European Bid for Concorde

[Redstripe]

According to today's Times Paul Stoddart has put in a bid for Concorde to be run by European Aviation. The article is buried in the Sport section of the newspaper.

Could it happen? Well, maybe:-

1) European have a long-running relationship with BA, having bought BAC 1-11s and B747s from them at the end of each aircraft's life with BA.

2) BA would certainly rather Concorde went to Stoddart than to Branson.

3) European are rumoured to be recruiting a senior manager from the Concorde fleet.

Watch this space.......!




Speed of thought helps keep Minardi on track

By Kevin Eason


PAUL STODDART may run the slowest cars in Formula One, but that has not stopped him putting in a bid to run Concorde and it is one deal on which the head of Minardi will not have to consult his new partner. Minardi was bailed out by Bernie Ecclestone, Formula One’s impresario, with a £2.5 million investment a fortnight ago.
Yet Stoddart remains in day-to-day control of Formula One’s smallest team, running it on a £20 million budget dwarfed by the big players with more than ten times the money to spend. He thinks big, underlined by the fact that his European Aviation business is bidding to run Concorde on promotional flights.

Making Minardi fly is proving a lot more difficult because sponsors have been reluctant to get behind such a small team, but Ecclestone’s clout is expected to entice sponsors and help Stoddart to plan for the future for the first time since he took over two years ago.

“It has all been a bit hand to mouth,” he said. “We have plenty of talent and a devoted workforce, but we have never had the real money to invest that the big teams have. Hopefully, Bernie’s involvement will say to sponsors that we are in this sport to stay and we are worth investing in.”

Without Ecclestone, Minardi would not have made it to the end of the season, but Ecclestone’s Machiavellian mind had already homed in on the fact that the team gives him a voice at the table of the controversial group of carmakers threatening to break away from his Formula One set-up.

One other person to benefit is Justin Wilson. The Briton has become a limited company with 1,500 investors raising £1.2 million to buy him his seat at Minardi. That scheme would have been shattered if Minardi had gone bust and jeopardised Wilson’s future.Now he has a chance to show his skills, albeit on the limited stage yesterday of a soaking Nürburgring track.

Even though he had to drive while the rain was at its worst, Wilson, on £40,000 this season, finished fifteenth, ahead of five drivers with combined salaries of almost £18 million.

[mainfrog2]

I don't think BA want Concorde to go anywhere, they've already said it's not for sale and will retire on October 24th this year.

I suggest we all go and do something more useful with our lives and not watch this space.

[Redstripe]

As Branson has pointed out though, the taxpayer paid for the development of Concorde. It should not be up to the government to decide its future, not BA.

[Anthony Carn]

There's an attitude that if Concorde is'nt viable saving a privileged few of the champagne set a few hours on an atlantic crossing, then it should be sent to pasture.

Selfish and thoughtless, or what ?

One gets the impression, from this forum and talking to people in general, that there IS a considerable demand for flights on Concorde. It's simply that there just is'nt a demand to fly to NY and back at phenominal cost per ticket.

Concorde could be viable as an expanded and specialised one-off charter/pleasure flight operation. Quick flight from your local airport, just to say you've been on Concorde, to experience what you could'nt otherwise afford, to have flown at Mach 1, or even 2. All for, say, a few hundred quid (or whatever it costs to be viable - certainly much less than at present).

They'd be queing up !

Where do I buy a ticket !!!!!! :D

[Human Factor]

Would love to see it carrying on - picture it as part of Bernie's fleet .....:hmm:

However, if other companies feel that it's viable to continue operation (after changing the mind of Airbus), then why couldn't BA and AF? The answer comes down to the fact that they are scared to death of another major incident and neither they nor Airbus could take the bad publicity in the current climate. Sorry to say it but let's quit while we're ahead.

[ann1979]

There's no way Paul Stoddart will be buying Concorde for European Aviation, as European is being taken over, and Paul will concentrate on Minardi. I do wonder where some of these rumours come from.

[bluskis]

Concord is beautiful, and in engineering terms it just looks right.

However it suffers from being a political pig passed on to the taxpayer by none other than the musical hall prime minister, that laughable character, Ted 'shoulders' Heath.

Fortunately his other ridiculous projects never saw the light of day.

Britain can't, and shouldn't have to, afford to keep it going.

Which we have no doubt been doing by paying BA too much to fly on their other offerings.

If someone else wants to try and make money, or publicity out of a white elephant, why not.

If BA realise the publicity value of the beast, then why should they not do a deal at the price such publicity commands. They did a good deal when they acquired them.

I envy the few pilots who have had the privileged experience of flying it, and I shall miss the unmistakeable sound of it on approach and on takeoff, but I am happy there were not more of them in the skies where I lived.

RIM

Rest in memory.

Rest in museum.

[bearkeeper]

I would suggest that it has always been Paul Stoddart's dream to operate Concorde - the EAL logo since the late 1980's has been an outline of the aircraft - maybe that says it all !!!!

If anyone can make it pay, he would be able to do it, just look at what was achieved with the BAC1-11's that BA said were uneconomical to operate, let alone the B747-200's.

