Concorde Fleet Rebellion
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah...but it is management (such as it is)...so not much the troops can do about it.
Tough beans.
OTOH, doesn't this turkey have to go on another fleet...and if so, maybe 'friends' are awaitin'...
Tough beans.
OTOH, doesn't this turkey have to go on another fleet...and if so, maybe 'friends' are awaitin'...
Concorde is retiring...FACT.
There are no other aircraft in the BA fleet that require FE's...FACT.
Can someone on this board (preferably a BA Concorde FE) say what they ACTUALLY want. No politician speak, a straight statement of exactly what they would like BA to give them.
There are no other aircraft in the BA fleet that require FE's...FACT.
Can someone on this board (preferably a BA Concorde FE) say what they ACTUALLY want. No politician speak, a straight statement of exactly what they would like BA to give them.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The F/E: RIP - Wall Street Journal Article
For those of us who have spent some happy hours back at the panel, it is indeed the end of an era.
Drop rise, drop rise (double drop rise at some carriers) and check essential.
Looks like the WSJ forsees some innovative crew rest rules for the A-380:
"...Airbus's planned 650-seat double-decker A380 will be able to fly almost a full day at a stretch with a crew of two. "
__________________________________
PAGE ONE
Final Boarding Call:
As Concorde Departs,
So Do 3-Man Crews
In New Cockpits, Engineers
Are Seen as Extra Baggage;
Mr. Hazelby Plays 'Scotty'
By DANIEL MICHAELS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
LONDON -- On a recent trip to New York aboard the Concorde, flight attendants served champagne on silver platters and offered passengers lobster and roast guinea fowl.
Warren Hazelby sat in the cockpit facing a windowless wall of dials and switches, shifting fuel among 13 tanks to keep the plane in balance. He barely had time for a snack.
When British Airways retires the Concorde on Oct. 24, another storied aviation tradition will almost completely fade from the sky: the flight engineer. The third person in the cockpit, who performs many critical functions that keep the plane in the sky, has the least glamorous job on what many consider the world's sexiest passenger plane.
"We're very much the Cinderellas of the aviation world," Mr. Hazelby sighed. "Even our friends don't really know what we do."
What they do is manage a plane's hydraulics, electrical systems and engines, telling the captain what the aircraft can handle, "like Scotty on Star Trek," Mr. Hazelby said.
The specialty reached its zenith on the Concorde, where the flight engineer handles four times as many controls as on an old jumbo jet. Air France, the only other airline flying the unprofitable plane, mothballed its five Concordes on May 31.
Ever since the jet age began -- with five-man cockpits -- flight crews have been shrinking in size. Now, economics are squeezing them to two people -- pilot and co-pilot -- as high-tech jetliners make much of the work unnecessary. Twenty years ago, 3,469 three-crewmember jet planes plied the skies, according to industry consultants BACK Aviation Services. By June, that was down to 660 planes, mostly Boeing 727s and older 747s, which tend to be flown by obscure non-U.S. airlines and cargo carriers. "We've been completely replaced by computers," Mr. Hazelby said.
Mr. Hazelby became BA's chief flight engineer in 1993, overseeing a staff of about 700. They flew planes such as Lockheed L-1011s, Douglas DC-10s and early 747s, all of which British Airways has retired. Today the airline employs just 11 flight engineers -- Mr. Hazelby and 10 others -- all of them on Concorde.
For the 52-year-old Mr. Hazelby, the passing of Concorde is particularly poignant, because his father worked at the factory where British Airways' Concordes were built. Mr. Hazelby, a 36-year British Airways veteran, was also the last person ever to be certified as a Concorde flight engineer. He earned his wings just last October, a year to the day before the plane is retired from service.
He'll spend his last three years at British Airways behind a desk. But until the last Concorde flight three weeks from now, Mr. Hazelby works from a chair that slides left and right on a five-foot track, engaged in a ballet of fingerwork. In front of him are arrayed 365 buttons and switches, more than 95 dials and about 100 warning lights, stretching from ceiling to floor. There are so many controls that some are made half-size, with dials no bigger than the face of a wristwatch. When Concorde was designed in the mid-1960s, small displays were cutting edge.
