Concorde- Let her fly on
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 1,295
Likes: 0
From: UK
Come on Guys, lets face the facts.
Concorde was never a commercial success, its one success was it convinced governments that it should not interfere in commercial projects. The project was more to do with 1960's politics than aviation.
If Richard Branson wants the "keys", let him have them but the only flight it would make in Virgin colours was to Duxford, unless of course he would expect BA to give him the spares, engineers and pilots for nothing.
Mr Branson doesn't want the aircraft he wants publicity. BA should suggest that he "puts up" or "shuts up". What they should do is offer it to him from Monday next.
Concorde was never a commercial success, its one success was it convinced governments that it should not interfere in commercial projects. The project was more to do with 1960's politics than aviation.
If Richard Branson wants the "keys", let him have them but the only flight it would make in Virgin colours was to Duxford, unless of course he would expect BA to give him the spares, engineers and pilots for nothing.
Mr Branson doesn't want the aircraft he wants publicity. BA should suggest that he "puts up" or "shuts up". What they should do is offer it to him from Monday next.
Paxing All Over The World
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,841
Likes: 328
From: Hertfordshire, UK.
sky9, the reason that Concorde did not make it commercially is the sonic boom. That is also one of the main reasons why no new SST has been developed.
If Richard Branson wants the "keys", let him have them but the only flight it would make in Virgin colours was to Duxford, unless of course he would expect BA to give him the spares, engineers and pilots for nothing.
He is saying nothing of the sort! He wants to be given a price, so that he can make a business case. depending upon the price of hardware and staff and ongoing manufacturer support, he could then see if he could make it work.
Mr Branson doesn't want the aircraft he wants publicity. BA should suggest that he "puts up" or "shuts up". What they should do is offer it to him from Monday next.
Well, that is impractical for a dozen reasons. To the matter of publicity, I recall him saying on a number of occasions, once when I was in an auidence, "I have done many of the antics to get publicity for my companies. Paid-for corporate advertising is very expensive. When we started the airline - we had no spare money, so I did things that I knew the press would follow. The balooning and Atlantic Ribbon events - those were for me - although company publicity was still a spin-off."
I do not work for any Branson company, nor ever have, I am simply a satisfied customer. I have no doubt that if you examined mistakes and poor staff relations, Branson would have as many bad marks as any company chairman. For example, have you any idea what Big Airways did to him? They had already colluded in putting Laker out of business and nearly did the same to Branson.
Running the risk of the moderator saying "Attack the issue, not the person" ... Since you have attacked Branson as a person, I ask: Why are you so against Branson? What has he done to you for this repulsive language about him?
If Branson gets a deal (and I doubt that he will) would you be cross that he had saved jobs and was providing a service that people are prepared to pay for?
I am tempted to suggest that you "puts up" or "shuts up".
If Richard Branson wants the "keys", let him have them but the only flight it would make in Virgin colours was to Duxford, unless of course he would expect BA to give him the spares, engineers and pilots for nothing.
He is saying nothing of the sort! He wants to be given a price, so that he can make a business case. depending upon the price of hardware and staff and ongoing manufacturer support, he could then see if he could make it work.
Mr Branson doesn't want the aircraft he wants publicity. BA should suggest that he "puts up" or "shuts up". What they should do is offer it to him from Monday next.
Well, that is impractical for a dozen reasons. To the matter of publicity, I recall him saying on a number of occasions, once when I was in an auidence, "I have done many of the antics to get publicity for my companies. Paid-for corporate advertising is very expensive. When we started the airline - we had no spare money, so I did things that I knew the press would follow. The balooning and Atlantic Ribbon events - those were for me - although company publicity was still a spin-off."
I do not work for any Branson company, nor ever have, I am simply a satisfied customer. I have no doubt that if you examined mistakes and poor staff relations, Branson would have as many bad marks as any company chairman. For example, have you any idea what Big Airways did to him? They had already colluded in putting Laker out of business and nearly did the same to Branson.
Running the risk of the moderator saying "Attack the issue, not the person" ... Since you have attacked Branson as a person, I ask: Why are you so against Branson? What has he done to you for this repulsive language about him?
If Branson gets a deal (and I doubt that he will) would you be cross that he had saved jobs and was providing a service that people are prepared to pay for?
I am tempted to suggest that you "puts up" or "shuts up".
Usual disclaimers apply!
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
From: EGGW
Sky9 sums it up quite well Politics The aircraft only flew because the French forced the then (British)government of the day to see the project through.
