Branson on the Beeb BA Bashing
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand Solo
For someone who makes out he knows the truth and understands the commercial world that's a very naive comment.
So you think BA's announcement came as a surprise to Branson and he only started his research when he read the newspapers? Twit! I know, not guessing, he was in confidential talks with key BA people who for months before that.
Branson decided he could do it and a lot of people who know more about operating Concorde than you thought he could as well. Branson has an unconventional business image which he exploits to his advantage, but he's a razor sharp tough top class businessman. We could do with a few like him at the moment. I'd rather have him running the company than Marshall and Rod.
Branson announced his desire to buy the aircraft days after BA announced it's retirement. Can a 'great deal of research' take place in this time?
So you think BA's announcement came as a surprise to Branson and he only started his research when he read the newspapers? Twit! I know, not guessing, he was in confidential talks with key BA people who for months before that.
Branson decided he could do it and a lot of people who know more about operating Concorde than you thought he could as well. Branson has an unconventional business image which he exploits to his advantage, but he's a razor sharp tough top class businessman. We could do with a few like him at the moment. I'd rather have him running the company than Marshall and Rod.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Farnborough, UK
Age: 45
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alty Meter,
How can you describe Branson as:
"a razor sharp tough top class businessman"
May I suggest you read the very interesting book by Tom Bower "BRANSON"... This man has been cheating on the UK Inland Revenue, the tax man, other businesses and his own staff since the very beginning of his business life.
Razor sharp?
I don't think so.
How can you describe Branson as:
"a razor sharp tough top class businessman"
May I suggest you read the very interesting book by Tom Bower "BRANSON"... This man has been cheating on the UK Inland Revenue, the tax man, other businesses and his own staff since the very beginning of his business life.
Razor sharp?
I don't think so.
I've observed these BA><VS threads which arise from time to time and would like to add the following:
Good luck to the solo circumnavigation. RB as backup pilot? - Don't make me laugh!
Branson is a great opportunistic publicist and a successful businessman. King was, at one time, of enormous value to BA. I do not think that I would like to work directly for either.
I've flown as pax on VS and they were very good.
I have flown for a few air-taxi outfits and five airlines, one of which was BA.
There is no doubt in my mind, taking the whole airline ethos and package into account, which was the best to work for.
Which one? - British Airways.
Good luck to the solo circumnavigation. RB as backup pilot? - Don't make me laugh!
Branson is a great opportunistic publicist and a successful businessman. King was, at one time, of enormous value to BA. I do not think that I would like to work directly for either.
I've flown as pax on VS and they were very good.
I have flown for a few air-taxi outfits and five airlines, one of which was BA.
There is no doubt in my mind, taking the whole airline ethos and package into account, which was the best to work for.
Which one? - British Airways.
Thread Starter
Hand Solo - you are trying admirably to feed strawberries to donkeys my friend.
BA did a marvelous job of running Concorde - I doubt any other airline would have had a route, a brand image and a business model that so suited running a SST aircraft. They retired her with grace and made it a bit of an event for the country. Well done all in BA.
I used to admire Sir Richard hugely. Then I read the Tom Bower book and saw the other side of the coin. If you haven't read it I don't think you are informed enough to espouse an opinion on the worthiness of Sir Richard.
I really don't 'get' why people feel inclined to become emotional about Concorde.
I don't think it was that technologically brilliant. It is just a lump of metal. It represented an inglorious industrial/political era that took the country decades to escape from. Its old and - bearing in mind I am to the right of Jeremy Clarkson when it comes to political correctness - dare I say it, a bit naff and a bit obscene.
Joan Collins and David Frost in a half empty aeroplane sipping Champers at 55,000ft whilst pumping out a heck of a lot of muck direct into the upper atmosphere just so they can 'save' 4 hours
of their oh-so-precious lives. Sorry - thats a bit 80's for my taste.
The worlds moved on.
Nobody wants to sit on the M25 for 3hrs in a queue trying to fight their way into Heathrow. To get on a plane that everybody remembers making a smoking hole in the ground recently. To find the mix of other passengers are sad 'once in a lifetime' aircraft anoraks, has-been aging celebs or frequent flyer photocopy machine salesmen whos time has come for an upgrade...
Whats cool now is to whiz to Farnborough or Northolt say and simply whisk onto your 'bling bling' Gulfstream V.
