Official : British Airways Retires Concorde (merged)
That's as maybe. The DC10 is a fat, ugly matron of an aeroplane whereas Concorde is still the most beautiful thing ever to fly.
I simply cannot believe that the ineptitude of BA's commercial direction and the level of engineering support for the aeroplane have conspired to reduce passenger confidence to its current level.
If you operate Concorde as BA once did - and you don't attempt to take-off above both MTOW and RTOW, then hit debris from a questionably maintained airliner at a poorly supervised aerodrome and have such poor CRM that a crew member shuts down an engine which is still producing life-saving thrust at a critical moment without being ordered to do so, then you run an entirely safe operation.
I really hope that Sir Richard can salvage Concorde - the very best of luck to him. It would be just the shot in the arm which VS needs!
The Concorde experience - it's priceless!
I simply cannot believe that the ineptitude of BA's commercial direction and the level of engineering support for the aeroplane have conspired to reduce passenger confidence to its current level.
If you operate Concorde as BA once did - and you don't attempt to take-off above both MTOW and RTOW, then hit debris from a questionably maintained airliner at a poorly supervised aerodrome and have such poor CRM that a crew member shuts down an engine which is still producing life-saving thrust at a critical moment without being ordered to do so, then you run an entirely safe operation.
I really hope that Sir Richard can salvage Concorde - the very best of luck to him. It would be just the shot in the arm which VS needs!
The Concorde experience - it's priceless!
BEagle:
If I understand you correctly, you are implying that it is OK to die in "the most beautiful thing ever to fly" but quite infra dig to die in a "fat, ugly matron of an aeroplane".
I can remember when I thought the Tiger Moth to be quite the most beautiful thing I had ever seen but dying in one had just the same result.
Upon reflection that is not strictly true. At least what was left of you after being dispatched by a Tiger Moth was probably in better shape when you had to check into the great guardroom in the sky!
If I understand you correctly, you are implying that it is OK to die in "the most beautiful thing ever to fly" but quite infra dig to die in a "fat, ugly matron of an aeroplane".
I can remember when I thought the Tiger Moth to be quite the most beautiful thing I had ever seen but dying in one had just the same result.
Upon reflection that is not strictly true. At least what was left of you after being dispatched by a Tiger Moth was probably in better shape when you had to check into the great guardroom in the sky!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: London.
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Terribly depressing to see her go, especially in a way like this, after the upgrades and injected millions. Not quite right is it. Better to have shelved her after Paris, if at all. Alas....It really was (read, is!) a fine aircraft with the beautifulest lines (I've) ever seen. A dart, an arrow, a rocket. Sad, sad, sad! If Sir Rich intends to get one/them, then yes, good luck to him, he's a smart enough man to get her up and running again. But, I'd have to agree with some of what the majority of you are saying, and that's; he's got a snowball's chance! Anyways... I'm going to try and get down Heathrow and photo her so I can look back and say, "I remember the time.....New York 4 hours....bla bla.....England"!! Safe flying the glorious bird, all the crew who still have the ultimate priviledge.
LJ.
LJ.
jetsy
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US for now
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NW1
No need to get on the defensive here or bring Rip Van Winkle in to this. Let the dude sleep.
DC10s have had their share of problems. As a matter of fact I will never fly on one. Give me Concorde and I’ll never stop flying on her. Truly spectacular lady and quite an accomplishment as far as craft industry. At/for the time.
“This whole "bits dropping off" Concorde thing is bogus - it was rare (in terms of flying hours, even at the rate Concorde is accumulating flying hours) and had no safety impact. “
Do you understand the word - bogus? Concordes were losing parts. Rear occurrence or not.
“These DC10 failures weren't happeneing because there were lots of them - they happened because of major design or maintenance failings and they still didn't ground it. “
You are correct. In the first part of your sentence. They did get grounded though.
I’ve looked up the stats on the hull loss of the DC10’s and Concorde and the score is 5.8 to 5.0 respectively. So you see Concorde is a safer craft. I would not even try to compare the two look or speed wise, LOL!!!!
But that was not my point.
Blaming debris on the runway as being the reason of the crash is not reasonable even if it was a contributing factor. Which I do not deny it was not. The design deficiencies not foreseen by the engineers/staff involved was the reason and the outfit gets the blame.
Same as NASA will get the beating once it's proven the shedding foam on the liftoff killed the shuttle on the way back.
Both tragedies, both great accomplishments, both grounded (one time or another) and eventually both might end up in the museums. (whatever is left of their fleets).
Back to the drawing boards on both continents.