If RB wants some why doesn't he have the AF ones as they will stop flying at the end of May.
I wonder if it's to do with the mod state?????
Who will pay for the crown skin replacement work? I doubt if RB could afford it and the phase 2 life extension will also be due very shortly on the BA aircraft!
I would imagine that RR would also like to can the Olympus 593 another '50s technology, and as for the avionic suite, more 50s and 60s stuff that is beginning to sadly show it's age.
Just a few points.
Don't get me wrong I think it's a beautiful looking piece of kit and am going to try for a ride in June.
If RB wants some why doesn't he have the AF ones as they will stop flying at the end of May.
I wonder if it's to do with the mod state?????
Who will pay for the crown skin replacement work? I doubt if RB could afford it and the phase 2 life extension will also be due very shortly on the BA aircraft!
I would imagine that RR would also like to can the Olympus 593 another '50s technology, and as for the avionic suite, more 50s and 60s stuff that is beginning to sadly show it's age.
Just a few points.
Don't get me wrong I think it's a beautiful looking piece of kit and am going to try for a ride in June.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 1,295
Likes: 0
From: UK
Paxboy,
If RB was serious he would make his offer privately after examining the facts rather than on the Richard and Judy show.
I cannot see where I have attacked the person (RB); all I have said is that he is using the issue of Concorde to try and make BA look stupid over what is a proper commercial decision by both BA, AF and Airbus.
It wasn't the sonic boom that killed of Concorde, the aircraft was designed with the knowledge of the effects. What killed of the commercial viability of Concorde was the spiralling development costs and the economics of operating at supersonic speeds. In the early 60's kerosene was almost a by-product of gasoline refining, with the growth in jet aviation the value of the product increased.
BA got the aircraft for nothing; yes they did get a halo effect from operating it (although it was often cheaper to buy a ticket from Rome to New York via London on Concorde than from London to New York) but a commercial success it was never going to be.
We all love to see it go overhead but let's not loose sight of our commercial perspective.
If BA cannot make a profit on its marginal operating costs neither will Virgin, although no doubt RB would love to be photographed with his head out the cockpit window at the next British Open flypast
If RB was serious he would make his offer privately after examining the facts rather than on the Richard and Judy show.
I cannot see where I have attacked the person (RB); all I have said is that he is using the issue of Concorde to try and make BA look stupid over what is a proper commercial decision by both BA, AF and Airbus.
It wasn't the sonic boom that killed of Concorde, the aircraft was designed with the knowledge of the effects. What killed of the commercial viability of Concorde was the spiralling development costs and the economics of operating at supersonic speeds. In the early 60's kerosene was almost a by-product of gasoline refining, with the growth in jet aviation the value of the product increased.
BA got the aircraft for nothing; yes they did get a halo effect from operating it (although it was often cheaper to buy a ticket from Rome to New York via London on Concorde than from London to New York) but a commercial success it was never going to be.
We all love to see it go overhead but let's not loose sight of our commercial perspective.
If BA cannot make a profit on its marginal operating costs neither will Virgin, although no doubt RB would love to be photographed with his head out the cockpit window at the next British Open flypast
Paxing All Over The World
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,841
Likes: 328
From: Hertfordshire, UK.
sky9
We all love to see it go overhead but let's not loose sight of our commercial perspective.
On this subject, I don't think that I have. From the outset of this in the numerous threads, I have always said that the chances of a reprieve for the a/c are nil. It only made money under limited conditions.
It appears that the drive behind the grounding is Airbus & AF, not BA. However the end comes about BA will never allow VS to have the machines unless forced by a court of law!
I cannot see where I have attacked the person (RB); all I have said is that he is using the issue of Concorde to try and make BA look stupid over what is a proper commercial decision by both BA, AF and Airbus.
I might be jumping too soon but there has been a string of people saying that RB only wants publicity and not the machines. I challenge that.
As to whether he should be saying what he is publicly? He knows that he cannot get BA to respond in private. If he approaches them in private, he would get no where. He has to goad them in public in order to get any reply from them. He wants to see the offer or be refused the offer - in public. Then he can prove that he tried, thus he needs publicity. Sadly, the bad blood that exists between BA and VS makes any negotiation all but impossible.
BA appear to be highly irritated at Airbus and AF pulling the plug when they spent all the money on the refurbishment programme. The end has come very suddenly and, as with all aspects of her life, Concorde has politics running through every wire and strut.
We all love to see it go overhead but let's not loose sight of our commercial perspective.
