Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Concorde & Sir Richard Branson.

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Concorde & Sir Richard Branson.

Old 29th Dec 2017, 14:05
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: On the beach with a cerveza.
Posts: 1,135
Originally Posted by Buster15 View Post
It was more than a marginal profit for BA. Prior to the AF crash it was in the region of 30m plus per year and that was why they were so keen to get them returned to service.
Hmm,, BA were known to have some very creative accounting when it came to Concorde. I remember one year the fuel bill for Concorde ended up coming out of Gatwick Shorthaul budget.
Jet II is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2017, 14:49
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Москва/Ташкент
Age: 49
Posts: 784
The beardy one was quite obviously milking it for all it was worth with no intention of doing anything, although he was very likely full aware that it was impossible anyhow.

I barely understood the situation then but it became apparent very quickly this was a publicity stunt.

As for the airline... speaking to a guy in a bar in Moscow who met Randolph Fields... lets just say the Branson myth soon dissipated after hearing that story.
flash8 is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2017, 15:49
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Somewhere flat
Posts: 106
I took this in 2006 so there was at least one flying, if only at the LMA Rougham Reg was G-WISH.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
062 1200.jpg (364.6 KB, 32 views)
goofer3 is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2017, 16:30
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 67
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by Jet II View Post
Hmm,, BA were known to have some very creative accounting when it came to Concorde. I remember one year the fuel bill for Concorde ended up coming out of Gatwick Shorthaul budget.
Yes they seemed to approach the calculation of profit/loss while factoring out the astronomical costs of development and purchase . I tried with only limited success to explain to a man I knew that selling cars on commission from his site was a loss making activity. He insisted that because he got 200 from each sale it was a profit. Of course once he allocated a share of advertising, business rates etc to each it became a minus figure.
Effluent Man is online now  
Old 29th Dec 2017, 17:35
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the watter...
Age: 73
Posts: 251
SSTs in the atmosphere, generating the unavoidable sonic booms, have been and gone. Sub orbital transports, that fly just outside of the atmosphere and thus generate no sonic booms to start with, seem to me to be a much better proposition. The Sabre engine has received significant EU investment; what will happen to that after Brexit nobody can tell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine)
https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/
Molemot is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2017, 17:48
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: What day is it?
Age: 68
Posts: 27
“The beardy one was quite obviously milking it for all it was worth with no intention of doing anything, although he was very likely full aware that it was impossible anyhow.”

My understanding was that as soon as they were painted in Virgin Atlantic colours they would then be parked in museums for evermore.
Regards
OyYou is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2017, 17:54
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1,604
No.
They were never going to fly again. BAe or whatever they were/are called, withdrew support. No chance of airworthiness certs.
It was simply Beardy going for publicity.

Also, the recent progs got one technical thing very wrong. The airframes had nearly reached the end of their usable/flying lives. Some clown said they could "fly for ever". Yes, er, right. Presumably he forgot to talk to the folk in the Belgrano.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2017, 19:26
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 67
Posts: 58
Latest in the series "Planes that never flew" ... The F-104.
Effluent Man is online now  
Old 29th Dec 2017, 19:28
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London UK
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by Effluent Man View Post
Yes they seemed to approach the calculation of profit/loss while factoring out the astronomical costs of development and purchase .
Development and purchase were sunk costs, so irrelevant to BA's calculation as to whether to continue flying.
Dr Jekyll is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2017, 20:05
  #30 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,075
Yes they seemed to approach the calculation of profit/loss while factoring out the astronomical costs of development and purchase
They didn’t pay them - they were, effectively, given them for free.
ORAC is online now  
Old 29th Dec 2017, 21:09
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 67
Posts: 58
I have seen a figure of 23million per plane. I don't know how many flights they made, but assuming a figure of 5,000 that would be 4,600 per flight.
Effluent Man is online now  
Old 29th Dec 2017, 21:20
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,464
Originally Posted by Effluent Man View Post
I have seen a figure of 23million per plane. I don't know how many flights they made, but assuming a figure of 5,000 that would be 4,600 per flight.
I believe that was the original contract price when the program was launched (huge money at the time - roughly twice what the original 747 sold for).
IIRC, both BA and AF actually paid a something like 1 pound/aircraft to 'buy' the aircraft - I think there was some technicality that said they had to pay something for the aircraft or there would have been a big tax hit for accepting several hundred millions worth of 'gifts'. If they'd had to pay the original contract price, there is little doubt they would have walked away since even then they knew it wasn't going to be a profitable aircraft.
tdracer is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2017, 21:44
  #33 (permalink)  