Not so fast PAXboy
"Ten years from now, Boeing will be making military and special aircraft, but its days of manufacturing large passenger jets will probably have come to an end,"
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...9298_db035.htm
No need to get on the defensive here or bring Rip Van Winkle in to this. Let the dude sleep.
DC10s have had their share of problems. As a matter of fact I will never fly on one. Give me Concorde and I’ll never stop flying on her. Truly spectacular lady and quite an accomplishment as far as craft industry. At/for the time.
“This whole "bits dropping off" Concorde thing is bogus - it was rare (in terms of flying hours, even at the rate Concorde is accumulating flying hours) and had no safety impact. “
Do you understand the word - bogus? Concordes were losing parts. Rear occurrence or not.
“These DC10 failures weren't happeneing because there were lots of them - they happened because of major design or maintenance failings and they still didn't ground it. “
You are correct. In the first part of your sentence. They did get grounded though.
I’ve looked up the stats on the hull loss of the DC10’s and Concorde and the score is 5.8 to 5.0 respectively. So you see Concorde is a safer craft. I would not even try to compare the two look or speed wise, LOL!!!!
But that was not my point.
Blaming debris on the runway as being the reason of the crash is not reasonable even if it was a contributing factor. Which I do not deny it was not. The design deficiencies not foreseen by the engineers/staff involved was the reason and the outfit gets the blame.
Same as NASA will get the beating once it's proven the shedding foam on the liftoff killed the shuttle on the way back.
Both tragedies, both great accomplishments, both grounded (one time or another) and eventually both might end up in the museums. (whatever is left of their fleets).
Back to the drawing boards on both continents.
Not so fast PAXboy
I can think of one group of people that must be 110% delighted by this announcement. The Board of Directors of Boeing.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...9298_db035.htm
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 449
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had the luck to see a few (mostly AF) Concordes take-off while I was parking my humble turboprop at CDG. Especially with the "cheap" fares now on offer I am afraid I won't be able to get on a Concorde flight with a pass during the last months.
I have been living with airplanes during my whole life and Concorde was one of the first shapes I could recognize.
It is very sad to see this engineering marvels head towards some museum parking spaces. Given the complexity of SST and airliner operation we'll have to live with the fact that it's probably impossible to keep many of the wonders of the early jet age alive and flying. What sense would it make to spend millions to fly her 'round the patch every other weekend and who could afford to fly her to Oshkosh or wherever on a regular basis. If BA couldn't do it economically with the possibly unaccounted for help of a lot of their departments, who else could do it. There are some private Starfighters and F-5s and Russian fighters around, but a private Concorde (and a private 7x7) would be in another league.
So we'll have to face the fact that Concorde is joining the Zeppelins and the big Ocean Liners as a form of majestic transatlantic transport we can remember with fondness and awe but which belongs to a bygone age.
Even sadder than that ist the realization that economics (i.e. beancounters) rather than what's possible have become the limiting factor in our profession. Concorde shows on a big scale what we experience every day on a smaller scale. Who apart from a lucky few has ALL the available safety gear on their A/C, even if it's not mandatory. EVAS, EVS, EGPWS, etc. are all there, but we don't get it, if it's not in the regs.
In fact it's not only our profession but also aerospace in general. As the Columbia accident showed, we COULD build a new orbiter, fly to the moon or even Mars, but there's no one willing to foot the bill. (That's not entirely new, though; even Columbus had to promise a cheaper passage to India and riches beyond dreams to get someone to finance his trip.....)
If someone knows how to get on a Concorde flight without breaking the bank, just let me know :-)
I have been living with airplanes during my whole life and Concorde was one of the first shapes I could recognize.
It is very sad to see this engineering marvels head towards some museum parking spaces. Given the complexity of SST and airliner operation we'll have to live with the fact that it's probably impossible to keep many of the wonders of the early jet age alive and flying. What sense would it make to spend millions to fly her 'round the patch every other weekend and who could afford to fly her to Oshkosh or wherever on a regular basis. If BA couldn't do it economically with the possibly unaccounted for help of a lot of their departments, who else could do it. There are some private Starfighters and F-5s and Russian fighters around, but a private Concorde (and a private 7x7) would be in another league.
So we'll have to face the fact that Concorde is joining the Zeppelins and the big Ocean Liners as a form of majestic transatlantic transport we can remember with fondness and awe but which belongs to a bygone age.
