BA to sell Concorde to Dubai?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is only one place that bird at LHR should end up, where the British Tax-payer can see, touch and admire her for free. If BA can't find the funds to place her in or adjacent to T5 then the Science Museum in London is the obvious location. Concorde was our Moon Landing, let's be proud of it.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willie Walsh has definitely ruled out Dubai.
"BEagle",
My understanding is that it was the French, not BA, who (if anyone) killed Concorde. I don't mean the CDG accident. BA, it seems to me, always had a more commercially viable operation and was keener to keep Concorde flying after the fuel tank modifications. The trouble was that the manufacturer was not willing to support Concorde and essentially, I think, this meant the French. I had the impression that Air France wanted to stop operations and could not allow BA to remain sole operator. (I could, of course, be entirely wrong about this.)
This would fit what we know about the history of the project - from the French insisting the name be Concorde and not Concord to their demand that a French-built machine was the first to fly. (I'll put on my flak-jacket now, I think!)
I suspect, too, that companies may have become wary of sending their most important personnel on the aircraft after the CDG crash, so perhaps revenues suffered after the return to service.
The fate of -AB should not be left to the bean-counters who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.......Remember the Cosford vandalism?
"BEagle",
My understanding is that it was the French, not BA, who (if anyone) killed Concorde. I don't mean the CDG accident. BA, it seems to me, always had a more commercially viable operation and was keener to keep Concorde flying after the fuel tank modifications. The trouble was that the manufacturer was not willing to support Concorde and essentially, I think, this meant the French. I had the impression that Air France wanted to stop operations and could not allow BA to remain sole operator. (I could, of course, be entirely wrong about this.)
This would fit what we know about the history of the project - from the French insisting the name be Concorde and not Concord to their demand that a French-built machine was the first to fly. (I'll put on my flak-jacket now, I think!)
I suspect, too, that companies may have become wary of sending their most important personnel on the aircraft after the CDG crash, so perhaps revenues suffered after the return to service.
The fate of -AB should not be left to the bean-counters who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.......Remember the Cosford vandalism?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think there can be any doubt that Airbus and Air France jointly pulled the rug out from under BA's Concorde operation. Having said that, the rug was getting pretty threadbare - the aeroplane had been in service for 27 years and reliability, never a strong point, was becoming a real problem (according to senior BA engineers I recently spoke to who were responsible for the availability of the aeroplane).
I find myself in strong agreement with one, who said "I'd much rather we can look back on 27 years of safe BA ops, rather than have pushed it a few years longer and taken the risk of standing around some smoking hole saying 'we should have stopped it earlier'".
SSD
I find myself in strong agreement with one, who said "I'd much rather we can look back on 27 years of safe BA ops, rather than have pushed it a few years longer and taken the risk of standing around some smoking hole saying 'we should have stopped it earlier'".
SSD