Mr. Hazelby's work begins about one hour before takeoff. Squatting and craning around the cramped cockpit, he runs through strictly regimented checks of the plane's systems. While pilots may stroll off for a preflight chat with passengers sipping champagne or enjoying tea and scones in the lounge, "Warren's doing the hard work," says Capt. Les Brodie, a Concorde pilot.
Once the plane is climbing to its cruising altitude above 55,000 feet, Mr. Hazelby constantly monitors the plane's systems. As Concorde accelerates to its top speed above Mach 2, twice the speed of sound, he keeps an eye on the "backups to backups to backups" for each system. His biggest job during the three-hour-and-20-minute flight, though, is shifting fuel around the plane's delta-shaped wings, to move the plane's center of gravity. Without him, Concorde would quickly fly out of control.
Mr. Hazelby signed up to train for Concorde after seven years as British Airways' chief flight engineer. It was a step down the chain of command for him but fulfilled an old dream. Returning from a flight on July 25, 2000, he learned that an Air France Concorde had crashed on takeoff near Paris. British Airways grounded its fleet for 15 months. In May 2002, he resumed his Concorde training, qualifying on Oct. 24.
As the recent flight raced in for its high-speed landing, Mr. Hazelby called out the altitude -- another job now done by computer on most planes. In the cabin, passengers braced themselves as the brakes kicked in dramatically.
With no supersonic successor to the Concorde planned, big jetliners are pushing a different envelope: flying farther. Airbus's planned 650-seat double-decker A380 will be able to fly almost a full day at a stretch with a crew of two. Still, Mr. Hazelby has hope for his profession. Ultra-long-haul jetliners will carry such elaborate electronic systems that they'll require "a guy in white overalls" to maintain the equipment, he said.
"They'll put him in a uniform to look smart, but in 10 or 20 years, they'll call him a flight engineer," Mr. Hazelby predicted. "We'll be back."
Drop rise, drop rise (double drop rise at some carriers) and check essential.
Looks like the WSJ forsees some innovative crew rest rules for the A-380:
"...Airbus's planned 650-seat double-decker A380 will be able to fly almost a full day at a stretch with a crew of two. "
__________________________________
PAGE ONE
Final Boarding Call:
As Concorde Departs,
So Do 3-Man Crews
In New Cockpits, Engineers
Are Seen as Extra Baggage;
Mr. Hazelby Plays 'Scotty'
By DANIEL MICHAELS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
LONDON -- On a recent trip to New York aboard the Concorde, flight attendants served champagne on silver platters and offered passengers lobster and roast guinea fowl.
Warren Hazelby sat in the cockpit facing a windowless wall of dials and switches, shifting fuel among 13 tanks to keep the plane in balance. He barely had time for a snack.
When British Airways retires the Concorde on Oct. 24, another storied aviation tradition will almost completely fade from the sky: the flight engineer. The third person in the cockpit, who performs many critical functions that keep the plane in the sky, has the least glamorous job on what many consider the world's sexiest passenger plane.
"We're very much the Cinderellas of the aviation world," Mr. Hazelby sighed. "Even our friends don't really know what we do."
What they do is manage a plane's hydraulics, electrical systems and engines, telling the captain what the aircraft can handle, "like Scotty on Star Trek," Mr. Hazelby said.
The specialty reached its zenith on the Concorde, where the flight engineer handles four times as many controls as on an old jumbo jet. Air France, the only other airline flying the unprofitable plane, mothballed its five Concordes on May 31.