Even sadder than that ist the realization that economics (i.e. beancounters) rather than what's possible have become the limiting factor in our profession. Concorde shows on a big scale what we experience every day on a smaller scale. Who apart from a lucky few has ALL the available safety gear on their A/C, even if it's not mandatory. EVAS, EVS, EGPWS, etc. are all there, but we don't get it, if it's not in the regs.
In fact it's not only our profession but also aerospace in general. As the Columbia accident showed, we COULD build a new orbiter, fly to the moon or even Mars, but there's no one willing to foot the bill. (That's not entirely new, though; even Columbus had to promise a cheaper passage to India and riches beyond dreams to get someone to finance his trip.....)
If someone knows how to get on a Concorde flight without breaking the bank, just let me know :-)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde... it's not just for admiring...
Why not fly them over Iraq again... with roundals?
On flights to the Gulf in the late 1970s the plane’s radiation meter — there to detect cosmic radiation because it flies close to the sun — kept going off like a temperamental burglar alarm over Iraq. This led to the 1981 Israeli bombing of the Osirak nuclear reactor, I learn from an internal memo from British Aerospace that floats into Atticus’s mahogany in-tray. Strange story, but doesn’t that earn it a reprieve?
- Atticus, Sunday Times, 13 April 2003
- Atticus, Sunday Times, 13 April 2003
I'll second ironduck. I have a Concorde documentary on DVD which features various retired Concorde pilots describing their respective last flights, the distressed emotions are clearly visable.
I feel completely gutted about this whole situation and I've only ever set foot on Duxford's (very much stationary) aeroplane. I can only imagine how thoroughly fed up the flight crews must be feeling. It's bad enough losing a job but losing that job...
All the best for the future NW1 and co.
Regards
9:18
I feel completely gutted about this whole situation and I've only ever set foot on Duxford's (very much stationary) aeroplane. I can only imagine how thoroughly fed up the flight crews must be feeling. It's bad enough losing a job but losing that job...
All the best for the future NW1 and co.
Regards
9:18
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In answer to jet_noseover's earlier question;
From the BEA website;
Research was undertaken to find incidents which had involved tyres or landing gear on the Concorde since its entry into service. The information collected to establish the list of events came from the archives of EADS, Air France, British Airways, BEA, AAIB, DGAC, CAA and Dunlop.
The list in the appendix shows information from events coming from at least two different sources or for which reports or detailed information exist.
In the list, there are fifty-seven cases of tyre bursts/deflations, thirty for the Air France fleet and twenty-seven for British Airways :
· Twelve of these events had structural consequences on the wings and/or the tanks, of which six led to penetration of the tanks.
· Nineteen of the tyre bursts/deflations were caused by foreign objects.
· Twenty-two events occurred during takeoff.
· Only one case of tank penetration by a piece of tyre was noted.
· None of the events identified showed any rupture of a tank or a fire, whether leading or not to a significant simultaneous loss of power on two engines.
A sad day indeed when she is laid to rest.
PP
"The fiasco was the DC-10 dropping parts on the RWY, the tragedy was the next aircraft to come along."
Buster Hyman
I believe Concorde has a higher record of dropping parts than any DC10. Luckily no one got hit with them shedding parts yet. And yes, I agree that the debris on the runway was a misfortune (or a fiasco if you want to call it that way) but that does not take away the insufficiency in the design of fuel tanks on Concorde. This is why the entire fleet certificates were revoked until the aircrafts were retrofitted with the linings. You see, tyres burst quite often, but how often do they puncture the airframe?
Buster Hyman
I believe Concorde has a higher record of dropping parts than any DC10. Luckily no one got hit with them shedding parts yet. And yes, I agree that the debris on the runway was a misfortune (or a fiasco if you want to call it that way) but that does not take away the insufficiency in the design of fuel tanks on Concorde. This is why the entire fleet certificates were revoked until the aircrafts were retrofitted with the linings. You see, tyres burst quite often, but how often do they puncture the airframe?
From the BEA website;
Research was undertaken to find incidents which had involved tyres or landing gear on the Concorde since its entry into service. The information collected to establish the list of events came from the archives of EADS, Air France, British Airways, BEA, AAIB, DGAC, CAA and Dunlop.
The list in the appendix shows information from events coming from at least two different sources or for which reports or detailed information exist.
In the list, there are fifty-seven cases of tyre bursts/deflations, thirty for the Air France fleet and twenty-seven for British Airways :
· Twelve of these events had structural consequences on the wings and/or the tanks, of which six led to penetration of the tanks.
· Nineteen of the tyre bursts/deflations were caused by foreign objects.
· Twenty-two events occurred during takeoff.
· Only one case of tank penetration by a piece of tyre was noted.
