concorde this afternoon
"No special handling, sadly"
Well...... Concorde is the only aircraft that I know of that has a whole section of the UK CAA Manual of Air Traffic Services specifically covering its operation - I call that special !!!
Well...... Concorde is the only aircraft that I know of that has a whole section of the UK CAA Manual of Air Traffic Services specifically covering its operation - I call that special !!!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rollingthunder:
Why? Overpriced, over-noisy, elitist, fuel-guzzling anacronistic piece-of-sh*t as far as I can see. Airbus has taken over European expertise concerning aviation; I'd have thought Concorde by now is a huge embarrassment to Europe. So that a few celebrities can go in 3 hours instead of 6, huge quantities of fuel are wasted, and noise standards are ignored? What utter CRAP! Europe has forced (properly) the retirement of many noisy, wasteful aircraft; why not the MOST wasteful, and MOST NOISY? So Tony & Madonna can save 3 hours, & not be bothered with riff-raff? OK, be proud; they don't have to travel with the likes of us. Congrats.
Why? Overpriced, over-noisy, elitist, fuel-guzzling anacronistic piece-of-sh*t as far as I can see. Airbus has taken over European expertise concerning aviation; I'd have thought Concorde by now is a huge embarrassment to Europe. So that a few celebrities can go in 3 hours instead of 6, huge quantities of fuel are wasted, and noise standards are ignored? What utter CRAP! Europe has forced (properly) the retirement of many noisy, wasteful aircraft; why not the MOST wasteful, and MOST NOISY? So Tony & Madonna can save 3 hours, & not be bothered with riff-raff? OK, be proud; they don't have to travel with the likes of us. Congrats.
Last edited by Semaphore Sam; 27th Apr 2002 at 03:58.
PPRuNe Secret Agent!
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sam,
Thats a huge chip you've got to carry about with you....
Unfortuantly whether you like it or not our Uk national airlines flagship will be around for a while...alot of investment has gone its way in the past few years and it's still an attention grabber...and as a plus point for BA - it makes money!..
I agree with everyone - a fantastic aircraft..
Thats a huge chip you've got to carry about with you....
Unfortuantly whether you like it or not our Uk national airlines flagship will be around for a while...alot of investment has gone its way in the past few years and it's still an attention grabber...and as a plus point for BA - it makes money!..
I agree with everyone - a fantastic aircraft..
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: wrong place
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A------------I hadn`t realised that B47s and Vulcans were supersonic unless of course the definition of supersonic has been redefined as Boeing appear to be doing with their current transonic project.I realise that Concorde could not possibly be any good as it was not built in the US.I seem to remember that contemporary American projects fell by the wayside.Maybe they were not able to poach enough European knowhow at that time!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sam
Good job we don't all think like you, we'd all be living in caves throwing stones at each other.
Suppose you think landing on the moon was a waste of time, and quite why the Wright brothers bothered with that flying bicycle must cause you many sleepless nights.
I guess you are welcome to your opinions, but this is progress. And if it had been invented on the other side of the Atlantic, there would be loads of them!
Good job we don't all think like you, we'd all be living in caves throwing stones at each other.
Suppose you think landing on the moon was a waste of time, and quite why the Wright brothers bothered with that flying bicycle must cause you many sleepless nights.
I guess you are welcome to your opinions, but this is progress. And if it had been invented on the other side of the Atlantic, there would be loads of them!
It always makes me smile when I see someone claim that Concorde makes money. They must have very short memories. It was taxpayers such as me who forked out an absolute fortune in income tax to pay for the building of the thing, the R & D costs etc etc.
British Airways got them for nothing (along with everything else) when the company was privatised. Even I could make a profit if I was given an entire airline and all of its assets for free.
Technical achievement "oui" - commercial success "non"!
British Airways got them for nothing (along with everything else) when the company was privatised. Even I could make a profit if I was given an entire airline and all of its assets for free.
Technical achievement "oui" - commercial success "non"!
Surely we can separate the technical achievement from the politics.
It was (and really, still is) quite a remarkable engineering achievement. And a very beautiful airplane. I for one am pleased that it is still in operation.
However, I must agree with Sam about the politics of the operation. (Which I acknowledge, is probably the only way it could be operated.
Things are not always simple!
(spelling edited!)
It was (and really, still is) quite a remarkable engineering achievement. And a very beautiful airplane. I for one am pleased that it is still in operation.
However, I must agree with Sam about the politics of the operation. (Which I acknowledge, is probably the only way it could be operated.
Things are not always simple!
(spelling edited!)
Last edited by Lord Lucan; 27th Apr 2002 at 07:36.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've got to be kidding:
"Airbus has taken over European expertise as far as aviation is concerned"
Apart from the B4, they have not yet built anything I would want to fly in!!
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!!!
Cheers
"Airbus has taken over European expertise as far as aviation is concerned"
Apart from the B4, they have not yet built anything I would want to fly in!!
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!!!
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was reading (something, somewhere) that if you take its development costs etc., each Concorde airframe is worth about £1.5 billion at 2000 prices.
Me? I think its wonderful. Finishing morning lessons at school, walking out of classrooms with a brilliant deep blue sky and a small white dart thundering across it......Rule Brittania and all that...
Me? I think its wonderful. Finishing morning lessons at school, walking out of classrooms with a brilliant deep blue sky and a small white dart thundering across it......Rule Brittania and all that...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My my, 26yrs in service and still a hot topic!