Ever since the jet age began -- with five-man cockpits -- flight crews have been shrinking in size. Now, economics are squeezing them to two people -- pilot and co-pilot -- as high-tech jetliners make much of the work unnecessary. Twenty years ago, 3,469 three-crewmember jet planes plied the skies, according to industry consultants BACK Aviation Services. By June, that was down to 660 planes, mostly Boeing 727s and older 747s, which tend to be flown by obscure non-U.S. airlines and cargo carriers. "We've been completely replaced by computers," Mr. Hazelby said.
Mr. Hazelby became BA's chief flight engineer in 1993, overseeing a staff of about 700. They flew planes such as Lockheed L-1011s, Douglas DC-10s and early 747s, all of which British Airways has retired. Today the airline employs just 11 flight engineers -- Mr. Hazelby and 10 others -- all of them on Concorde.
For the 52-year-old Mr. Hazelby, the passing of Concorde is particularly poignant, because his father worked at the factory where British Airways' Concordes were built. Mr. Hazelby, a 36-year British Airways veteran, was also the last person ever to be certified as a Concorde flight engineer. He earned his wings just last October, a year to the day before the plane is retired from service.
He'll spend his last three years at British Airways behind a desk. But until the last Concorde flight three weeks from now, Mr. Hazelby works from a chair that slides left and right on a five-foot track, engaged in a ballet of fingerwork. In front of him are arrayed 365 buttons and switches, more than 95 dials and about 100 warning lights, stretching from ceiling to floor. There are so many controls that some are made half-size, with dials no bigger than the face of a wristwatch. When Concorde was designed in the mid-1960s, small displays were cutting edge.
Mr. Hazelby's work begins about one hour before takeoff. Squatting and craning around the cramped cockpit, he runs through strictly regimented checks of the plane's systems. While pilots may stroll off for a preflight chat with passengers sipping champagne or enjoying tea and scones in the lounge, "Warren's doing the hard work," says Capt. Les Brodie, a Concorde pilot.
Once the plane is climbing to its cruising altitude above 55,000 feet, Mr. Hazelby constantly monitors the plane's systems. As Concorde accelerates to its top speed above Mach 2, twice the speed of sound, he keeps an eye on the "backups to backups to backups" for each system. His biggest job during the three-hour-and-20-minute flight, though, is shifting fuel around the plane's delta-shaped wings, to move the plane's center of gravity. Without him, Concorde would quickly fly out of control.
Mr. Hazelby signed up to train for Concorde after seven years as British Airways' chief flight engineer. It was a step down the chain of command for him but fulfilled an old dream. Returning from a flight on July 25, 2000, he learned that an Air France Concorde had crashed on takeoff near Paris. British Airways grounded its fleet for 15 months. In May 2002, he resumed his Concorde training, qualifying on Oct. 24.
As the recent flight raced in for its high-speed landing, Mr. Hazelby called out the altitude -- another job now done by computer on most planes. In the cabin, passengers braced themselves as the brakes kicked in dramatically.
With no supersonic successor to the Concorde planned, big jetliners are pushing a different envelope: flying farther. Airbus's planned 650-seat double-decker A380 will be able to fly almost a full day at a stretch with a crew of two. Still, Mr. Hazelby has hope for his profession. Ultra-long-haul jetliners will carry such elaborate electronic systems that they'll require "a guy in white overalls" to maintain the equipment, he said.
"They'll put him in a uniform to look smart, but in 10 or 20 years, they'll call him a flight engineer," Mr. Hazelby predicted. "We'll be back."
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Costa del Thames
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mostly Boeing 727s and older 747s, which tend to be flown by obscure non-U.S. airlines and cargo carriers.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>Most of the time when I see a 727 it's with a U.S. major carrier..
I don't think any of the U.S. majors are still running '72's these days... You might see some freighters, did it have windows <g>?
I don't think any of the U.S. majors are still running '72's these days... You might see some freighters, did it have windows <g>?