The main problem as I see it, is not BA or the Government, but dear old BAE Systems (British Aerospace, as was) who have been looking for an opportunity to "knock Concorde on the head" for a number of years (same goes for the 1-11). Unfortunatly in today's world, pride in the product and the technology of Concorde, counts for nothing - it is all down to money.

I wish Paul (or Branson for that matter) the best of luck in keeping this fine aircraft flying - just seems that everything is stacked against them !!!!!!!

[stormin norman]

Interesting to note that Paul Stoddard has yet to sell EAC
According to the press recently he sold out to Bath Travel,
but rumour has it the deal fell through due to contractural
problems with the 747 engines.

Any Update anyone ?

[PAXboy]

How many times does it have to be said:

"Airbus Indutrie have withdrawn support of the machine"

"The airworthiness certificate will be withdrawn"

"BA are not going to sell them to anyone for any money"

"It's over"

Do not imagine that I am pleased by any of the above statements but I fully expect them to be proved true.

[pom]

But BA announced this week that they intend to keep one Concorde in an airworthy state for flying displays. How does that work, then? And won't that be a lot more expensive than operating one on a normal basis?

[PAXboy]

If BA keep one going within the original time period of the expected life (another eight to ten years, If I recall correctly) then it would cost some money! They would have enough spares to cull from machines after their respective delivery flights to their museums?

In all liklihood, this would entail a changed certificate that would not allow pax of any kind, only crew and technicians. So you can see but can't touch.

[moo]

not strictly true pom. they are considering it at the moment, no decision has been made

[airvicemarshal100]

How's about a touch of realism, fellers?

Can anyone get the Concorde on to their AOC, operate it and stay solvent? Of course not. Will all those pilots and engineers who've got it on their licences or approvals willingly quit BA to join Virgin, European or anyone else? Even if the older ones do, who will replace them?

Without manufacturer support, will it last 5 minutes?

Are you happy to fly in a 30-year-old airframe with 40-year-old technology at Mach 2, that's maintained by an organisation that's only just learning about it? If so, it's a triumph of hope over experience.

Sorry, chaps. I had my first ride in the beast in the mid-70's during a sales tour, and very exciting and beautiful it was. If you've missed your chance, bad luck.

May she now be left to retire, gracefully, in peace. We can do without another fatal loss. The world has moved on, and nostalgia belongs in museums.

[Al E. Vator]

.......blah blah blah, well airvicemarshal you won't go flying in the US then if you don't want to fly in a 30-year-old airframe with 40-year-old technology!

Countless DC9's, 737's, 727's and DC10's there and they're 50 year-old technology!

Like all thing the governing factor is supply and demand. Airbus will support it if there is money in it. Yes the taxpayer funded Concorde and it is extremely arrogant of BA to think they should be the arbiter of what happens to the Concorde. The best return on investment for the taxpayer is they are continued to operate safely in whatever guise makes them the most viable. If BA can't do it let somebody else.

[BEagle]

Hear hear!

The worst possible thing would be for ba to fly Concorde as some sort of Airshow-only aeroplane. No doubt they think that they would be able to charge airshow organisers the earth for the privilege.

The aircraft should be sold to Sir Richard Branson if he can demonstrate a sound business case.

British Waste o' Space still manages to support the RAF's truly ancient VC10s - and will probably have to do so for another 7 years or so. So why not Concorde....??

[bouldaman]

I think one of the major over night delivery companies should buy concorde. Great advertising, ' the customer would recieve the package before it was sent ' , I bet Fedex , Ups , or DHL could make it profitable. destinations flown to might not need to be as noise sensitive as new york and london and most aircraft of concorde's vintage have had cargo conversions so why should concorde be different!:D

[M.Mouse]

OK, we agree it is just big bad BA being petulant.

Lets ignore reality and pretend that people like RB could make a success of it. How is he getting on with his approach to buy AF Concordes, by the way?

The man is milking a totally unrealistic proposition for what he can and the gullible contributors on this and other threads just cannot see the reality.

[exeng]

Your statement <<The aircraft should be sold to Sir Richard Branson if he can demonstrate a sound business case.>>

These aircraft legally belong to BA. (There is opinion that says they too little was paid but that does not alter the case of legal ownership) They are within their rights to give them to museums, make saucepans of them or whatever.

If Branson could operate them at a profit then surely from a business standpoint the BA board would be acting against the interest of it's shareholders by selling the aircraft to Branson. It won't happen unless BA are sure that Branson will make a fool of himself by purchasing them.

Notwithstanding all that it is my belief that support will be withdrawn for commercial operations and the A/C will cease in service from October. There are many valid reasons for this.

M.Mouse has summed up RB fairly accurately.

I like many others will be sorry to see the A/C retired but I will be very surprised if that is not the case.


Regards
Exeng

[abra]

Come come chaps,you've missed the joke of the original post.Its not just that European were going to take on Concorde..but they wanted BA's Concorde management too!I'm not sure quite which of these two would put European out of business the quickest.The idea of Porky Bannister marching around the wilds of Hurn with a clipboard and a soundbite is an amusing one,but not if I were working for EAL.
Now try this;hold your noses and say after me..Speedbird Concorde One...sounds familiar...now(still holding your noses) say Eurocharter Concorde One ....sorry..pass the cuspidor!(*)
And just try to imagine Concorde in that new Astreus..er I mean European colour scheme....yuck.
The old bird is a beautiful dead duck,let her rest in peace...perleeezz.
*..a BOAC sickbag aka cuspidal.

