Concorde Fleet Rebellion
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sussex
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I stand on the sideline, it seems rather a shame that one of the saddest days in the history of aviation (bar loss of life) is marked not with the respect it deserves, but with petty bickering.
Uncle Pete
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Frodsham Cheshire
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Goverment of the time invested in the Vickers Viscount to help fund the two prototypes.
£1.8million was invested by the Ministry of Supply back in the late 1940s/early 1950s and £3million was repaid to the Goverment by Vickers.
Not a bad investment?
What would equivalent amounts today?
MP
£1.8million was invested by the Ministry of Supply back in the late 1940s/early 1950s and £3million was repaid to the Goverment by Vickers.
Not a bad investment?
What would equivalent amounts today?
MP
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
trium16
You are wrong here. The only reason BA is retiring Concorde is because they have to. When Air France unilaterally stopped flying with only a few weeks notice, Airbus quickly capitulated too and without manufacturer's support and without cross-channel support (Concorde is and always was an Anglo-French project in manufacture and operation) continued service is impossible.
And that is why Branson (or BA, or anyone else) cannot fly Concorde beyond October. The only reason Concorde is flying that long is because BA fought hard to extend ops that long - and the French are not happy we managed to do that.
But BA must publicly play the political game and tow the line that the retirement is a joint decision. Imaging the reaction from across the Channel if we had pulled the plug!
But it would be as well to remember that BA didn't get them for nothing - they paid many millions for both the aircraft and the support costs - they marketed the aircraft with flair and commercial bravery in the early '80s at privatisation and with out that investment and drive Concorde would have died a very early death with its "sink or swim" mandate from King & Marshall at the time. It became very profitable through massive investment and bloody hard work.
Actually, I wouldn't want move to Virgin except for possibly retirement or redundancy (the E/Os of course are in a very different and far less fortunate position than I). I deeply regret the demise of my 'plane, as all of us on the fleet do, but there's no way I would offer myself up to RB to be used as a political pawn and risk being dropped when his PR game finished. No - its blunties for me in October..... regrettably.
PS: Can we all lighten up here a bit and stop slagging each other off? Ta.
I may be wrong here, but isn't BA (totally selfishly and an utter shame to the nation) refusing to sell Concorde to Branson?
And that is why Branson (or BA, or anyone else) cannot fly Concorde beyond October. The only reason Concorde is flying that long is because BA fought hard to extend ops that long - and the French are not happy we managed to do that.
But BA must publicly play the political game and tow the line that the retirement is a joint decision. Imaging the reaction from across the Channel if we had pulled the plug!
But it would be as well to remember that BA didn't get them for nothing - they paid many millions for both the aircraft and the support costs - they marketed the aircraft with flair and commercial bravery in the early '80s at privatisation and with out that investment and drive Concorde would have died a very early death with its "sink or swim" mandate from King & Marshall at the time. It became very profitable through massive investment and bloody hard work.
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!)
PS: Can we all lighten up here a bit and stop slagging each other off? Ta.
Guest
Posts: n/a
NW1
NW1
With all due respect to you, my point is, that Branson is willing to take them on. IF after this, it all falls flat, well, we can then start making the post-mortem analysis then.
My point is, he obviously thinks he can make a go of it, despite what others say, I say let him try, if he fails - well I don't think he will personally, because, he'd lose a lot of money and some of his golden boy reputation, and he's particularly partial to both.
If there is one in a million chance why the heck not let him try?
He obviously thinks he can get the Manufacturer on board, otherwise why would he waste his time, money and reputation?
OK, will take your suggestion and lighten up now *rant over*
With all due respect to you, my point is, that Branson is willing to take them on. IF after this, it all falls flat, well, we can then start making the post-mortem analysis then.
My point is, he obviously thinks he can make a go of it, despite what others say, I say let him try, if he fails - well I don't think he will personally, because, he'd lose a lot of money and some of his golden boy reputation, and he's particularly partial to both.
If there is one in a million chance why the heck not let him try?
He obviously thinks he can get the Manufacturer on board, otherwise why would he waste his time, money and reputation?
OK, will take your suggestion and lighten up now *rant over*
Paxing All Over The World
trium16.
Sorry if you had not noticed that:-
1) The French decided to stop operating the aircraft.