· None of the events identified showed any rupture of a tank or a fire, whether leading or not to a significant simultaneous loss of power on two engines.
A sad day indeed when she is laid to rest.
PP
Pilot Pete:
Thank you for posting the above statistics. They are quite illuminating to say the least. Just imagine the debris that could have been deposited by 380 of them!
Thank you for posting the above statistics. They are quite illuminating to say the least. Just imagine the debris that could have been deposited by 380 of them!
Controversial, moi?
Bahrainlad
I presume it is OK for others to be losing money hand over fist to keep a beautiful, but no longer viable aircraft, in the air to save your feelings of repulsiveness?
Or did you mean you personally would be happy to be losing money operating something that cost more to operate than it generated in revenue?
I presume it is OK for others to be losing money hand over fist to keep a beautiful, but no longer viable aircraft, in the air to save your feelings of repulsiveness?
Or did you mean you personally would be happy to be losing money operating something that cost more to operate than it generated in revenue?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, my comments were more in a response to Alpine, who commented on the building of a new orbiter.
The head of NASA has publicly acknowledged that if we had actively pursued a Mars mission immediately after the Moon landings, in all probabilities we would be there by now.
Of course, I do not expect BA to operate Concorde if there is no market and no profit to be made. What concerns me is the introduction of new projects....we seem to have lost the quest for the "white heat of technology" so defined by Concorde.
I would hate for someone to argue that we should have never have proceeded with Concorde: not only did it provide considerable employment, laid the ground for Airbus, developed commercial fly-by-wire and prove that supersonic flying was possible on a large scale perhaps most importantly it provided essential data for the production of a future supersonic transport, when it arrives.
The head of NASA has publicly acknowledged that if we had actively pursued a Mars mission immediately after the Moon landings, in all probabilities we would be there by now.
Of course, I do not expect BA to operate Concorde if there is no market and no profit to be made. What concerns me is the introduction of new projects....we seem to have lost the quest for the "white heat of technology" so defined by Concorde.
I would hate for someone to argue that we should have never have proceeded with Concorde: not only did it provide considerable employment, laid the ground for Airbus, developed commercial fly-by-wire and prove that supersonic flying was possible on a large scale perhaps most importantly it provided essential data for the production of a future supersonic transport, when it arrives.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: sunshine
Age: 70
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cocord...Farewell
The greatest machine to take to the skies and far ahead of its time. Its end came faster than it should have typically because the Yanks weren't a part of profits!!!!!Anyone and anything in Aviation if not a part of the United States of America-the SUPER POWER caeses to be
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr J
The standard taxi fuel load for Concorde is 1400 kgs of fuel, so I think that even the lean burn 777 needs more than that to cross the Atlantic.
I spent 23 years working with Concorde, and nobody is more sorry to see the old girl retire than me, but all things must come to end, and she has operated for 27 years during which time she has made respectable profits for British Airways. It must be remembered that it was BA which really developed the Concorde into the machine she is, with Charter work both short and long, exotic destinations as well as schedule operations, so let us have no more comments about Mr Branson having a go if BA cannot handle it. Without BA and Air France pioneering spirit the aircraft would have retired years ago
Reading some of the suggestions as to what her future holds, I think a respectable retirement is best, after all she is the Queen of the skies and it would be a shame to see her dressed up for her last few years as some dubious virgin.
We have to remember that for the last 27 years she has flown to the USA [schedule routes] under the cover a special agreement between the USA/France/UK to a few specified destinations, and perhaps if both BA and Air France stopped operating the aircraft the agreement would become null and void
The standard taxi fuel load for Concorde is 1400 kgs of fuel, so I think that even the lean burn 777 needs more than that to cross the Atlantic.
I spent 23 years working with Concorde, and nobody is more sorry to see the old girl retire than me, but all things must come to end, and she has operated for 27 years during which time she has made respectable profits for British Airways. It must be remembered that it was BA which really developed the Concorde into the machine she is, with Charter work both short and long, exotic destinations as well as schedule operations, so let us have no more comments about Mr Branson having a go if BA cannot handle it. Without BA and Air France pioneering spirit the aircraft would have retired years ago
Reading some of the suggestions as to what her future holds, I think a respectable retirement is best, after all she is the Queen of the skies and it would be a shame to see her dressed up for her last few years as some dubious virgin.
We have to remember that for the last 27 years she has flown to the USA [schedule routes] under the cover a special agreement between the USA/France/UK to a few specified destinations, and perhaps if both BA and Air France stopped operating the aircraft the agreement would become null and void