Nigerian In Law
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Haven't been there, never done that.
Age: 61
Posts: 993
As a past Virgin Gold Card holder and Upper Class (VA's compromise First/Business Class model) frequent flyer, I lost faith in Sir Richard's motives and ultimate ambition, which were touted by the glamour adverts etc. Most Virgin branded concerns are not owned by his company, although they keep the name due to negotiated branding rights and a small share after the overall transfer agreement. He's definitely an idea man and entrepeneur as the original concept originates with him. But they become "diluted" and cheapened for the sake of profit. Virgin Atlantic is one such example. I became so frustrated I switched to another airline.

His offer to "buy" Concorde for a quid was a publicity stunt; there was no way he could have operated the aircraft without the support BA/AF had.

NEO
Nigerian Expat Outlaw is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2017, 22:30
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 451
Originally Posted by Molemot View Post
Sub orbital transports, that fly just outside of the atmosphere and thus generate no sonic booms to start with, seem to me to be a much better proposition.
I rather liked Arthur C Clarke's comment on suborbital transports: 'half the time you can't reach the toilet, the other half you can't use it'.

There's not going to be a mass market any time soon for a means of transport that requires the passengers to survive 3g for half the flight and weightlessness for the other half, with a high chance of exploding or burning up at some point along the way. We're unlikely to do much better than a 99.9% not-exploding-or-burning-up rate with rockets for decades yet.

As for Skylon, last I looked they were estimating over $10,000,000,000 in development costs before it could make a penny in revenue. No-one's going to fund that any time soon, either.
MG23 is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2017, 02:44
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Москва/Ташкент
Age: 49
Posts: 784
He's definitely an idea man and entrepeneur as the original concept originates with him. But they become "diluted" and cheapened for the sake of profit. Virgin Atlantic is one such example.
The Virgin Airline "business" certainly didn't originate with him as without RF in the picture he'd still be flogging records.
flash8 is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2017, 03:07
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
Originally Posted by MG23 View Post
I rather liked Arthur C Clarke's comment on suborbital transports: 'half the time you can't reach the toilet, the other half you can't use it'.

There's not going to be a mass market any time soon for a means of transport that requires the passengers to survive 3g for half the flight and weightlessness for the other half, with a high chance of exploding or burning up at some point along the way. We're unlikely to do much better than a 99.9% not-exploding-or-burning-up rate with rockets for decades yet.

As for Skylon, last I looked they were estimating over $10,000,000,000 in development costs before it could make a penny in revenue. No-one's going to fund that any time soon, either.
https://hypebeast.com/2017/9/elon-musk-bfr-earth-travel
glad rag is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2017, 05:15
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 451
Musk hasn't even achieved a 99% not-exploding-or-burning-up rate yet.

And when you consider that, even if his plan ever does fly, they're only going to be on a select few routes, the time taken to get to the launch site and then get from the landing site to where you want to go will almost certainly mean it takes longer for most people than jumping on a jet instead.
MG23 is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2017, 08:51
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 201
even Captain Rudolfo Bay of Spantax SA wanted a Concorde or two to charter for his scandinavia and UK to the Canary islands flights - said he could make it work !
rog747 is online now  
Old 30th Dec 2017, 09:17
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London UK
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
I believe that was the original contract price when the program was launched (huge money at the time - roughly twice what the original 747 sold for).
IIRC, both BA and AF actually paid a something like 1 pound/aircraft to 'buy' the aircraft - I think there was some technicality that said they had to pay something for the aircraft or there would have been a big tax hit for accepting several hundred millions worth of 'gifts'. If they'd had to pay the original contract price, there is little doubt they would have walked away since even then they knew it wasn't going to be a profitable aircraft.
As best I recall. BA (BOAC) paid 23 million each for the first five Concordes. The last two were originally leased from the govt in some complicated deal, then BA paid an undisclosed sum to buy out the govt interest, acquiring title to the aircraft, and a stock of spares. The aircraft were listed on the paperwork at a nominal 1 but the actual payment was for the whole package and obviously significant.
Dr Jekyll is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.