2) The only company with design authority on the machine will not support the aircraft.
3) There is nowhere else to go, irrespective of what anyone may think.
It is over.
Sorry if you had not noticed that:-
1) The French decided to stop operating the aircraft.
2) The only company with design authority on the machine will not support the aircraft.
3) There is nowhere else to go, irrespective of what anyone may think.
It is over.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAXboy
I agree with some of your points about business travel (earlier post) but not with your overall conclusion.
I'm a director and substantial shareholder of an international IT company which sells systems which, in theory, should make international travel redundant. Like most companies, we've reduced travel at the moment as part of cost-cutting but our key people still fly to the States about once a month. A few years ago it was more frequent and I've no doubt it will increase again when the economy improves.
In reality, business travel becoming a thing of the past is as likely as the paperless office which computers were meant to achieve. Nothing replaces direct personal contact - although that's not what we tell our customers in our sales pitch!
Just out of curiosity, can someone tell me what is the fastest time in which Concorde has crossed the Atlantic?
I agree with some of your points about business travel (earlier post) but not with your overall conclusion.
I'm a director and substantial shareholder of an international IT company which sells systems which, in theory, should make international travel redundant. Like most companies, we've reduced travel at the moment as part of cost-cutting but our key people still fly to the States about once a month. A few years ago it was more frequent and I've no doubt it will increase again when the economy improves.
In reality, business travel becoming a thing of the past is as likely as the paperless office which computers were meant to achieve. Nothing replaces direct personal contact - although that's not what we tell our customers in our sales pitch!
Just out of curiosity, can someone tell me what is the fastest time in which Concorde has crossed the Atlantic?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
trium,
Your point that Branson is willing to take on Concorde is, er, not the point.
To try to clarify: Air France has voluntarily withdrawn its fleet from service. This has precipitated the withdrawal of support from the manufacturer. BA have extended Concorde operations as far as they were allowed to by negotiation.
Now if BA are not permitted to operate Concorde beyond October by this situation what on earth makes you think anyone else would be allowed to? You may well say "let him try" - but those who are actually responsible (and essential) for the aircraft's operational and licencing support will not let anyone try - BA included.
Regarding your point about why is RB trying - he is gaining massive PR points for free on the back of the demise of Concorde - perpetuating the myth that BA got them for free. That is enhancing - not risking - his reputation. He's brilliant at that, he knows the aircraft is being grounded - not by BA - but heck, if he can play the situation to come out smelling of roses and successfully imply that he's being badly treated then he will. Very clever - nil risk, nil cost and max. boost to public image.
So, having been grounded by the manufacturer and Air France, the only possible result of giving VS our airframes would be seeing them shipped off to museums in Virgin Atlantic livery for posterity - and after all the investment of time and money resulting in nearly 3 decades of successful supersonic transport it is unsurprising and, IMHO understandable, that BA are unwilling to countenance that.
nomdeplume:
From memory, 2hrs 52mins 59secs JFK-LHR. Unlikely to be bettered. What price progress?
Your point that Branson is willing to take on Concorde is, er, not the point.
To try to clarify: Air France has voluntarily withdrawn its fleet from service. This has precipitated the withdrawal of support from the manufacturer. BA have extended Concorde operations as far as they were allowed to by negotiation.
Now if BA are not permitted to operate Concorde beyond October by this situation what on earth makes you think anyone else would be allowed to? You may well say "let him try" - but those who are actually responsible (and essential) for the aircraft's operational and licencing support will not let anyone try - BA included.
Regarding your point about why is RB trying - he is gaining massive PR points for free on the back of the demise of Concorde - perpetuating the myth that BA got them for free. That is enhancing - not risking - his reputation. He's brilliant at that, he knows the aircraft is being grounded - not by BA - but heck, if he can play the situation to come out smelling of roses and successfully imply that he's being badly treated then he will. Very clever - nil risk, nil cost and max. boost to public image.
So, having been grounded by the manufacturer and Air France, the only possible result of giving VS our airframes would be seeing them shipped off to museums in Virgin Atlantic livery for posterity - and after all the investment of time and money resulting in nearly 3 decades of successful supersonic transport it is unsurprising and, IMHO understandable, that BA are unwilling to countenance that.
nomdeplume:
From memory, 2hrs 52mins 59secs JFK-LHR. Unlikely to be bettered. What price progress?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nomdeplume
I'm open to correction but I think the record of 2 hrs 52 mins 59 secs JFK-LHR (09) set in 1996 still stands - an average speed for the entire flight of over 1250 mph.
