The Concorde thread (Don't start a separate one!)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: volcano
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Palmtre, I agree with with you about the concorde being blamed for the lack of profit related bonus, i heard the same rumour from a friend in BA accounts,(allegedly!) should be investigated!
Bitter & twisted? youre not a lemon are you?!
Bitter & twisted? youre not a lemon are you?!
lunasynchronous orbiter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle et al. - I have heard a rumor of Concorde inbound to JFK Monday Oct-27, but not yet confirmed.
Some of the news articles say BA is still looking into whether to keep at least one Concorde flyworthy for special events. I haven't seen any denials of that in the news. But hasn't it been explained in various PPRuNe forums why that is ruled out? Can anyone shed light - is it true BA is still considering it?
Anyway, if there is a possibility of keeping at least one flyworthy (something British engineering could do without Airbus support...right?
), then wouldn't it make sense to keep a few in or near Heathrow instead of shipping them to oblivion, er, I mean, museums? Ask a few people whether they'd rather be able to pick among five birds in museums in various places, vs. a single one actually flying on, admittedly, rare occasions, and we all know what the preference is going to be!
If one Concorde flies on special occasions with crew only, then all the engineering and safety parameters are somewhat more lenient, aren't they, since no pax. Correct me if I'm wrong. For air shows, etc., it doesn't even have to be able to fly supersonic or its full range.
Some of the news articles say BA is still looking into whether to keep at least one Concorde flyworthy for special events. I haven't seen any denials of that in the news. But hasn't it been explained in various PPRuNe forums why that is ruled out? Can anyone shed light - is it true BA is still considering it?
Anyway, if there is a possibility of keeping at least one flyworthy (something British engineering could do without Airbus support...right?
), then wouldn't it make sense to keep a few in or near Heathrow instead of shipping them to oblivion, er, I mean, museums? Ask a few people whether they'd rather be able to pick among five birds in museums in various places, vs. a single one actually flying on, admittedly, rare occasions, and we all know what the preference is going to be!If one Concorde flies on special occasions with crew only, then all the engineering and safety parameters are somewhat more lenient, aren't they, since no pax. Correct me if I'm wrong. For air shows, etc., it doesn't even have to be able to fly supersonic or its full range.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: europe
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If BA has an obligation to it's shareholders then what right have they got to retire/scrap these aircraft rather than make an attempt to sell them.
Let there be a public auction, I'll start the bidding at £1 !
Let there be a public auction, I'll start the bidding at £1 !
Keep em flying!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cranleigh
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Nitty Gritty
I have been trying (without much success) to get down to the *real* reasons why BA have decided to cut off their right arm in grounding the Concorde fleet and found Tudor's post (see earlier) to be about the most plausible I have yet seen.
It doesn't take very much imagination to believe that a few faceless suits managed to convince themselves that the Concordes were incapable of being run profitably (something I would hotly contest given their track-record) and that their operational costs could not be at least partially justified by the absolutely unique position that they gave BA worldwide.
The question that nobody seems to ask, is just what 'incentives' Airbus offered BA and HM Govt to roll over and co-operate? Let's just wait and see, but I am sure we'll see the announcement of a few hundred new jobs in Filton over the next few months and BA will no doubt be getting a half-price 321 (or similar) - not that any of us will know about that if and when it happens...
The sums mentioned are not terrifying large for an airline of BA's scale and could have been turned rapidly into profit with just the tiniest application of imagination (the a/c was in profit until they started screwing its schedules and use around after all).
At the end of the day, BA either killed it deliberately or mis-managed it until the bean-counters got their way. I hope that HM remembers this one when the 'normal' knighthood for an outgoing BA Chairman is proposed...(if she grants those to Australians that is?)
It doesn't take very much imagination to believe that a few faceless suits managed to convince themselves that the Concordes were incapable of being run profitably (something I would hotly contest given their track-record) and that their operational costs could not be at least partially justified by the absolutely unique position that they gave BA worldwide.