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bigears, it's only a missing comma.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While pilots may stroll off for a preflight chat, with passengers sipping champagne or enjoying tea and scones in the lounge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While pilots may stroll off for a preflight chat, with passengers sipping champagne or enjoying tea and scones in the lounge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bigears
Some (all?) Concorde flight crews come into the Concorde Lounge to give pax an opportunity to ask questions about the aircraft, the flight etc. It's the pax who are 'sipping champagne' etc - not the crew.
Last Saturday morning, when BA002's crew came into the lounge at JFK, they were 'mobbed' superstar style, flashbulbs popping as when stars arrive at a movie premiere. At least half the passengers wanted their photographs taken with the crew and/or autographs. Good thing the likes of Victoria Beckham weren't flying or there would have been tears before breakfast - nobody would have been interested in her.
Superb PR which clearly added to the enjoyment of the flight for many passengers. The FO and FE looked rather embarrassed by the 'photocall' but politely obliged the groupies; the Captain was less coy, shall we say.
That said, he fully justified his 'superstar' status with an absolute greaser at LHR. It really was one of those 'Are we down yet?' landings.
Such a terrible shame that BA's contribution to the centenary of flight is to relegate the most wonderful, beautiful and exciting civilian aircraft in the history of aviation to the status of museum exhibit.
Tudor Owen
Some (all?) Concorde flight crews come into the Concorde Lounge to give pax an opportunity to ask questions about the aircraft, the flight etc. It's the pax who are 'sipping champagne' etc - not the crew.
Last Saturday morning, when BA002's crew came into the lounge at JFK, they were 'mobbed' superstar style, flashbulbs popping as when stars arrive at a movie premiere. At least half the passengers wanted their photographs taken with the crew and/or autographs. Good thing the likes of Victoria Beckham weren't flying or there would have been tears before breakfast - nobody would have been interested in her.
Superb PR which clearly added to the enjoyment of the flight for many passengers. The FO and FE looked rather embarrassed by the 'photocall' but politely obliged the groupies; the Captain was less coy, shall we say.
That said, he fully justified his 'superstar' status with an absolute greaser at LHR. It really was one of those 'Are we down yet?' landings.
Such a terrible shame that BA's contribution to the centenary of flight is to relegate the most wonderful, beautiful and exciting civilian aircraft in the history of aviation to the status of museum exhibit.
Tudor Owen
Guest
Posts: n/a
I may be wrong here, but isn't BA (totally selfishly and an utter shame to the nation) refusing to sell Concorde to Branson?
If the Concorde fleet indeed did go to him, wouldn't that give an opportunity to the Pilots and F/E's to move as well, thus continuing with Virgin, whom I'm sure would welcome them.
Thus by denying Concorde a chance to continue, doesn't that at least deny other opportunities to the crews?
Isn't BA a Public Company, if so don't they have to take shareholders accounts into consideration? If so selling them would also make more profit than just trashing them.
Heck even John Cochrane, deputy chief test pilot for Concorde, backed Branson! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/3078905.stm)
Also, glad to see Rod making financial decisions for Virgin, although maybe doing a bit more at home might be more beneficial for him!
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,38...108958,00.html)
Perhaps the real reason is our Rod thinks that if Virgin do make a success of Concorde, that'll make him look like a complete ass? Surely not, nobody could be that selfish!
If the Concorde fleet indeed did go to him, wouldn't that give an opportunity to the Pilots and F/E's to move as well, thus continuing with Virgin, whom I'm sure would welcome them.
Thus by denying Concorde a chance to continue, doesn't that at least deny other opportunities to the crews?
Isn't BA a Public Company, if so don't they have to take shareholders accounts into consideration? If so selling them would also make more profit than just trashing them.
Heck even John Cochrane, deputy chief test pilot for Concorde, backed Branson! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/3078905.stm)
Also, glad to see Rod making financial decisions for Virgin, although maybe doing a bit more at home might be more beneficial for him!
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,38...108958,00.html)
Perhaps the real reason is our Rod thinks that if Virgin do make a success of Concorde, that'll make him look like a complete ass? Surely not, nobody could be that selfish!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L337
It's a pity you don't say what it is with which you disagree instead of making insulting comments. You'd have to keep it very simple for people like me who have "the brain of monkey", of course.