It was flown by the Captain, I think Captain Scott(?). The FO was Senior First Officer (now Captain) Tim Orchard. Tim's a total aviator who also runs the BA Flying Club at Booker - when he's not flying one of his hot air balloons! I don't know the FE's name or I'd post it - I'm sure the Captain would agree the record was a team effort with each member of the flight crew playing a crucial part.
L337
I didn't "rubbish all that BA has done" for aviation; I made one comment about one issue. I have strong links with BA, both professional and personal, and anyone who knows me knows I have a high regard for BA.
My views on this issue may well be coloured by my sadness at Concorde's premature demise. I was lucky enough to be invited to see the work BA was doing to the fuel tanks when Concorde was grounded - an absolutely fascinating day when three of us spent several hours crawling over every inch of the stripped out G-BOAF under the guidance of engineers and our Concorde Captain host. Fitting hundreds (possibly thousands) of small kevlar linings to the enormous fuel tanks was a mammoth task. Each small lining was shaped and numbered to correspond with the panel where it was to be fitted. Everyone was so optimistic then that this pains-taking and very expensive task would ensure Concorde would grace the skies for many more years. What a change in such a short time.
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. How? I have no idea. I'm only a lawyer not a world-class businessman and, in light of events in recent years, perhaps the less said about having a lawyer running the business side of BA the better!
Equally, you're entitled to your view that I'm a moron with a monkey brain who knows nothing about aviation. I'll have to face that with such fortitude as I can muster.
(I'm sorry I misunderstood your history with BA. You said in an August post you were a new captain in BA on the 744 and I didn't take into account your time with BA Regional at BHX.)
I'm open to correction but I think the record of 2 hrs 52 mins 59 secs JFK-LHR (09) set in 1996 still stands - an average speed for the entire flight of over 1250 mph.
It was flown by the Captain, I think Captain Scott(?). The FO was Senior First Officer (now Captain) Tim Orchard. Tim's a total aviator who also runs the BA Flying Club at Booker - when he's not flying one of his hot air balloons! I don't know the FE's name or I'd post it - I'm sure the Captain would agree the record was a team effort with each member of the flight crew playing a crucial part.
L337
I didn't "rubbish all that BA has done" for aviation; I made one comment about one issue. I have strong links with BA, both professional and personal, and anyone who knows me knows I have a high regard for BA.
My views on this issue may well be coloured by my sadness at Concorde's premature demise. I was lucky enough to be invited to see the work BA was doing to the fuel tanks when Concorde was grounded - an absolutely fascinating day when three of us spent several hours crawling over every inch of the stripped out G-BOAF under the guidance of engineers and our Concorde Captain host. Fitting hundreds (possibly thousands) of small kevlar linings to the enormous fuel tanks was a mammoth task. Each small lining was shaped and numbered to correspond with the panel where it was to be fitted. Everyone was so optimistic then that this pains-taking and very expensive task would ensure Concorde would grace the skies for many more years. What a change in such a short time.
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. How? I have no idea. I'm only a lawyer not a world-class businessman and, in light of events in recent years, perhaps the less said about having a lawyer running the business side of BA the better!
Equally, you're entitled to your view that I'm a moron with a monkey brain who knows nothing about aviation. I'll have to face that with such fortitude as I can muster.
(I'm sorry I misunderstood your history with BA. You said in an August post you were a new captain in BA on the 744 and I didn't take into account your time with BA Regional at BHX.)
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 6th Oct 2003 at 20:53.
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L337
With Flying Lawyer, I was one of the lucky three who spent over 6 hours with our host Concorde Captain looking in almost every orrifice 'AF' has at LHR.
I feel as he does about Concorde. Indeed, as most people feel about it.
But, you really should know your 'subject' before you rubbish people you obviously do not know. FL is a much experienced and well informed person when it comes to aviation. He is also a FRAes. That MIGHT tell you something.
Nice to know you have been a Captain with BA for ten years though.
With Flying Lawyer, I was one of the lucky three who spent over 6 hours with our host Concorde Captain looking in almost every orrifice 'AF' has at LHR.