On this subject, I don't think that I have. From the outset of this in the numerous threads, I have always said that the chances of a reprieve for the a/c are nil. It only made money under limited conditions.
It appears that the drive behind the grounding is Airbus & AF, not BA. However the end comes about BA will never allow VS to have the machines unless forced by a court of law!
I cannot see where I have attacked the person (RB); all I have said is that he is using the issue of Concorde to try and make BA look stupid over what is a proper commercial decision by both BA, AF and Airbus.
I might be jumping too soon but there has been a string of people saying that RB only wants publicity and not the machines. I challenge that.
As to whether he should be saying what he is publicly? He knows that he cannot get BA to respond in private. If he approaches them in private, he would get no where. He has to goad them in public in order to get any reply from them. He wants to see the offer or be refused the offer - in public. Then he can prove that he tried, thus he needs publicity. Sadly, the bad blood that exists between BA and VS makes any negotiation all but impossible.
BA appear to be highly irritated at Airbus and AF pulling the plug when they spent all the money on the refurbishment programme. The end has come very suddenly and, as with all aspects of her life, Concorde has politics running through every wire and strut.
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: up above / down below
Keep them flying
If anyone can do it, it is Sir Branson. After all its Virgin that has topped the list for profits where all others have the thumbs down sign. WHY? is anyones guess now is it not?
A Maverick like RB is what is needed today and he fits the bill.
I also have a personal reason! have never flown in a Concorde so may get the opportunity.
A Maverick like RB is what is needed today and he fits the bill.
I also have a personal reason! have never flown in a Concorde so may get the opportunity.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
From: london
It seems a shame to ground an aircraft that has had extensive inspections after the paris disaster.
I dont remember boeings or airbuses being put under the microscope as severly as CONCORD.
Ba and air france are both financial disasters at the moment.
The weak excuse by Lord Marshall about spares is total rubbish.
Its merely about having control.
If Ba dont want concord and someone with the British aviation circle {doesnt have to be Branson}is willing to make a sensible bid then Eddington should let it go.
Keep it flying since all uk tax payers paid for it in the first place.
I dont remember boeings or airbuses being put under the microscope as severly as CONCORD.
Ba and air france are both financial disasters at the moment.
The weak excuse by Lord Marshall about spares is total rubbish.
Its merely about having control.
If Ba dont want concord and someone with the British aviation circle {doesnt have to be Branson}is willing to make a sensible bid then Eddington should let it go.
Keep it flying since all uk tax payers paid for it in the first place.
Paxing All Over The World
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,841
Likes: 328
From: Hertfordshire, UK.
mjenkins, I think the root of this is with Airbus and AF. They made a decision. BA may have challenged this or accepted it.
Once the decision was made, BA have tried to make the best of it by ensuring that VS do not get the machines.
Whilst I do not blame BA for trying to prevent their competitor from gaining a uniqye advantage (and a massive financial problem!) anyone seeking to assign 'blame' for shutting Concorde down - look at Airbus Industrie and Air France. This is not anti French, just a view on where the decision stems from.
The machines are clearly able to operate for another period of time. If they were not, the insurance companies would never have allowed it. One hull loss in 30 years? Not sure if any other a/c can match that? (I sit to be corrected).
Once the decision was made, BA have tried to make the best of it by ensuring that VS do not get the machines.
Whilst I do not blame BA for trying to prevent their competitor from gaining a uniqye advantage (and a massive financial problem!) anyone seeking to assign 'blame' for shutting Concorde down - look at Airbus Industrie and Air France. This is not anti French, just a view on where the decision stems from.
The machines are clearly able to operate for another period of time. If they were not, the insurance companies would never have allowed it. One hull loss in 30 years? Not sure if any other a/c can match that? (I sit to be corrected).
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
From: UK
It really is quite sad reading all this "if anyone can do it then RB can" stuff. The manufacturer has dictated that it is "game over". Even VS knows this.
BA bought the aircraft for millions (sorry, but the £1 per plane story is just another attempt at white-knightdom by the PR sponge called Branson), they paid further millions to maintain and develop it, paid millions to be released from Government contractual claims to it, and finally paid millions to re-launch and rebrand it. And Branson wants BA to give it to him?? Yeah right.
But even if they did (and this is the real point) - with the manufacturer's withdrawal of support for the type and lacking the 30 years of operational and engineering support experience for this unique aircraft, how could he expect to even taxy it to the holding point? No type certificate, no fly. Yet Branson can't stop his playground jibes at BA - I just wish BA would call his bluff (and bluff it is) and give him what he knows he can't use: 5 Concorde airframes gift wrapped and fully fuelled. What would he do next? It would be illegal to fly them even if he could muster the staff to do it - and that ain't BA's fault.