Suggesting I know and understand nothing about aviation is over-stating it just a little, but I'm obviously an outsider as my username makes clear. My knowledge, such as it is, comes from working closely with the aviation industry for some years, supplemented by what I read in the aviation press/on Pprune and learn in conversations with the many friends I've made who are insiders.
Coincidentally, my most recent conversation on this subject was about three weeks ago with a good friend who is widely regarded as one of the people who transformed Concorde into a commercial success when the Concorde Division was set up in 1982. By the time he retired, he was the longest-serving Concorde pilot but, along the way, had also been Director of Flight Ops BA, Chief Pilot BA and Commercial Manager Concorde. I heard nothing which caused me to think the opinion I expressed earlier was wrong.
BTW, congratulations on your recent promotion to the left seat. I'm sure you'll be more tolerant of mere mortals with whom you disagree when the novelty wears off.
trium16
I suspect you're slightly on the wrong track in your last paragraph. The transatlantic first and business-class market is vitally important to the major carriers. It's in a slump at the moment but, when it picks up again, BA will want business bums back on BA seats. From BA's point of view, why take the risk (however remote) that another airline might be offering Concorde seats?
Just an outsider's theory which may be completely wrong.
It's a pity you don't say what it is with which you disagree instead of making insulting comments. You'd have to keep it very simple for people like me who have "the brain of monkey", of course.
Suggesting I know and understand nothing about aviation is over-stating it just a little, but I'm obviously an outsider as my username makes clear. My knowledge, such as it is, comes from working closely with the aviation industry for some years, supplemented by what I read in the aviation press/on Pprune and learn in conversations with the many friends I've made who are insiders.
Coincidentally, my most recent conversation on this subject was about three weeks ago with a good friend who is widely regarded as one of the people who transformed Concorde into a commercial success when the Concorde Division was set up in 1982. By the time he retired, he was the longest-serving Concorde pilot but, along the way, had also been Director of Flight Ops BA, Chief Pilot BA and Commercial Manager Concorde. I heard nothing which caused me to think the opinion I expressed earlier was wrong.
BTW, congratulations on your recent promotion to the left seat. I'm sure you'll be more tolerant of mere mortals with whom you disagree when the novelty wears off.
trium16
I suspect you're slightly on the wrong track in your last paragraph. The transatlantic first and business-class market is vitally important to the major carriers. It's in a slump at the moment but, when it picks up again, BA will want business bums back on BA seats. From BA's point of view, why take the risk (however remote) that another airline might be offering Concorde seats?
Just an outsider's theory which may be completely wrong.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 5th Oct 2003 at 07:30.
Uncle Pete
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Frodsham Cheshire
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L337
Your arrogance underwhelms me!
The level of your understanding of this thead would appear to be inversely proportional to the level of your ego.
Perhaps we can have informed comments rather than inane criticism now that you've been promoted.
Flying Lawyer
It looks like we both attract a fair amount of attention from the lunatic fringe that post here.
MP
Your arrogance underwhelms me!
The level of your understanding of this thead would appear to be inversely proportional to the level of your ego.
Perhaps we can have informed comments rather than inane criticism now that you've been promoted.
Flying Lawyer
It looks like we both attract a fair amount of attention from the lunatic fringe that post here.
MP
Paxing All Over The World
trium16, the following may say things you already know. Apologies if so. The reasons for BA not selling Conc are well rehearsed here in the past months. Probably the key factor is that Airbus Industrie has decided not to support the machine any longer.
Branson, as a major customer of the company asked for their support and it does not appeared to have been given.
The reasons for Airbus not to support the machine are well rehearsed here in the past months. You can choose from economics (stated by the company) to any conspiracy that you like.