I feel as he does about Concorde. Indeed, as most people feel about it.
But, you really should know your 'subject' before you rubbish people you obviously do not know. FL is a much experienced and well informed person when it comes to aviation. He is also a FRAes. That MIGHT tell you something.
Nice to know you have been a Captain with BA for ten years though.
Paxing All Over The World
nomdeplume: Having been in telecommunications for 23 years, I agree that the paperless office is not going to happen this year! My first involvement with video conferencing was around 1986 and I have always said that it is a supplement to existing business relationships, not the the way to make new ones.
However, I don't think that I was saying that biz travel would dry up? I was saying that the justification for Conc has been overtaken by the events I listed. In a nutshell: Travel in Club and pay less money whilst getting more time to eat/sleep/work and not incur the wrath of shareholders? It's easy not to travel Conc.
Another example is the Eurostar. When it's biz plan was formulated, LCC airlines serving short haul had not started in Europe, nor was there any prospect of them. Waterloo is over an hour's train/tube journey away from me. LTN is 15 mins. True, I have to sit in the lounge duriing extended check-in but the hassle and the price are lower. I think Eurostar is brilliant but I rarely use it.
However, I don't think that I was saying that biz travel would dry up? I was saying that the justification for Conc has been overtaken by the events I listed. In a nutshell: Travel in Club and pay less money whilst getting more time to eat/sleep/work and not incur the wrath of shareholders? It's easy not to travel Conc.
Another example is the Eurostar. When it's biz plan was formulated, LCC airlines serving short haul had not started in Europe, nor was there any prospect of them. Waterloo is over an hour's train/tube journey away from me. LTN is 15 mins. True, I have to sit in the lounge duriing extended check-in but the hassle and the price are lower. I think Eurostar is brilliant but I rarely use it.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Strood, Kent
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L337,
I don't know you, but I have met Flying Lawyer on several occasions and can assure you that he is most knowledgeable in many areas of aviation from accident investigation to aviation employment law. Furthermore, as he is not a professional pilot, I believe it may even be reasonable to suggest that from my short aquaintance with him I gleaned the impression that his interest in the aviation world is that of an enthusiast - something that is actually relatively rare amongst most professional pilots - and thus his interest and knowledge of the industry is actually more broadly based and in-depth than many professional pilots.
I have never known Flying Lawyer to resort to insults in any of his many postings on this bulletin board and that alone seems to separate the two of you intellectually. Were it not for the fact that you have made follow up posts on different days, I would rather have hoped that your childish insult was made by a wind-up merchant following a failure on your part to log off a company computer in the Compass Centre. Sadly, it seems that you are for real.
From the tone of his subsequent postings it is clear that FL is big enough not to need others to jump to his defence, but you need to be told that your unnecessary and insulting post does you no credit. I hope you treat your first officers/cabin crew/dispatchers etc. with more respect.
I don't know you, but I have met Flying Lawyer on several occasions and can assure you that he is most knowledgeable in many areas of aviation from accident investigation to aviation employment law. Furthermore, as he is not a professional pilot, I believe it may even be reasonable to suggest that from my short aquaintance with him I gleaned the impression that his interest in the aviation world is that of an enthusiast - something that is actually relatively rare amongst most professional pilots - and thus his interest and knowledge of the industry is actually more broadly based and in-depth than many professional pilots.
I have never known Flying Lawyer to resort to insults in any of his many postings on this bulletin board and that alone seems to separate the two of you intellectually. Were it not for the fact that you have made follow up posts on different days, I would rather have hoped that your childish insult was made by a wind-up merchant following a failure on your part to log off a company computer in the Compass Centre. Sadly, it seems that you are for real.
From the tone of his subsequent postings it is clear that FL is big enough not to need others to jump to his defence, but you need to be told that your unnecessary and insulting post does you no credit. I hope you treat your first officers/cabin crew/dispatchers etc. with more respect.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the decision probably was unavoidable for the reasons posted by NW1 but I've been around long enough to remember the two occasions when everyone was saying it was unavoidable that Concorde had to be dropped, especially when the government pulled the plug. Everyone said it couldn't be done and then Lord King pulled off the impossible. Walpole wasn't everyone's cup of tea but you can't take what he did for Concorde's success away from him. Jock Lowe was a star and a great loss to BA when he retired.