BA have made this bird soar with massive monetary and technological investment and commercial confidence in the 80s and 90s: it has reached the end of its career (and almost 3 decades is bloody good by any aviation standard), and the only reason it really hurts is that there is nothing remotely close to replace it. We must now accept a more than 50% cut in cruising speed. And for Branson to seek PR gain from this is risable.
RB fans: you really must read "Branson" by Tom Bower.
BA bought the aircraft for millions (sorry, but the £1 per plane story is just another attempt at white-knightdom by the PR sponge called Branson), they paid further millions to maintain and develop it, paid millions to be released from Government contractual claims to it, and finally paid millions to re-launch and rebrand it. And Branson wants BA to give it to him?? Yeah right.
But even if they did (and this is the real point) - with the manufacturer's withdrawal of support for the type and lacking the 30 years of operational and engineering support experience for this unique aircraft, how could he expect to even taxy it to the holding point? No type certificate, no fly. Yet Branson can't stop his playground jibes at BA - I just wish BA would call his bluff (and bluff it is) and give him what he knows he can't use: 5 Concorde airframes gift wrapped and fully fuelled. What would he do next? It would be illegal to fly them even if he could muster the staff to do it - and that ain't BA's fault.
BA have made this bird soar with massive monetary and technological investment and commercial confidence in the 80s and 90s: it has reached the end of its career (and almost 3 decades is bloody good by any aviation standard), and the only reason it really hurts is that there is nothing remotely close to replace it. We must now accept a more than 50% cut in cruising speed. And for Branson to seek PR gain from this is risable.
RB fans: you really must read "Branson" by Tom Bower.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,627
Likes: 2
From: UTC +8
Elementary Arithmetic
And what could or would Sir Branson do differently from what AF and BA have done for the past 27 years?
It doesn't matter who operates Concorde; if the operator(s) can't attract at least 80 pax who are willing to fork over USD4000 for each one-way fare, then Concorde is burning cash.
It doesn't matter who operates Concorde; if the operator(s) can't attract at least 80 pax who are willing to fork over USD4000 for each one-way fare, then Concorde is burning cash.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,991
Likes: 8
From: UK
>And what could or would Sir Branson do differently from what AF and BA have done for the past 27 years? <
It's called Marketing! You can have an "inferior" product but if you get your marketing right you are in business, at least for a while.
Look at the top of many successful enterprises and you will see an entrepreneur. Whether you love him or you hate him that is what Branson is. He wins some and he loses some but, on balance, he seems to win more than he loses.
If Branson thinks he can operate Concorde profitably then I say let's let him get on with it.
It's called Marketing! You can have an "inferior" product but if you get your marketing right you are in business, at least for a while.
Look at the top of many successful enterprises and you will see an entrepreneur. Whether you love him or you hate him that is what Branson is. He wins some and he loses some but, on balance, he seems to win more than he loses.
If Branson thinks he can operate Concorde profitably then I say let's let him get on with it.
Prince of Darkness
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
From: USA and a Brit
Why is it that some people get so distressed about RB's ability to gain PR when it suits him? Why doesn't BA take a lesson from him and try to outdo him?
However, this discussion of the shelf life of Concorde has me thinking of analogies from other industries. To quote NW1
What would happen if other airliner manufacturers behaved like this? Why, it would be like the software industry - upgrade or lose support! The first commercial flights of the 747, for example, took place in 1970. What if Boeing turned round today and said, "Look, the plane's over 30 years old, we don't want to support that type any longer - you must buy more 777s as you will lose all tech support for your 747 fleet by summer. Would that be taken lying down by the operators - not likely.
As for the operational experience, I'm sure there would be some folks who, instead of being laid off or transferred, would move over to VS to continue to work on the aircraft. I hope RB does succeed, with tie-ins to his other businesses, introducing two classes, and with a lower cost basis he should be given the chance to succeed or fail. But he should not be prevented the opportunity of doing so.
Ozzy
However, this discussion of the shelf life of Concorde has me thinking of analogies from other industries. To quote NW1
But even if they did (and this is the real point) - with the manufacturer's withdrawal of support for the type
As for the operational experience, I'm sure there would be some folks who, instead of being laid off or transferred, would move over to VS to continue to work on the aircraft. I hope RB does succeed, with tie-ins to his other businesses, introducing two classes, and with a lower cost basis he should be given the chance to succeed or fail. But he should not be prevented the opportunity of doing so.