Spekesoftly - good point re MATS! Of course if all these modern aircraft didn't fly round the TMA so slooooowly it wouldn't be necessary...
Semaphore sam:
"....Airbus has taken over European expertise....etc"
And where, pray, do you think Airbus came from? Concorde was the progenitor of Airbus, indeed some of the very clever modern things that A320/330/340s do are straight from the Conc program. No benefit?
As far as R&D costs go - the US SST projects burnt more funds and did not produce an aircraft. However, that is not relevant to the topic:
Concorde a Commercial success for BAC/Aerospat? Not if measured by the manufacturers in cost terms, BUT, as mentioned above a lot of Concorde R&D was actually to the benefit of the modern Airbus'
So not all the costs are attributable solely to SSC.
A commercial success for BA? YES! It's very simple, they would not be back in the air now if the monies were not going to be regained. As for the argument that they were 'given' to BA (Not actually the case) and thus any profit doesn't count - any a/c in service for 20 years would have entirely amortised its initial capital cost so it does not now matter what was paid for the hulls, only what revenues they generate minus the costs of running them.
Sad to see the the same old tired rants - as far as I'm concerned the politics are irrelevant, not least because they occurred over 2 decades ago. However you look at it the conc programme produced a remarkable aircraft, with unique capabilities even today, having innovatively solved some very tricky technical problems, AND provided a lot of the groundwork technically, politically and commercially for what is now the world's second-largest commercial aircraft manufacturer.
I know my opinion is hardly unbiased BUT at least it's informed, and I know it's the DB's.
And it means I get to look forward to going to work. 
Lecture over!
Spekesoftly - good point re MATS! Of course if all these modern aircraft didn't fly round the TMA so slooooowly it wouldn't be necessary...
Semaphore sam:
"....Airbus has taken over European expertise....etc"
And where, pray, do you think Airbus came from? Concorde was the progenitor of Airbus, indeed some of the very clever modern things that A320/330/340s do are straight from the Conc program. No benefit?
As far as R&D costs go - the US SST projects burnt more funds and did not produce an aircraft. However, that is not relevant to the topic:
Concorde a Commercial success for BAC/Aerospat? Not if measured by the manufacturers in cost terms, BUT, as mentioned above a lot of Concorde R&D was actually to the benefit of the modern Airbus'
So not all the costs are attributable solely to SSC.
A commercial success for BA? YES! It's very simple, they would not be back in the air now if the monies were not going to be regained. As for the argument that they were 'given' to BA (Not actually the case) and thus any profit doesn't count - any a/c in service for 20 years would have entirely amortised its initial capital cost so it does not now matter what was paid for the hulls, only what revenues they generate minus the costs of running them.
Sad to see the the same old tired rants - as far as I'm concerned the politics are irrelevant, not least because they occurred over 2 decades ago. However you look at it the conc programme produced a remarkable aircraft, with unique capabilities even today, having innovatively solved some very tricky technical problems, AND provided a lot of the groundwork technically, politically and commercially for what is now the world's second-largest commercial aircraft manufacturer.
I know my opinion is hardly unbiased BUT at least it's informed, and I know it's the DB's.
And it means I get to look forward to going to work. Lecture over!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Age: 44
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been lucky enough to have flown on Concorde I can only say that it was one of the highlights of my life so far! Given the amount of people who were standing round in anticipatioin at JFK the day we flew on it, just waiting for it to move off leads me to believe that there is still plenty of support for the aircraft on both sides of the Atlantic.
It's easy to sling mud at success and you can argue the merits of it technically/politically and from a cost point of view but you can bet that in 100 years time when people look back on the history of aviation, Concorde will be one of the icons that is instantly recognised.
It's easy to sling mud at success and you can argue the merits of it technically/politically and from a cost point of view but you can bet that in 100 years time when people look back on the history of aviation, Concorde will be one of the icons that is instantly recognised.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi WOK, et al!
I never intended anybody to be personally insulted; but maybe I have inadvertently. For that, sorry.
But, to continue, quoting WOK
----------
My my, 26yrs in service and still a hot topic! ......
And where, pray, do you think Airbus came from? Concorde was the progenitor of Airbus, indeed some of the very clever modern things that A320/330/340s do are straight from the Conc program. No benefit?
-----------
Absolutely agree. Much benefit, kinda like the V2's contribution to the modern space program. But, are we still launching V2s for the Space Station? Modern aircraft developed from previous generations, but who these days still flies Comets or 707's, even though they were brilliant in their day. My, my...26 years in service; back then gas was cheap, nobody cared about noise. Even then, as beautiful as it was/is (no argument there), it couldn't be sold except as a political toy to AF & BA. Everybody knew it was uneconomic. It was anachronistic then, how much more so today!
I never intended anybody to be personally insulted; but maybe I have inadvertently. For that, sorry.
But, to continue, quoting WOK
----------
My my, 26yrs in service and still a hot topic! ......
And where, pray, do you think Airbus came from? Concorde was the progenitor of Airbus, indeed some of the very clever modern things that A320/330/340s do are straight from the Conc program. No benefit?
-----------
Absolutely agree. Much benefit, kinda like the V2's contribution to the modern space program. But, are we still launching V2s for the Space Station? Modern aircraft developed from previous generations, but who these days still flies Comets or 707's, even though they were brilliant in their day. My, my...26 years in service; back then gas was cheap, nobody cared about noise. Even then, as beautiful as it was/is (no argument there), it couldn't be sold except as a political toy to AF & BA. Everybody knew it was uneconomic. It was anachronistic then, how much more so today!