Once upon a time Concorde was cool, the world was not such an enviornmentally sensitive place and airports were convenient and efficient.
Now its naff, people feel ill at ease with those ripping great engines and big airports are hell on earth.
Farewell Conorde, your time had come and you went with grace.
Everybody else - stop getting emotional about a machine. Its a bit pathetic and just another annoying example of the Oprah Winfreyisation of British culture.
Cheers
WWW
ps mind you - she is beautiful to look at.
BA did a marvelous job of running Concorde - I doubt any other airline would have had a route, a brand image and a business model that so suited running a SST aircraft. They retired her with grace and made it a bit of an event for the country. Well done all in BA.
I used to admire Sir Richard hugely. Then I read the Tom Bower book and saw the other side of the coin. If you haven't read it I don't think you are informed enough to espouse an opinion on the worthiness of Sir Richard.
I really don't 'get' why people feel inclined to become emotional about Concorde.
I don't think it was that technologically brilliant. It is just a lump of metal. It represented an inglorious industrial/political era that took the country decades to escape from. Its old and - bearing in mind I am to the right of Jeremy Clarkson when it comes to political correctness - dare I say it, a bit naff and a bit obscene.
Joan Collins and David Frost in a half empty aeroplane sipping Champers at 55,000ft whilst pumping out a heck of a lot of muck direct into the upper atmosphere just so they can 'save' 4 hours
of their oh-so-precious lives. Sorry - thats a bit 80's for my taste.
The worlds moved on.
Nobody wants to sit on the M25 for 3hrs in a queue trying to fight their way into Heathrow. To get on a plane that everybody remembers making a smoking hole in the ground recently. To find the mix of other passengers are sad 'once in a lifetime' aircraft anoraks, has-been aging celebs or frequent flyer photocopy machine salesmen whos time has come for an upgrade...
Whats cool now is to whiz to Farnborough or Northolt say and simply whisk onto your 'bling bling' Gulfstream V.
Once upon a time Concorde was cool, the world was not such an enviornmentally sensitive place and airports were convenient and efficient.
Now its naff, people feel ill at ease with those ripping great engines and big airports are hell on earth.
Farewell Conorde, your time had come and you went with grace.
Everybody else - stop getting emotional about a machine. Its a bit pathetic and just another annoying example of the Oprah Winfreyisation of British culture.
Cheers
WWW
ps mind you - she is beautiful to look at.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Outlawed
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW,
I'm actually logging on from the cabin of my Gufstream V (gold plated laptop, natch) and myself and Joan both think that you're on one of your wind-up missions again. Is this something you do every Friday?
Sipping champagne on the edge of space at Mach 2 was kinda the point of Concorde. The world hasn't moved on, it's gone backwards.
I'm actually logging on from the cabin of my Gufstream V (gold plated laptop, natch) and myself and Joan both think that you're on one of your wind-up missions again. Is this something you do every Friday?
Sipping champagne on the edge of space at Mach 2 was kinda the point of Concorde. The world hasn't moved on, it's gone backwards.
Thread Starter
No first hand experience claimed.
But the Fairey Delta 2 in 1956 was doing 1,200mph level flight with a Delta wing. The Vulcan saw mass produced delta wing aircraft. So you can hardly credit Concorde with advancing that particular technology.
Apart from that what was so technologically amazing about it? Digital computer control for the engines I suppose was pretty new. But the engines were just ripped out of the Vulcan and given an afterburner. I suppose the inlet control was a bit clever as well.
Otherwise surely it was just standard 50's and 60's aviation technology put together into one very expensive package?
A poor mans answer to the Space race which DID bring us all manner of new technologies.
I yield to no man in my admiration of technological progress. In the fields of genetics, communications and computing this country was making fantastic strides during the period of Concordes design and build. But I don't see what the project actually gave us in terms of technology that wasn't already discovered and in use elsewhere.
I'm not bashing the aircraft or the achievement. I don't feel strongly either way about the machine. I am wholly disspassionate about it in fact.
Lets face it - aircraft technology per se was done and dusted by the mid 50's and all we've been doing since then is tweaking.
If the point was to sip Mach 2 champagne at high altitude at dissproportionate environmental cost then - as I said - thats a kind of a naff thing.
Go pay the Ukranian airforce to take you for a ride in a Mig 25, have a real thrill and get to fly the thing. A much bigger boast in the pub - if thats your bag.
