cargosales

Well, I was there and freely admit to having a big lump in my throat as they came in to land.

My twopennyworth on the big question emerging here: In my humble opinion, the beancounters have won out over the marketeers at BA. In a stroke, BA has become 'just another airline' and has removed itself from any aspect of 'aspiration' which it used to possess. I.e. whenever I saw Concorde I automatically thought of BA. [If I was French I guess I would have thought of Air France] I often dreamed of flying on Concorde but sadly never did. But it was an aspiration, and a reason to fly BA. Now there is none.

Branson reckons that the £2 million or so he is investing in Steve Fossett's round the world attempt will yield £60 million or so of free publicity for Virgin. Well, GOOD ON HIM for recognising the value of marketing. And SHAME on BA for ignoring the same.

I've not been a fan of BA for some time [ever since they became 'graffiti airways' with those silly tailschemes whilst still retaining the old BA arrogance as it happens but that's another story] but do they seriously expect me to now have the same loyalty to my 'national airline' as when they flew Concorde. I have news for them: "NO CHANCE MATE" as they might say Downunder. Sir Richard has the Union Jacks on his aircraft and that's where my money's going in future!

Incidentally, a question: whenever people see a Boeing 747 or Airbus A340 they say " there's a 747" or "there's an A340". Why, on seeing the Queen of the Skies did they say "there's Concorde" i.e. singular? [given 14 or so were built]?

CS

shuttlebus

Will be heading over to sign the petition after I log out here.

WOK... Sorry, but I feel that some blame can be laid at BA's door.

Unfortuantely, I know of another example were creative accounting has taken place. Up until about 2 years ago BA flew (as part of the UK shuttle service) a very successful LHR-BFS-LHR service. However, post 9/11 a claim that the route had lost x million pounds over the previous 4 years was cited as the reason for closure. BA was "sorry" that it was pulling out but in the economic climate... blah blah management buzzword buzzword buzzword... blah etc.

It later turned out that the route had always beeen profitable, only some beancounter (with a bean for a brain) decided that for people travelling to onward destinations ONLY £1, yes £1 would be allocated to the BFS-LHR sector!!!

Now I admit, the planes weren't always full but I can't seriously believe that they needed to be, IF the full fare had always been allocated to the correct sector. Needless to say BMI are now doing an absolute bomb (Sorry :-) on this sector and you need to book well in advance to get an economy fare...

So now I see all these "economic reasons" quotes from BA about Concorde and I begin to wonder, just wonder if they don't completely ring true. (Or maybe I am just too cynical :-)

Discuss.....


Regards,

Shuttlebus

P.S. If anyone owuld like to step in with any data on BFS-LHR (Not BA propaganda) please feel free.

P.S.S. I am not BA bashing or anti-BA, just putting out some facts :-)

palmtree

Have a look at the ba website www.ba.com they have a really good video clip of Concorde taking off....just to rub it in that they are the ones that decided to kill concorde off... customers... who needs them or their oppinions.... I bet in their alice in wonderland world they think its a really great clip just to keep reminding us all of what they have taken away from the world ... how about replacing it with a video of Skippy hopping back to Oz.... now thats something that would really make us all smile ......

eddief

What's *really* sad is not whether BA mis-judged the effect of their decision upon their own business - I couldn't give two hoots about what happens to them from now on - just another ex-state airline in a deep stall (Air France, watch this space).

No, what's really tragic, is that they have actively prevented anyone else from at least having a go at operating the Concorde fleet or trying to negotiate with Airbus, either for them to extend the Type Cert or to sell it on.

A year ago, this was a profitable aircraft with many years to run and the underlying facts and commercial opportunities have not changed in the meantime.

Commercially, it is only proper that BA has the freedom to choose what aircraft it operates and how, but what they have done here goes well beyond that.

M.Mouse

Errr....no.

It was an icon, a wonderful but very old and increasingly difficult to maintain aircarft.

Do all the posters here, if they can manage to put aside their rose tinted spectacles and misconceptions influenced by pure romanticism, really believe that BA would have grounded the aircraft if it was such a surefire moneyspinner?

That is also ignoring the fact that AF/Airbus were intent on it ceasing operations.

Unwell_Raptor

I was talking to a Judge today at Isleworth Crown Court, and I was told that on Friday all of the court users and staff (except the ones in the cells!) were outside watching the birds come over.

No comment

Ok, albeit a few years ago, but this passage was in the back of an inflight publication given to me by someone who flew on Concorde. Its perhaps 6 years old and I know a lot has changed but its rather ironic reading now...

"In an era where the contours of the world map are changing and high-technology is taken for granted, Concorde remains, the indispensible link between Europe and North America, interpreted in a style and affording a service which are essentially British. Concorde's continuing success is assured.