[Hand Solo]

How many times does it have to be said? The taxpayer sold their stake in Concorde when BA was privatised, and the government (on the taxpayers behalf) made a very healthy profit thank you very much. The only people who have any say in the BA aircrafts future are BA and its shareholders, not Joe Public and certainly not publicity hungry airline tycoons.

[pelican larry]

Interesting. Twenty years ago Mr. Branson was called a "lunatic". Now its "publicity hungry airline tycoon". Quite an improvement.

[Shuperstar Loadie]

Why is the most innotave civil aircraft of our time being handled so badly???
BA hates Virgin so no chance there! European dont make me laugh! they are having enough troubles of their own let alone start a new fleet from scratch.

I think we must accept the fact that the old girl will retire and the arguments about this will go on forever.

Shame as Tony Carn had the right idea..... let everyone have a go coz it was my mother and father who paid for this aircraft with their taxes and the idea of giving this up because BA was privitised is stupid!.

Give it to the frieght dogs and let us do mach 2 from STN to anywhere!!!!:ok:

[cjp]

Sorry, but who knows how much fuel concorde burns per hour?

And, therefore, exactly how profitable is it to run on a REAL long haul route - i.e. Europe to Australia?

I know many people that would pay more than double to cut a 24 hour flight in half - many, MANY more people than I know who would pay double (or more) to cut a 6 hour flight in half.

Maybe QANTAS should buy it?

Or Virgin Blue?

Or, in fact, Stoddart - a forward thinking, business oriented Aussie, after all...

:)

[gordonroxburgh]

At best Concorde would take 18hrs to fly from the UK to Australia with 2 tech stops. (Bahrain and Singapore etc..)

18hrs in the small cabin of Concorde against 24 hrs in first class or club class, is a no brainer.

Concorde could be classsed as a short haul jet flying medium haul routes.

Very few people would pay to fly that sort of route, you could pick up a few pax that would only fly one of the sectors, but not enough to make it pay.

BA tried this with the 2 sectors out to Singapore in the lates 70's early 80s'. It lost shed loads and in the end was never extended all the way to Australia.

[cjp]

gordonroxburgh,

sorry, but please excuse my incredibly crude (late night) calculations;

london - sydney = 9156.74 Nm

Concorde cruise = 1,336 mph (2,150 kph/Mach 2); 1160.95 Nm/ph
(http://www.britishairways.com/flights/factfile/airfleet/docs/conc.shtml)

= lhr - syd 7.887 hours

= MAX 10 hours (including 1 hour aircraft interchange (i.e. second aircraft), assorted random delaying factors: hell, say 11 hours...)

?

cjp

[exeng]

The problem with your calculations is your assumption that the aircraft will be able to maintain supersonic cruise all the way. That is far from true I'm afraid.


Regards
Exeng

[BRISTOLRE]

I refer to a recent newspaper article I just turned over..

The Guardian 25th June 2003 suggested a shortlist of locations for the BA Concorde "new homes".

*Seattle Musuem of flight
*Washington Smithsonian musuem (already have an AF model!)
*Science Museum London
*Terminal 5 LHR

But what about the model G-CONC that proudly sits on the entry/exit to the LHR tunnel?

The LAST scheduled revenue BA service will be ex-JFK 0700hrs LT on 24th October 2003.

[gordonroxburgh]

cjp

There are essentially 3 X 4hrs+ sectors:

London -> Bahrain (some of it subsonic)
Bahrain -> Singapore (again right at the aircraft range so 4hrs)
Singapore -> Sydney

As some pax would be on and off during the different sectors you will need to allow 1.5 hrs, for the turnaround.

Threfore we have 3 X 5.5 = 16.5 approx, it could be less, it could be more.

[cjp]

Ok, 4 hours per sector, 3 sectors.

I think though that we can count on some priority handling on the ground? Ryanair style, this could could cut the trip down to 13.5 hours LHR-SYD.

Compare this with Qantas' best offering, 21.25 hours LHR-SYD.

Though, the Concorde will get roughly 17 miles to the gallon per passenger, compared to 93 on a 747-400? That's roughly 5.5 times more expensive...

[Hand Solo]

What kind of 'priority handling' on the ground did you have in mind? Concorde gets all the priority handling it can at LHR these days, but if you think you could get a turnaround time below 1.5 hours with passenger changes then there are some very hard working handling staff who'd just love to meet you - and your time machine! Frankly I'd take 21 hours in first class with some horizontal rest than 15 hours sitting upright in a narrow body. Anyway, given that BA generally needs to utilise a back-aircraft to protect the daily JFK service you might find you need an in-situ back up aircraft at Heathrow, Bahrain, Singapore and Sydney, plus the one thats operating the outbound service and one operating the inbound. Thats six aircraft, and we only have five airworthy ones!