In the Biz market, depressed or not, the availability of Conc would not, I think, make a great deal of difference. Consider the following aspects of aviation that were not present when the a/c was designed in the 1960s and entered service in the 1970s.[list=1][*]Biz seats the same size as 1st in those days and probably more comfortable now![*]Biz lounges where folks can eat and work in advance of flight. Shower and change.[*]Ditto upon arrival.[*]Laptop computers allowing folks to work through most of the flight, if they wish.[*]Onboard phones and entertainment.[*]A business life so hectic that the idea of extra time in the air when they cannot be contacted appeals greatly.[*]E-mail.[*]Video conferencing. Audio conf existed but pretty basic.[*]WWW (different altogether from e-mail).[*]In the mid 70s, Fax took 6 minutes per page.[*]A choice of four carriers LHR~JFK direct and six or more indirects. Longer transit times but same biz facilities and possibly lower cost.[*]Biz jets that could cross the Atlantic on two or three engines with 1 to 99 pax. Everything from small bizjet to PrivatAir scale ops.[*]Biz jets - fractional ownership to keep cost down.[/list=1]
Corrections and additions welcome (I was not travelling Biz in the 70s!) but this list alone shows why Conc was struggling. For those who wanted the exclusivity and privacy - then Conc was worth the premium but shareholders do not want to hear that the Chairman and CEO are hopping Conc all the time.
All of the above benefits of going Biz are available at lower cost than Conc. Whilst some biz pax would continue to use the a/c, I suspect (my guess only) that the main market is leisure. If you look through the long discussions here since the announcement, you will read of the limitations on distance and fields. Trying to make that pay for the considerable engineering costs? To recoup your investment and make a profit in the (apparently) ten more years of the airframes?
Would Branson have made it work? We shall never know but I think that he is probably lucky that he could not get the machines.
Please know that I wish the machines could stay and my single sector flight in August of this year on BA0001 operated by G-BOAC, will be remain a delight of my life for ever.
Branson, as a major customer of the company asked for their support and it does not appeared to have been given.
The reasons for Airbus not to support the machine are well rehearsed here in the past months. You can choose from economics (stated by the company) to any conspiracy that you like.
In the Biz market, depressed or not, the availability of Conc would not, I think, make a great deal of difference. Consider the following aspects of aviation that were not present when the a/c was designed in the 1960s and entered service in the 1970s.[list=1][*]Biz seats the same size as 1st in those days and probably more comfortable now![*]Biz lounges where folks can eat and work in advance of flight. Shower and change.[*]Ditto upon arrival.[*]Laptop computers allowing folks to work through most of the flight, if they wish.[*]Onboard phones and entertainment.[*]A business life so hectic that the idea of extra time in the air when they cannot be contacted appeals greatly.[*]E-mail.[*]Video conferencing. Audio conf existed but pretty basic.[*]WWW (different altogether from e-mail).[*]In the mid 70s, Fax took 6 minutes per page.[*]A choice of four carriers LHR~JFK direct and six or more indirects. Longer transit times but same biz facilities and possibly lower cost.[*]Biz jets that could cross the Atlantic on two or three engines with 1 to 99 pax. Everything from small bizjet to PrivatAir scale ops.[*]Biz jets - fractional ownership to keep cost down.[/list=1]
Corrections and additions welcome (I was not travelling Biz in the 70s!) but this list alone shows why Conc was struggling. For those who wanted the exclusivity and privacy - then Conc was worth the premium but shareholders do not want to hear that the Chairman and CEO are hopping Conc all the time.
All of the above benefits of going Biz are available at lower cost than Conc. Whilst some biz pax would continue to use the a/c, I suspect (my guess only) that the main market is leisure. If you look through the long discussions here since the announcement, you will read of the limitations on distance and fields. Trying to make that pay for the considerable engineering costs? To recoup your investment and make a profit in the (apparently) ten more years of the airframes?
Would Branson have made it work? We shall never know but I think that he is probably lucky that he could not get the machines.