British Airways looks forward to welcoming you on board in the future."

BA@LHR

Hi all,

I was at the end of 27R on Friday to see the 3 beautiful concordes land but also the Bay of Biscay take off, and was trying to listen on my scanner but (sod's law!!!!) batteries ran low! I have downloaded off of you fantastically generous people the transmitions for the 3 inbounds but not for the Biscay flight.

I was hoping that someone possibly recorded it as my sound was muffled but it sounded something along the lines of:

ATC: Speedbird Concorde 9020??, I was going to say that you look great out there today, but instead you look superb!

SST: Thank you etc......

If anyone could respond with a link etc. it would be hugely appreciated by me and others I imagine!

Kind regards

Oli

eddief

I thank M.Mouse for the feedback on my statement that Concordes were profitable and would respectfully point out that I would not consider myself to be in the rose-tinted spectacle camp ;o)

Certainly, there is no question that the aircraft are increasingly maintenance-intensive (particularly when compared with the newer breeds in service).

However, whilst I do not believe that BA would knowlingly throw away something that they considered to be profitable, the emphasis would be on the word 'knowingly'. BA has hardly dazzled me with its marketing wizardry and foresight over the past few years (trendy tail-art, obsession with business travellers whilst Easyjet et al take the low cost market away from them, etc).

At the end of the day, if these really were such a white elephant, why didn't they realise it before the expensive (and heavily publicised) refit and why aren't they being more candid about it in public - surely a bit of transparency would help get them out of the PR mess they're now in?

Regardless of all of the above, I think my main point remains valid - the type certificate may well have been up for grabs and somebody else may well have been able to keep them flying profitably (even just using up the remaining airframe life on experience flights if it had to come to that).

To their ever-lasting shame, BA (and AF) removed any chance of this even being a possibility.

Porky Speedpig

The BEagle seems obsessed with chasing the kangaroo but he and all the others who rant on about selling Concorde to Virgin seem to overlook the fac that a whole fleet of them have been available in France for 6 months now. Never once have we seen the beard offering 1 Euro, 1M Euro or whatever to M Spinetta and co. One can only draw the conclusion that he was more concerned with BA bashing than seriously operating the beast.

ThermalUndies

Jordan

"what are decals btw?"

Transfers - like you stick on your model concorde.

Flying Lawyer

Although I'm very disappointed by BA's decision to stop operating Concorde, and I think the refusal to allow Virgin to have the aircraft was wrong, I won't be signing the petition. It goes too far for me. I'm an admirer of both BA and Virgin, and fly both carriers - my choice based simply upon routes/schedules. I won't try to avoid flying BA because of my opinions on the two Concorde issue.

M. Mouse
I'm hesitant to question what you say because although I work closely with the industry, I'm not in it. I just wonder if you think anything I've said earlier in this thread is incorrect and, if so, what? I'm always prepared to learn.

Although the poster who said Concorde was profitable a year ago was wrong, he wasn't far out. The BA Concorde fleet was making a net profit of about £3 million a month before the Paris crash. It's been losing money since. If you were disagreeing with his assertion it had "many years to run", I suppose it depends what each of you mean by "many". I don't under-estimate the cost implications of the aircraft getting older.

I don't think anyone has gone as far as saying Concorde would have been a "surefire moneyspinner" if it had continued. However, there are people in your company who aren't looking through 'rose tinted spectacles', and aren't basing their opinions on 'misconceptions influenced by pure romanticism', who believe it could have been turned into a financial success again - either by BA or by Virgin.

It's not difficult to see why Air France wanted to cease operations. The AF Concorde fleet was never run as profitably as BA's, and was losing money. AF is in difficulty. The French government owns just over 50% of AF, and wants to reduce that to less than 25%. Watch what happens in the next few months. AF will either privatise or be forced to form an alliance with another European carrier - KLM, also in difficulty, is a strong possibility. Whichever solution AF pursues, it has to strip its loss-making elements. Many thought BA would have to drop Concorde when it was preparing to privatise but, instead, it was transformed in just two years into a highly profitable fleet which made enormous profits for BA for almost 20 years.

I've no doubt AF would have hated BA carrying on - we remember what happened when BA kept flying after the French Concorde was grounded - but that would not have been a determining factor.
However, your assertion that Airbus was also determined that BA should cease operations is an over-statement, if what I've been told by informed sources within BA is correct. I posted my understanding of the negotiations earlier and won't repeat them here. Is your understanding differerent? And, if so, on what basis?

I hope you won't find my questions/points irritating. I stress I'm anxious to learn and, if you've got time to read what I posted earlier, I'd be very interested to know where you say I've got it wrong.

Hand Solo

This has got to be becoming one of the most tedious, circular and outright ill-informed threads on PPRuNe in recent history!

