinning Pullover would ever be able to operate even one of them.

I actually think that it would be a smart move for BA to offer to sell him all of their aircraft for £7 (very publicly) and then make sure that everyone in the world knows about it. His excuse would be interesting to listen to!

[coopervane]

Hey, its not to late but you have to move fast!

Sir Richard, you got until October to get the respray done and if you do, it will be the greatest publicity stunt ever.

There is life in the old dog yet and despite all the arguments about noise etc, to have a premium unique service like Concorde under your banner sets you apart from the 'tubes" the rest of the world flies.

With a Virgin Cabin refit, the stars will come flocking to ride on what is still the fastest link across the pond.

We didnt make many and it was put in the sky with government money, but it did happen unlike the Boeing 2707. Its the easiest thing in the world to draw a plane on paper and make a million excuses why you aint gonna build it. Aviation would be a poorer place without it and I defy anyone who sees it grace the sky and not feel moved by its beauty.

Coop

[PlaneTruth]

Bellerophon,

"In 1969 Boeing were still talking about the 2707-200, with swing wings, flaps, slats and canards. Even Boeing eventually realised this aircraft was so heavy as to be unworkable."

Incorrect, Boeing was commited to cut metal but without government funding, they could not continue. Had they, they'd have been wiped out by the fuel crunch of 1973. (See BOEING, PLANEMAKER TO THE WORLD, Redding & Yenne.)

"They revamped the entire design later in 1969, and came out with the 2707-300, minus swing wings, canards and now sporting a tailplane. Still unrealistically aiming for Mach 2.7, and requiring a new and as yet unfinalised Aluminium alloy to withstand the associated temperatures"

Also incorrect. The aircraft was to be constructed out of titanium --just like the SR-71.

"In hindsight, always a wonderful tool, it seems clear that the US government picked the wrong manufacturer for the US SST project, and that Lockheed had, by far, the superior technical design in the L-2000."

On what do you base this conjecture? The US Government treatined final approval authority. Had Lockheed put a better design on the table, it would have been chosen. There is very little information available on the Lockheed proposal. Would you like to share what info you have?

"Speaking of hogwash, this fits the bill perfectly:

...aircraft being sold to their respective flagship carriers for one pound sterling each...

Sorry, but that is rubbish. Believe it if you wish, or do the financial research."

Bahrainlad's post points to the source of my memory. I am not sure what 155 million worth of "infrastructure" constitutes but spread out across the six or seven aircraft, plus Olympus spares, pluss other spares, it's a pttance.

"...but there was a cost in the Concorde’s creation and that cost must be balanced against any income the aircraft generates...

Yes, if you are a government, spending public money on private projects, but not as far as BA as a private company is concerned.

If I run a profitable taxi company, I couldn't care less about the costs incurred by Ford or Chrysler in building the taxis I buy. Whether they make a profit or a loss is their problem, and is irrelevant to whether I do or not. That's Capitalism"

So it appears you agree that the whole cost of the aircraft was not passed on to BA. I agree that it couldn't have been.

"I'm not in any way trying to suggest that the UK taxpayer got a good deal, or that the UK government should have funded it, far from it, but remember the US government put as much money into its program, got a wooden mock-up to show for it, and refunded Boeing all its development costs! How does that cost look compared to revenue generated?"

Are you saying we should have gone on to complete the aircraft even after the history of Concorde? Again, had Boeing continued, they'd have been out of business. Had the US continued funding, the planes would be sitting out in the desert someplace because they were financial disasters.

Thanks for the discussion. I'd be glad to hear what you come up with on the REAL aquisition and operating costs of the Concorde program. The truth may come out over the next few years.

BahrainLad,

(Sorry, my mum passed on last Friday and it's been quite busy of late. My heart is not in this now, as you might imagine.)

PlaneTruth, you still haven't countered the facts that the US spent more on her supersonic 'project' than the UK/France!