I've got no axe to grind, never been on the Concorde fleet and never wanted to but maybe Flying Lawyer's got a point. We'll never know the answer now.
L337
So the lawyer's a monkey brained moronic empty barrel who knows nothing about aviation, eh?
That's not the impression I get from his posts and it's not what the crews in the 777 stowaway inquest came back saying. He's well respected in the industry because he's earned respect. That doesn't mean he's right about this point but he's as entitled to give his opinion as anybody else, more entitled than many and he deserves more courtesy than you've shown in your childish insults.
Stick to the law matey?
You've made a prat of yourself.
I've got no axe to grind, never been on the Concorde fleet and never wanted to but maybe Flying Lawyer's got a point. We'll never know the answer now.
L337
So the lawyer's a monkey brained moronic empty barrel who knows nothing about aviation, eh?
That's not the impression I get from his posts and it's not what the crews in the 777 stowaway inquest came back saying. He's well respected in the industry because he's earned respect. That doesn't mean he's right about this point but he's as entitled to give his opinion as anybody else, more entitled than many and he deserves more courtesy than you've shown in your childish insults.
Stick to the law matey?
You've made a prat of yourself.
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well thats me put in my place!
I was most certainly angry, and tired when I made the first two post, However I still stand by my position, that Flying Lawer was out of order to post what he did. To condem so much of BA history, and its contribution to aviation because of the demise of Concorde is wrong.
I was wrong to post in anger, and wrong in the manner that I did. And for that I unreservidly apologise to the Flying Lawer, and for those here that I have upset.
It would indeed appear that I have made a prat of myself.
L337
I was most certainly angry, and tired when I made the first two post, However I still stand by my position, that Flying Lawer was out of order to post what he did. To condem so much of BA history, and its contribution to aviation because of the demise of Concorde is wrong.
I was wrong to post in anger, and wrong in the manner that I did. And for that I unreservidly apologise to the Flying Lawer, and for those here that I have upset.
It would indeed appear that I have made a prat of myself.
L337
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L337 over-reacted to a comment that could have been misinterpreted as just-another-pop-at-the-world's-favourite. I'm not surprised; there are as many BA-baiters on here as there are Ryanair-baiters! Kudos to him for apologising.
However, his sentiments are correct. I have heard from a number in BA that Airbus told them that they would have to stop when Air France did; BA fought tooth and nail to be allowed to fly on to 24 October. They would like to have flown through 2004, but Airbus would not let them. The original pre-Re-life date of 2007 went out the window.
Airbus have killed Concorde, not BA. The whole thing is a mighty stich-up between Air France (who lost the bottle) and Airbus (we can't let the British have exclusivity).
It is worth remembering, that if BA had not taken over the entire Concorde operation in 1984, commercial supersonic flight would have ended then. Not 19 years later. BA should be praised for showing that commercial supersonic flight can be viable.
By all means feel angry. I've only flown her once, and I still feel angry that this marvel will be forever lost from the skies, gathering dust in a museum.
But direct your anger at those who deserve it. And that's not BA.
However, his sentiments are correct. I have heard from a number in BA that Airbus told them that they would have to stop when Air France did; BA fought tooth and nail to be allowed to fly on to 24 October. They would like to have flown through 2004, but Airbus would not let them. The original pre-Re-life date of 2007 went out the window.
Airbus have killed Concorde, not BA. The whole thing is a mighty stich-up between Air France (who lost the bottle) and Airbus (we can't let the British have exclusivity).
It is worth remembering, that if BA had not taken over the entire Concorde operation in 1984, commercial supersonic flight would have ended then. Not 19 years later. BA should be praised for showing that commercial supersonic flight can be viable.
By all means feel angry. I've only flown her once, and I still feel angry that this marvel will be forever lost from the skies, gathering dust in a museum.
But direct your anger at those who deserve it. And that's not BA.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L337
I'm kinda hesitant to say anything about the use of English because as Shaw said we're two countries divided by a common language but I think you're still misreading what the Flying Lawyer said.
If you read it again he didn't say 'BA's contribution to the century of flight' which as you say would condem so much of BA history but "to the centenary of flight". This year. Very different meaning. Maybe you'll still disagree with him but then you can argue with what he said not what you think he said.