The question that nobody seems to ask, is just what 'incentives' Airbus offered BA and HM Govt to roll over and co-operate? Let's just wait and see, but I am sure we'll see the announcement of a few hundred new jobs in Filton over the next few months and BA will no doubt be getting a half-price 321 (or similar) - not that any of us will know about that if and when it happens...
The sums mentioned are not terrifying large for an airline of BA's scale and could have been turned rapidly into profit with just the tiniest application of imagination (the a/c was in profit until they started screwing its schedules and use around after all).
At the end of the day, BA either killed it deliberately or mis-managed it until the bean-counters got their way. I hope that HM remembers this one when the 'normal' knighthood for an outgoing BA Chairman is proposed...(if she grants those to Australians that is?)
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I thought the rumour was that AG would be the one to be kept flying, instead of it being left in Barbados?"
That was the rumour in the local news media here last week.
Some of that media has now changed its mind and plumped for AF, presumably on the basis that AG might have gone to Barbados before any final decision is made about flying displays and the like.
I don't know which, if either, of these two would be the a/c that would be kept operational in the event of such a joyous happening.
I suppose it might be the local press just trying to look for a new angle that is not really there.
Visual,
AF was one of the three Concordes that did the final arrival at LHR on Friday (the Biscay flight I think).
That was the rumour in the local news media here last week.
Some of that media has now changed its mind and plumped for AF, presumably on the basis that AG might have gone to Barbados before any final decision is made about flying displays and the like.
I don't know which, if either, of these two would be the a/c that would be kept operational in the event of such a joyous happening.
I suppose it might be the local press just trying to look for a new angle that is not really there.
Visual,
AF was one of the three Concordes that did the final arrival at LHR on Friday (the Biscay flight I think).
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a Concorde is taking off under its own steam from Heathrow instead of in bits in the back of cargo then that rather makes a joke out of friday?
Its nice to think that we may see a Concorde zooming about at the odd airshow but remember that they have been trying to do that with the Vulcan for years without success.
Its nice to think that we may see a Concorde zooming about at the odd airshow but remember that they have been trying to do that with the Vulcan for years without success.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA did a favour to the Governament in accepting a commercial disaster and in doing so ultimately had to promote and invest a great deal of money and resources to make it financially viable.
No one wanted to buy it ...due to political, enviromental and plain economics...the beautiful machine drinks too much ...it is noisy...pollutes is not that confortable to fly on and doesn t stay in the air long enough for a viable non stop service.
It was a nice, expensive extravaganza and lessons should be learned by its demise not to make another huge mistake.
No one wanted to buy it ...due to political, enviromental and plain economics...the beautiful machine drinks too much ...it is noisy...pollutes is not that confortable to fly on and doesn t stay in the air long enough for a viable non stop service.
It was a nice, expensive extravaganza and lessons should be learned by its demise not to make another huge mistake.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because Airbus-bashing isn't a national sport. BA bashing is. Why let the facts get in the way of a good story? Branson doesn't and look where it got him!
Perhaps letters of complaint would be better addressed to Air France and Airbus for making supersonic flight an economically unviable operation?
Perhaps letters of complaint would be better addressed to Air France and Airbus for making supersonic flight an economically unviable operation?
The ONLY West Bromwich Albion Season Ticket Holder
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Birmingham
Age: 51
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try:
www.saveconcorde.co.uk/sign
for the petition (2200 or so at the moment and climbing fast)
and
http://pub13.ezboard.com/fconcordesstfrm2
for a forum dedicated to concorde - where there are a number of interesting threads about keeping her flying
www.saveconcorde.co.uk/sign
for the petition (2200 or so at the moment and climbing fast)
and
http://pub13.ezboard.com/fconcordesstfrm2
for a forum dedicated to concorde - where there are a number of interesting threads about keeping her flying
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AG was the aircraft that had water contamination in the hydraulic lines some years ago. The damaged pipes were inaccessible within the wing and the aircraft was grounded
It was used as a "static spares package" for some considerable time before a complete overhaul. Hence it is now the "lowest houred" aircraft.