Please know that I wish the machines could stay and my single sector flight in August of this year on BA0001 operated by G-BOAC, will be remain a delight of my life for ever.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Firstly total respect to the F/E's (and Pilots of course) - being treated badly by BA isn't out of the ordinary these days, it's not the old BOAC days on the VC-10 and 707 thats for sure, those days are long long gone, nowadays shoddy treatment is standard 
PAXBoy
My argument is Branson, for all his self styled publicity, is a bloody good businessman, I mean starting with a single 741, look where he is now, I don't need to hammer that of course, we all know.
It seems that BA is making the financial judgement on behalf of Virgin (as the link by Rod in my previous post substantiates), and stating that we ain't selling 'em coz we don't think anyone can make a go of them (or more likely as I said, Rod thinks Branson will make a go of them if anyone can, and heap major major ridicule on BA, it would be a flying embarrassment to them, Rod would be more of a laughing stock than he already is!)
At least give Branson a chance, if he falls on his face, isn't that better than no chance at all?
After all BA (BOAC?) got them from HM Government for free!
The Pilots and esp the F/E's I think would also be rather grateful (can you imagine the potential BA slagging in the cockpit amongst the crew on a Virgin Concorde, it would be classic!)
Flying Lawyer
You mean they are hedging their bets? Possibly, but my faith in Rod isn't too high (as you may have gathered), he'll follow the path of "Grand Schemes Galore Ayling Bob" mark my words.
On another point, have most of the fleet been D-Checked as part of the safety upgrades?
And to play devils advocate, why didn't the frogs flog their retired fleet to Branson? All I can find is "Billionaire Branson attempted to buy several of Air France's Concordes a few years ago, French newspaper Le Monde said"
PAXBoy
My argument is Branson, for all his self styled publicity, is a bloody good businessman, I mean starting with a single 741, look where he is now, I don't need to hammer that of course, we all know.
It seems that BA is making the financial judgement on behalf of Virgin (as the link by Rod in my previous post substantiates), and stating that we ain't selling 'em coz we don't think anyone can make a go of them (or more likely as I said, Rod thinks Branson will make a go of them if anyone can, and heap major major ridicule on BA, it would be a flying embarrassment to them, Rod would be more of a laughing stock than he already is!)
At least give Branson a chance, if he falls on his face, isn't that better than no chance at all?
After all BA (BOAC?) got them from HM Government for free!
The Pilots and esp the F/E's I think would also be rather grateful (can you imagine the potential BA slagging in the cockpit amongst the crew on a Virgin Concorde, it would be classic!)
Flying Lawyer
You mean they are hedging their bets? Possibly, but my faith in Rod isn't too high (as you may have gathered), he'll follow the path of "Grand Schemes Galore Ayling Bob" mark my words.
On another point, have most of the fleet been D-Checked as part of the safety upgrades?
And to play devils advocate, why didn't the frogs flog their retired fleet to Branson? All I can find is "Billionaire Branson attempted to buy several of Air France's Concordes a few years ago, French newspaper Le Monde said"
...the thin end thereof
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: London
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Flying Lawyer has the brain of a monkey". Ahem. You did, as FL says, not actually point out what you disagreed with in his statement. And although to fly Concorde is certainly out of my price range (though clearly not FL's, he must be doing quite well for a monkey brain ), I nevertheless agree it's a great shame. If you mean that FL appears to be unaware that Concorde's retirement is a purely business matter, then I can assure you he is well aware of that, L337.
FL modestly terms himself an 'outsider' wheras the truth is as a Barrister of many years experience in Aviation case-work, and experienced amateur pilot and aviation enthusiast, he probably knows more about the industry than most airline pilots.
), I nevertheless agree it's a great shame. If you mean that FL appears to be unaware that Concorde's retirement is a purely business matter, then I can assure you he is well aware of that, L337.FL modestly terms himself an 'outsider' wheras the truth is as a Barrister of many years experience in Aviation case-work, and experienced amateur pilot and aviation enthusiast, he probably knows more about the industry than most airline pilots.