Ozzy
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
From: UK
Ozzy, you need to bear in mind that the 747 is a totally different situation. It has been developed, advanced and is still in production.
The Concorde went out of production after just 16 production aircraft were manufactured two and a half decades ago, and those self same airframes are the ones being maintained and operated now. This creates a massive onus on manufacturer (now Airbus) support and one which is technically harder and harder to muster. It was a uniquely complex machine even then, using advanced designs which didn't subsequently benefit from modernisation and advancement and so the costs, and the actual technical ability to keep it on the ever evolving civil certification, are spiralling exponentially. Concorde is not Windows XP Pro!!
Concorde II, Concorde B, or whatever may well have had Virgin Atlantic liveries on it as well - but it doesn't exist, and that is why it is hard for everybody (me included) to accept Concorde's retirement. Believe me, I would have teeth pulled to continue flying this unique aeroplane - I believe it is the best airliner ever built for many reasons - but we have to accept (kicking and screaming admittedly) that all good things must come to and end.
Yes, RB is a brilliant self-publicist and hats off to him for it. But the constant cheap shots at BA for a situation which is not of their doing (if it wasn't for some quite brilliant marketing and millions and millions of technical and commercial investment from BA in the '80s Concorde would not be here now to argue about) are unfair and often downright wrong (e.g. the £1 per plane myth) - that's where the frustration comes from.
The Concorde went out of production after just 16 production aircraft were manufactured two and a half decades ago, and those self same airframes are the ones being maintained and operated now. This creates a massive onus on manufacturer (now Airbus) support and one which is technically harder and harder to muster. It was a uniquely complex machine even then, using advanced designs which didn't subsequently benefit from modernisation and advancement and so the costs, and the actual technical ability to keep it on the ever evolving civil certification, are spiralling exponentially. Concorde is not Windows XP Pro!!
Concorde II, Concorde B, or whatever may well have had Virgin Atlantic liveries on it as well - but it doesn't exist, and that is why it is hard for everybody (me included) to accept Concorde's retirement. Believe me, I would have teeth pulled to continue flying this unique aeroplane - I believe it is the best airliner ever built for many reasons - but we have to accept (kicking and screaming admittedly) that all good things must come to and end.
Yes, RB is a brilliant self-publicist and hats off to him for it. But the constant cheap shots at BA for a situation which is not of their doing (if it wasn't for some quite brilliant marketing and millions and millions of technical and commercial investment from BA in the '80s Concorde would not be here now to argue about) are unfair and often downright wrong (e.g. the £1 per plane myth) - that's where the frustration comes from.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,627
Likes: 2
From: UTC +8
Marketing
It's a topic that's easily understood,FireFlyBob. But no matter how much razzle-dazzle Sir Branson could cook up about Concorde, it's hard to better the tried ways of 27 years' experience by the current operators.
And mind you that when VS had introduced trans Atlantic service many moons ago, BA didn't suddenly fly lots of empty seats across the pond. I well remember sitting in a VS 74 sardine can coach cabin with a seat pitch at the time of no more than what felt like 29 inches.
Even in Virgin livery, it would continue to be a very expensive machine to operate. The bottom line is that it's a numbers game, and the numbers haven't been in the black primarily because of the global recession. Maybe that's why Boeing had shelved its Sonic Cruiser program for now.
Last month when BA had made an emergency landing on Nova Scotia, it was discovered that only 47 pax were aboard! Needless to say, today there just aren't enough well to do travellers who are prepared to part with USD4000 for a 3.4 hour flight, no matter what livery the airframe sports.
And mind you that when VS had introduced trans Atlantic service many moons ago, BA didn't suddenly fly lots of empty seats across the pond. I well remember sitting in a VS 74 sardine can coach cabin with a seat pitch at the time of no more than what felt like 29 inches.
Even in Virgin livery, it would continue to be a very expensive machine to operate. The bottom line is that it's a numbers game, and the numbers haven't been in the black primarily because of the global recession. Maybe that's why Boeing had shelved its Sonic Cruiser program for now.
Last month when BA had made an emergency landing on Nova Scotia, it was discovered that only 47 pax were aboard! Needless to say, today there just aren't enough well to do travellers who are prepared to part with USD4000 for a 3.4 hour flight, no matter what livery the airframe sports.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
From: UK
GlueBall
I'd think you will find that it was an AF aircraft that diverted to Nova-Scotia with 48Pax.