It was used as a "static spares package" for some considerable time before a complete overhaul. Hence it is now the "lowest houred" aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to be changing by the hour, but what is the latest on their planned final resting places?
The one that I find most objectionable is the rusting aircraft carrier moored at downtown manhattan!
Are they really planning to sit it on the flight deck with a few American fighters? What guarantees will they get that it will be looked after?
The one that I find most objectionable is the rusting aircraft carrier moored at downtown manhattan!
Are they really planning to sit it on the flight deck with a few American fighters? What guarantees will they get that it will be looked after?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting and informative post Flying Lawyer.
I hope you won't mind me quoting part of a previous post by you in a Concorde discussion on another thread a few weeks ago. I think it helps to complete the picture.
I hope you won't mind me quoting part of a previous post by you in a Concorde discussion on another thread a few weeks ago. I think it helps to complete the picture.
It shouldn't be forgotten that, from the very beginning, there have always been two strong bodies of opinion about Concorde within BA: one for, one against. I'm told by a number of reliable sources, whom I have no reason to doubt, that an anti lobby existed at Board/management level to the end and this final problem swung the 'middle ground'.
Concorde has always had to contend with opposition within the company. Some were convinced it couldn't survive BA's financial streamlining in preparation for privatisation and, but for the foresight and wisdom of Lord King who became Chairman in 1981, it may not have. King was pro Concorde, created the Concorde Division and gave Captain Brian Walpole (appointed General Manager Concorde) and Captain Jock Lowe (then a Senior FO) two years to turn it to profit. They did so. I declare a bias because he's become a friend, but I consider Jock Lowe to be one of the 'all round' cleverest men it's been my privilege to meet in aviation. He was Commercial Director Concorde until 1999.
Their challenging task had only been under way for a few months when Concorde's future was threatened by a different and very serious crisis: the government gave notice it wouldn't fund Concorde's support costs beyond 1983 (later extended to 1984.) Many in BA thought (and the anti lobby hoped) that really was the end of Concorde and when King told the government BA would consider taking over the support costs, the anti-Concorde body thought he was barking mad. However, King and his team negotiated new contracts with the relevant companies and Concorde was saved again. The anti lobby forecast financial disaster but the BA Concorde fleet was making a profit 20 years later when the retirement was announced.
We're all entitled to our views. I understand, and don't underestimate, the serious problems created by the Air France decision. I merely believe, rightly or wrongly, that if a man with the genius and courage of Lord King was still Chairman, a way would have been found around the latest problem.
Concorde has always had to contend with opposition within the company. Some were convinced it couldn't survive BA's financial streamlining in preparation for privatisation and, but for the foresight and wisdom of Lord King who became Chairman in 1981, it may not have. King was pro Concorde, created the Concorde Division and gave Captain Brian Walpole (appointed General Manager Concorde) and Captain Jock Lowe (then a Senior FO) two years to turn it to profit. They did so. I declare a bias because he's become a friend, but I consider Jock Lowe to be one of the 'all round' cleverest men it's been my privilege to meet in aviation. He was Commercial Director Concorde until 1999.
Their challenging task had only been under way for a few months when Concorde's future was threatened by a different and very serious crisis: the government gave notice it wouldn't fund Concorde's support costs beyond 1983 (later extended to 1984.) Many in BA thought (and the anti lobby hoped) that really was the end of Concorde and when King told the government BA would consider taking over the support costs, the anti-Concorde body thought he was barking mad. However, King and his team negotiated new contracts with the relevant companies and Concorde was saved again. The anti lobby forecast financial disaster but the BA Concorde fleet was making a profit 20 years later when the retirement was announced.
We're all entitled to our views. I understand, and don't underestimate, the serious problems created by the Air France decision. I merely believe, rightly or wrongly, that if a man with the genius and courage of Lord King was still Chairman, a way would have been found around the latest problem.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first delivery flight is apparently delayed (i.e. not Monday), but assuming Seattle is a destination then JFK could be a possibility for a stopover. G-BOAF is in the paintshop, so I'm told, so I have big fingers crossed... for something more...