Anyone who claims to know this with certainty is probably deep into conjecture. Remember, NASA had many programs underway which were directing engineering data towards high speed flight. The X-15, X-B70 and YF-12 programs (among others) were flying testbeds that fed the high speed transport program. When you roll all those costs in, it may well be true. I don't know what you folks on the far side of the Atlantic know about the X-B70 but it was a truly phenominal aircraft. (Grab an Aero Series #30) North American's SST was based largely on the data derived from the X-B70 which first flew in 1964 --years before Concorde. They had hard data with which to based their cost projections. The costs of these cancelled programs were certainly more than the single cost of the Concorde development.

"Along with Bellerophon, I encourage you to read the Concorde FAQ on the BA website......BA paid $155 million or thereabouts for the Concorde infrastructure (and it was only the last 3 aircraft that were given a nominal value of £1, but only for accounting purposes). But what is more revealing is the huge sums that shareholders bought the company for at privatisation from the government, a value of which Concorde was part."

Good info. I'll check it out when I get time.

JW411,

"To the American lobby I have to say that your memory is also rather selective. The New York Port Authority for example fought tooth and nail to try and prevent Concorde from kabding at JFK. I can well remember the vitriol (for I was there at that time) that appeared in the newspapers and upon the TV. The trouble was that aircraft in the supersonic category were exempt from ICAO noise regulations. That was fine until Boeing gave up on the 2707!"

I was a kid on Long Island in 1970 an my memory is very clear on what I saw in the papers and on the news at dinner. My dad worked in the aerospace industry. The noise complaints from heavy turbojets blasting in and out of JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark were mounting. The American public is not nearly as fond of aircraft as you Brits. This was the prime reason Boeing realized the SST with augmented takeoff thrust was doomed. ICAO is an international organization. Clearly they didn't go along with the US given that France and UK had just plunked down hard cash on the SST.

"There is surely not a single pilot on pprune who does not watch Concorde every time it takes off and lands. "

No doubt.


As for the few playing the "You Americans must be really jealous about the Concorde now" chant, I can only say: Get over it. It is not a flattering basis for any argument. How would you like it if an American imbecile ranted:

"Hey you silly Brits! You must be REALLY jealous of our F-104, X-15, B-58, XB70, B-52, C-5, U-2, SR-71, Grumman Lunar Lander, Shuttle, Space Station, blah-blah-blah."

That's disgusting, not to mention embarrasing.

Each country has contributed to this technology we call "flight". For each of our countries contributions we should understandably be proud. Don't fall victim to pointing to one example as a basis for any argument whatsoever. Britain and France have a long and established history of aviation firsts and technological advancement. We Americans have just been blessed with a social system which generated the cash to do many things that were hertofore unthought of.

Gentlemen, thanks for the discussion. And for those who sent me private messages, thanks to you as well. Through discussion and thoughtful contemplation, we can not only further our understanding of this beautiful science, but we can share it with others.

Hope to see you on my jet sometime.

PT










:ok: :ok:

[Bellerophon]

PlaneTruth

You are perfectly entitled to hold whatever opinions about Concorde you wish, but some of your assertions are factually incorrect, and your attempts in some other areas to distort the history of SST, in order to conform to your opinions, are to be regretted.

It would be churlish however, to proceed with this debate in view of your recent loss.

My sincere condolences on the loss of your mother.

Bellerophon

[PlaneTruth]

Bellerophon,

Thank you.

The ball is in your court. I am open to any historical data you'd like to offer.

PT

[Deeko01]

Thought you guys might be interested in seeing the full flight plan for todays departure of F-BVFA the Air France Concorde flying from Paris Charles De Gaulle to Washington its final resting place :

(FPL-AFR4386-IN
-CONC/H-SIRWXY/C
-N0538F280
-LFPG1000 N0530F280 C/EVX/M200F310F600 SL4 C/5041N01500W/M200F450F600 NATSM 42N067W SM2 CAMRN/N0530F350 DCT ZIGGI V276 RBV J230 SAAME DCT DELRO V143 MULRR DCT AML
-KIAD 0442 KBWI
-RMK ACCELERATION POINT EVX307035 DECELERATION POINT 3943N 07107W BLOCK ALTITUDE F450/F600 FBVFA LAST FLIGHT ONE WAY FOR AN HAPPY RETIREMENT IN SMITHSONIAN NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM
-SEL/DHAB DOF/030612)

Farewell old girl.