There is no national outrage BEagle. Just yours, a few other ill-informed individuals and Bransons faux-outrage. Child murders cause national outrage. Aircraft retirements cause upset. As for the petition, 'I promise to look at other airlines to BA'!? Yeah right, unless they're more expensive, or inconvenient. or third world, but thats OK because I don't actually have to feel guilty when I do fly BA. Can't see the City being worried.


Cargosales:
Do you think BA supported Concorde during its many loss making years out of ineptitude. Do you think the Concorde model outside LHR just appeared by magic? And on the subject of those tailfins, that decision was reversed in 2001 and 80% of the fleet bear the union flag design. What do you want, blood? And don't forget to check out how many of your 'national flag carrier's aircraft are Icelandic registered.

shuttlebus:
Your info on the BFS route is wrong. Revenue for onward flights was allocated according to the percentage of total mileage flown, just like every other BA shorthaul route. Not fair, but thats the way it goes. If you want creative accounting then remember that for years Concordes entire fuel bill was tagged onto the 737 fleet at LGW. 120000 tonnes of fuel costs per year would make Concordes profits less impressive.


eddief:
Because Sept 11th, the stock market crash and Foot and Mouth all happened after the refit began. Along with most of the other things which have decimated the premium travel market.

With all due respect, your main point was never valid in any way. The CAA said no to non-BA Concorde operations. Airbus said non to BA operations. The type certificate was never up for grabs in any way. How often does this need to be repeated? Branson would never have operated a commercial flight on Concorde. He would simply have been handed a superb PR coup - a Concorde dressed up in Virgin colours, for £1, which he would never fly. There are people who say BA should have called his bluff. For what purpose? It was never going to fly, so why grant him yet more free PR opportunities?

shuttlebus

Hand Solo et al,

I can only apolgise... I posted what I believed to be correct. (And based my comments on that info) The info was passed to me when BA stopped flying.

Like flying lawyer I am always prepared to learn.... the truth is out there!

I hope no offence was taken.

Regards,

Shuttlebus

Came back to edit this, as I had a look over in the "Concorde fleet rebellion" thread. Some good reasons for retirement...

Heliport

Hand Solo

Not taking sides in the discussion, just a request for information:

You say "The CAA said no to non-BA Concorde operations."

I haven't heard or read that before. What's your source?

eddief

Like everyone on this forum, I certainly don't want to fuel any angst or frustration but I am desparately keen to find out the *facts* so that I can try to understand what has happened - God knows, I'm going to be a whole lot happier if somebody can convince me that this was actually necessary.

I too had not heard that the CAA had stated that they would only support operation of Concordes by BA and find that to be very interesting indeed - surely a point that BA would have done well to shout loudly about?

I'm certainly not at all convinced that Airbus is in a position to 'pull' their support of a Type Cert without a major battle but then, that's probably a different thread altogether.

Anyway, if anyone knows more, please post it here - I'll try to keep my head down for a while so that others can have their say.

Thanks to those who have contributed so far and best wishes to all.

Hand Solo

Heliport - the sources were within BA from a department that has very close links with the CAA. To be honest, their position looks pretty clear-cut even without that info. To issue the CofA and add the type to Virgins AOC they'd need to prove, amongst other things:

1) They had pilots, currently qualified, and a training and checking infrastructure. This would mean poaching current active BA or AF pilots. Highly unlikely.

2) They had Flight Engineers, qualified as above. Virgin may have had some success with this, but whether they'd find enough?

3) They had sufficient engineering support and qualified engineers and technicians, with the knowledge and expertise to operate an aircraft which is far more complex and labour intensive than any commercial aircraft flying today. Again, they'd need to poach pretty much the entire BA engineeering team to achieve this. Thats unlikely, and if they couldn't achieve this then the only other way would be to start afresh with intensive manufacturer support, which Airbus weren't willing to provide.

Those are three massive obstacles to Virgin ever flying the aircraft. Concorde was the most heavily scrutinised aircraft within BA, and many people seriously underestimate the level of knowledge, expertise and labour required to keep it flying. Virgin could never achieve that level, and the CAA knew it.

Heliport

Hand Solo

Thanks. It seems a pity neither BA nor the CAA made the CAA's position public when, if true, it would have been a complete answer to people criticising BA for not allowing Virgin to operate Concorde.

On your first point, do BA and Virgin have the same retirement age for pilots?

Interesting discussion - more information seems to be emerging on this thread than in some previous threads.

Jordan D

Thanks for the info on what decals are ....

I have to agree with some of what's been said about Virgin, BA, AF, Airbus & Concorde.

I think now is the time to stop, remember, and let the old bird rest in peace.

Jordan

Heliport

Bye Jordan, see you on another thread.