I object to the dewey eyed sentimentalism that surrounded some of the coverage of Concordes retirement. Shrieks of end of an era and stepping backwards are frankly sanctimonious bollocks.
Compared to the 70's you can now cross the Atlantic in considerably more safety, more comfort, being well entertained and for a fraction of the cost. In fact you can fly non-stop around the globe in your own private jet whilst video conferencing across the internet to people spead over 4 continents simultaneously.
Thats progress, thats technology and thats got very little to do with Concorde.
Cheers
WWW
But the Fairey Delta 2 in 1956 was doing 1,200mph level flight with a Delta wing. The Vulcan saw mass produced delta wing aircraft. So you can hardly credit Concorde with advancing that particular technology.
Apart from that what was so technologically amazing about it? Digital computer control for the engines I suppose was pretty new. But the engines were just ripped out of the Vulcan and given an afterburner. I suppose the inlet control was a bit clever as well.
Otherwise surely it was just standard 50's and 60's aviation technology put together into one very expensive package?
A poor mans answer to the Space race which DID bring us all manner of new technologies.
I yield to no man in my admiration of technological progress. In the fields of genetics, communications and computing this country was making fantastic strides during the period of Concordes design and build. But I don't see what the project actually gave us in terms of technology that wasn't already discovered and in use elsewhere.
I'm not bashing the aircraft or the achievement. I don't feel strongly either way about the machine. I am wholly disspassionate about it in fact.
Lets face it - aircraft technology per se was done and dusted by the mid 50's and all we've been doing since then is tweaking.
If the point was to sip Mach 2 champagne at high altitude at dissproportionate environmental cost then - as I said - thats a kind of a naff thing.
Go pay the Ukranian airforce to take you for a ride in a Mig 25, have a real thrill and get to fly the thing. A much bigger boast in the pub - if thats your bag.
I object to the dewey eyed sentimentalism that surrounded some of the coverage of Concordes retirement. Shrieks of end of an era and stepping backwards are frankly sanctimonious bollocks.
Compared to the 70's you can now cross the Atlantic in considerably more safety, more comfort, being well entertained and for a fraction of the cost. In fact you can fly non-stop around the globe in your own private jet whilst video conferencing across the internet to people spead over 4 continents simultaneously.
Thats progress, thats technology and thats got very little to do with Concorde.
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW
Your info is wrong! Fairey Delta2 flew at 1,132mph and gained a new world record. BUT........FD2 was only a small part of the Concorde story, but a very important one. The HP115 was spectacularly useful, and very very cheap. The Vulcan was a test bed for the Olympus 593 engine - fitted underneath the Vulcan. The telemetry fitted on the Bristol 188 was a major boost for Concorde's development. Indeed, it carried over 12 tons of test equipment on board each of the prototypes.
It was and is gloriously technologically brilliant, like the TSR2, but to send Concorde to the scrap heap with so much life left in it is criminal.
Your info is wrong! Fairey Delta2 flew at 1,132mph and gained a new world record. BUT........FD2 was only a small part of the Concorde story, but a very important one. The HP115 was spectacularly useful, and very very cheap. The Vulcan was a test bed for the Olympus 593 engine - fitted underneath the Vulcan. The telemetry fitted on the Bristol 188 was a major boost for Concorde's development. Indeed, it carried over 12 tons of test equipment on board each of the prototypes.
I don't think it was that technologically brilliant. It is just a lump of metal. It represented an inglorious industrial/political era that took the country decades to escape from.
Thread Starter
Don't be pedantic, 1,132 is pretty close to 1,200. The Fairey Delta II wasn't flying to develop a SSTA nor was the Vulcan built to be a flying testbed.
I don't see why it was technologically brilliant - obviously its pretty impressive. But not really a step change. After all we could do it today - it just wouldn't pay and there is no market for it.
If I am cash rich and time poor and am in London and need to be in New York then I have a fractional ownership of a private jet.
I don't get on the train, slog out to Heathrow, check in, wait in a security queue, wait through boarding, sit next to some oik in a non-too luxurious seat, hope we don't pick up a slot, end up number 9 for taxi, break down or end up diverting into some god forsaken hole because the machine is so tight on fuel.
Frankly.
As a leisure experience its only for a few enthusiasts.
Oh, and its old, increasingly knackered, looses money and the manufacturer is stopping support of it. It simply is the right time for it to go - saying its criminal is silly.