Regards
Del

[Airbubba]

Sic transit gloria...

_____________________________


Concorde Makes Final Landing at Dulles

By Eric M. Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 12, 2003; 12:14 PM

The Air France Concorde made its last transatlantic journey today, touching down at Dulles International Airport this morning after a three-hour, 49-minute nostalgic trip that ultimately will see the supersonic jet donated to the Smithsonian.

The Concorde, perhaps the best-known gift from France since the Statue of Liberty, was once the symbol of technology and the future of air travel.

Air France ended regularly scheduled Concorde flights last month, the victim of high operating costs and too few passengers. After a fatal crash in 2000 and additional security concerns after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the world's rich and famous have turned elsewhere. British Airways will continue to fly its Concordes until October. But today's flight was the last ever into Dulles.

The donated Concorde was the first in Air France's five-supersonic-jet fleet -- the one that debuted Air France's supersonic service in January 1976, and the first one to land at Dulles.

"She loved the firsts," said retired Concorde pilot Chemel Eduoard. "This was not an ordinary plane. She was the best of the fleet."

Concorde flights were too expensive for ordinary flyers -- costing upwards of $10,000. But they became an icon of a super glamorous lifestyle and was flown by queens and presidents, diplomats and rock singers.

"I've flown Concorde 200 times; maybe 400 times," said maestro Mstislav Rostropovich, 76, often called the world's greatest living musician and the leader of the National Symphony Orchestra for more than 17 seasons. "It was a big art of my life." He said he always would buy two tickets -- one for him and one for his 292-year old cello.

"What am I going to do now? Just cry," he said.

The significance of France's donation to the American museum, which comes in the midst of strained relations between the two nations over the Iraq war, was evident by the emotional sendoff at Paris's Charles de Gaulle Airport.

As the Concorde pushed away from the aging concrete of Terminal 2a -- itself once a symbol of modernism -- airport firefighters and ground crew stood and waved goodbye, cameras hanging around their reflective safety vests. Through the glass of the terminal windows, travelers stared and gawked-just as they have they have done since the maiden test flight in 1969.

Soon after takeoff, a French fighter jet appeared off the left side of the aircraft and escorted the Concorde as it broke the sound barrier. Afterward, the fighter turned away in a respectful farewell.

The aircraft, known as F-BVFA, now will become a major part of the National Air and Space Museum's new facility at Dulles, which is scheduled to open to the public in December. The facility will also house the prototype space shuttle Enterprise and the bomber Enola Gay, which dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, to end World War II. The other Concordes in the Air France and British Airways fleets are slated for donation to other museums around the world.

"Back in 1989, Air France promised the F-BVFA to this prestigious museum, the most visited in the world," said Air France Chairman Jean-Cyrio Spinetta. "Air France's worldwide staff is pleased that Concorde, which graced the skies between France and the United States for almost three decades, will continue its legacy on the other side of the Atlantic."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49516-2003Jun12.html?nav=hptop_tb

[BahrainLad]

PlaneTruth, my sincere condolences.

I hope we can conclude this thread with a sense of mutual respect for one another with an atmosphere of factual discourse.

The £155 million (a significantly larger amount of money in the early 1980s than today, remember) was paid for the final 3 aircraft, spares inventory, simulator at Filton etc. This in effect transferred responsibility for running Concorde from the government to BA.

The first 4 airframes, the original BOAC order, had a list price of around £35-40 million per aircraft.

The government certainly made a loss on the project; but to say BA were given Concorde for free; a pound or even £150 million is incorrect: there was a bit more to it than that.

(Bellerophon, please correct if you know more specifics).