Interesting reading about the history anyways. I'll have to read up about your Lord King's time at British Airways now.
I'll miss seeing the Concordes taking off from Kennedy. The 31L departure was always worth seeing.
Click here. . Sorry it's an AF, I couldn't find a BA.
I'm kinda hesitant to say anything about the use of English because as Shaw said we're two countries divided by a common language but I think you're still misreading what the Flying Lawyer said.
If you read it again he didn't say 'BA's contribution to the century of flight' which as you say would condem so much of BA history but "to the centenary of flight". This year. Very different meaning. Maybe you'll still disagree with him but then you can argue with what he said not what you think he said.
Interesting reading about the history anyways. I'll have to read up about your Lord King's time at British Airways now.
I'll miss seeing the Concordes taking off from Kennedy. The 31L departure was always worth seeing.
Click here. . Sorry it's an AF, I couldn't find a BA.
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L337
Don't feel too bad. It takes a big man to admit that he is wrong.
I can tell you, without fear of contradiction, that Flying Lawyer would not have intended that anything he wrote should be construed that he was rubbishing BA. He is, as most of us Concorde lovers are, upset that the most beautiful thing that ever flew is to be taken away from us. I am 100% with him on that.
From a purely personal point of view, and from an operators point of view too, I am dismayed that Concorde will no longer grace the skies, it IS yet another very harsh end to the most innovative thing that is good in British aviation. Something that has happened all to frequently.
Don't feel too bad. It takes a big man to admit that he is wrong.
I can tell you, without fear of contradiction, that Flying Lawyer would not have intended that anything he wrote should be construed that he was rubbishing BA. He is, as most of us Concorde lovers are, upset that the most beautiful thing that ever flew is to be taken away from us. I am 100% with him on that.
From a purely personal point of view, and from an operators point of view too, I am dismayed that Concorde will no longer grace the skies, it IS yet another very harsh end to the most innovative thing that is good in British aviation. Something that has happened all to frequently.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L337
No hard feelings. Lawyers have to develop a thick skin - we're not exactly the most popular group of people in the country.
Having read Bronx's post, I can see how my comment could be taken the wrong way. My fault. I should have expressed myself in a way which wasn't open to misunderstanding. I don't think anyone who knows anything about aviation would deny the enormous contribution BA has made to aviation generally and civilian supersonic flight in particular. I certainly don't.
No hard feelings. Lawyers have to develop a thick skin - we're not exactly the most popular group of people in the country.
Having read Bronx's post, I can see how my comment could be taken the wrong way. My fault. I should have expressed myself in a way which wasn't open to misunderstanding. I don't think anyone who knows anything about aviation would deny the enormous contribution BA has made to aviation generally and civilian supersonic flight in particular. I certainly don't.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 8th Oct 2003 at 06:56.
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawer,
Thanks for your post.
Capt PPRuNe messaged me your "resume".
I confess to a wry smile upon reading it. I was so far off target in my abuse of you as to be laughable.
HoHum. We live and we learn.
L337
Thanks for your post.
Capt PPRuNe messaged me your "resume".
I confess to a wry smile upon reading it. I was so far off target in my abuse of you as to be laughable.
HoHum. We live and we learn.
L337
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Strood, Kent
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done L337,
I guess part of the trouble is that there are so many wind-up merchants determined to spoil this site for everyone else that it is sometimes difficult for less 'addicted' PPRuNers to know which category other members fall into.
Obviously there is the catch all disclaimer on the main 'PPRuNe Forums' page (As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions), but in general, anyone who regularly puts their real name at the bottom of their postings (or even whose real identity is just known to lots of other members) will usually refrain from stupid or inflammatory posts.
Kind regards,
Arnold Schwartzenegger.
Joke... Honest!
I guess part of the trouble is that there are so many wind-up merchants determined to spoil this site for everyone else that it is sometimes difficult for less 'addicted' PPRuNers to know which category other members fall into.
Obviously there is the catch all disclaimer on the main 'PPRuNe Forums' page (As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions), but in general, anyone who regularly puts their real name at the bottom of their postings (or even whose real identity is just known to lots of other members) will usually refrain from stupid or inflammatory posts.
Kind regards,
Arnold Schwartzenegger.
Joke... Honest!