Cheers
WWW
I don't see why it was technologically brilliant - obviously its pretty impressive. But not really a step change. After all we could do it today - it just wouldn't pay and there is no market for it.
If I am cash rich and time poor and am in London and need to be in New York then I have a fractional ownership of a private jet.
I don't get on the train, slog out to Heathrow, check in, wait in a security queue, wait through boarding, sit next to some oik in a non-too luxurious seat, hope we don't pick up a slot, end up number 9 for taxi, break down or end up diverting into some god forsaken hole because the machine is so tight on fuel.
Frankly.
As a leisure experience its only for a few enthusiasts.
Oh, and its old, increasingly knackered, looses money and the manufacturer is stopping support of it. It simply is the right time for it to go - saying its criminal is silly.
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Under a date palm.
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the technological brilliance was that it took 100 people sipping their champagne at M2.0.
The Fairey Delta was a testbed and the Vulcan was a (subsonic) weapon. To take the basics and make it work for GA was the brilliant part of it.
Never mind all the rhetoric about who was on it, the fact is that is was there and could do the job for those who wanted it and could pay.
If Airbus have pulled the plug then there's not a lot anyone can do, BUT, with the life in the aircraft, there may have been a market for a reduced schedule and/or cheaper seats on charters.
I shall miss her.
The Fairey Delta was a testbed and the Vulcan was a (subsonic) weapon. To take the basics and make it work for GA was the brilliant part of it.
Never mind all the rhetoric about who was on it, the fact is that is was there and could do the job for those who wanted it and could pay.
If Airbus have pulled the plug then there's not a lot anyone can do, BUT, with the life in the aircraft, there may have been a market for a reduced schedule and/or cheaper seats on charters.
I shall miss her.
Hardly surprising that WWW can see little to get dewy eyed about in the demise of Concorde. If you are so recent a member of the flying fraternity as is WWW, it would undoubtedly seem to be rather 'old hat'.
However, for those of us lived through the conception, growing pains and birth of such a remarkable baby, the product was so technically exceptional as to merit the reverence.
I suspect that WWW wasn't exposed to the comparison between (for example) the B58 and Concorde - the former crossed the Atlantic with its crew 'luxuriating' in pressure breathing suits and with the requirement to react with exceptional speed and skill to an engine failure; the latter had its passengers suffering the indignities of champagne and haute cuisine and the 'desperate measures' of a selected diversion for a similar occurence. It is a truism that the younger generation rarely consider the energy and inspiration which went into the technicalities which they take for granted. One can only hope that ultimately their collective consciousnesses will be stirred by something of an equivalent nature - experience, however, leads me to suspect quite the opposite.
However, for those of us lived through the conception, growing pains and birth of such a remarkable baby, the product was so technically exceptional as to merit the reverence.
I suspect that WWW wasn't exposed to the comparison between (for example) the B58 and Concorde - the former crossed the Atlantic with its crew 'luxuriating' in pressure breathing suits and with the requirement to react with exceptional speed and skill to an engine failure; the latter had its passengers suffering the indignities of champagne and haute cuisine and the 'desperate measures' of a selected diversion for a similar occurence. It is a truism that the younger generation rarely consider the energy and inspiration which went into the technicalities which they take for granted. One can only hope that ultimately their collective consciousnesses will be stirred by something of an equivalent nature - experience, however, leads me to suspect quite the opposite.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In other words, WWW should try living in the world of which dreams are made instead of pooing on anything that is remotely outside his limited life span.
I agree.
The fact of the matter is that is that Concorde was conceived over 35 years ago! That is a helluva long time ago. To put it to grass now is crass stupidity. But then the younger generations wouldn't understand that would they.
Wonder why it is that some people cannot see past the end of their nose?
I agree.
The fact of the matter is that is that Concorde was conceived over 35 years ago! That is a helluva long time ago. To put it to grass now is crass stupidity. But then the younger generations wouldn't understand that would they.
Wonder why it is that some people cannot see past the end of their nose?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was young people had respect for their elders. Youth of today, don't know anything! When I was a lad, and so on and so forth........
Perhaps living in the world in which dreams are made is a luxury most people below pensionable age cannot afford. They're all far too busy trying to scrape a living in the real world.
Perhaps living in the world in which dreams are made is a luxury most people below pensionable age cannot afford. They're all far too busy trying to scrape a living in the real world.