BA numbers were averaging in the 70s, in recent weeks that have been averaging 100.
What killed Concorde at BA, apart from Airbus, was that to fund these massive investement sums in 2004/5 (£40M+), BA needed the BA003 and 4 flights, but as was correctly mentioned, there was not the market for them.
If these big sums had not come along, BA would quite happy have operated Concorde till 2006/7, as it was making a tidy profit, although nothing like the tens of millions is made in the late 90s
My big issue is that these costs were not required until late 2004, so why did the manufacturer pull the support early? BA had bookings past October and there were no technical issues stopping flying until then. I wonder who was pulling Airbus' strings?
BA had to loose a big earning BGI season; you can't help thinking that the 84 Million write off would have come down a bit if they have flown for another 6-12 months. I guess contracts that were getting bought out early in 2003 would also have run longer, as well as giving the airline more tiem to pay back the reft and mods.
I'd think you will find that it was an AF aircraft that diverted to Nova-Scotia with 48Pax.
BA numbers were averaging in the 70s, in recent weeks that have been averaging 100.
What killed Concorde at BA, apart from Airbus, was that to fund these massive investement sums in 2004/5 (£40M+), BA needed the BA003 and 4 flights, but as was correctly mentioned, there was not the market for them.
If these big sums had not come along, BA would quite happy have operated Concorde till 2006/7, as it was making a tidy profit, although nothing like the tens of millions is made in the late 90s
My big issue is that these costs were not required until late 2004, so why did the manufacturer pull the support early? BA had bookings past October and there were no technical issues stopping flying until then. I wonder who was pulling Airbus' strings?
BA had to loose a big earning BGI season; you can't help thinking that the 84 Million write off would have come down a bit if they have flown for another 6-12 months. I guess contracts that were getting bought out early in 2003 would also have run longer, as well as giving the airline more tiem to pay back the reft and mods.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 7
From: UK
Airbus Support Costs - Concorde
Just a few sample figures recently published in some aviation journals:-
"New cockpit security doors cost as little as $25,000 for a Boeing aircraft, but $300,000 for Concorde"
"AF Concordes would soon require terrain awareness and other near-term mandatory upgrades costing some
$40 million - far more than fitting to modern aircraft"
As mentioned elsewhere, with comparative figures like these, I'm amazed (and pleased) that Concorde has been operational for so long.
Just a few sample figures recently published in some aviation journals:-
"New cockpit security doors cost as little as $25,000 for a Boeing aircraft, but $300,000 for Concorde"
"AF Concordes would soon require terrain awareness and other near-term mandatory upgrades costing some
$40 million - far more than fitting to modern aircraft"
As mentioned elsewhere, with comparative figures like these, I'm amazed (and pleased) that Concorde has been operational for so long.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: India
Concorde
Dear Coppervane,
I am Joe Public. I was all of four years in 1971 and all of ten when in 1977 ( or thereabouts ) the Concorde came to India - Bombay on a world tour for the first time. The fascination with the Concorde started then . :o
It continued 25 years later, when my ex-Chairman an intrepid traveller to London ( he's a crazy guy who's done Bombay-London- Bombay via the morning arrival evening departure flights but more on him later ) used to describe how one lady used to live in London and travel to New York for work and back every day on the Concorde.
Without the Concorde, the Parent Trap would not have a climax !
The romance of flying would be lost forever in the bean counters of accounts and balance sheets ( incidentally I work among them, but then thats a different story)
Let's build up all the support folks for Coppervane's Concorde Cause and hope that Branson ( may his tribe increase
) keeps the magic flying
YA
Joles
I am Joe Public. I was all of four years in 1971 and all of ten when in 1977 ( or thereabouts ) the Concorde came to India - Bombay on a world tour for the first time. The fascination with the Concorde started then . :o
It continued 25 years later, when my ex-Chairman an intrepid traveller to London ( he's a crazy guy who's done Bombay-London- Bombay via the morning arrival evening departure flights but more on him later ) used to describe how one lady used to live in London and travel to New York for work and back every day on the Concorde.
Without the Concorde, the Parent Trap would not have a climax !
The romance of flying would be lost forever in the bean counters of accounts and balance sheets ( incidentally I work among them, but then thats a different story)
Let's build up all the support folks for Coppervane's Concorde Cause and hope that Branson ( may his tribe increase
) keeps the magic flyingYA
Joles
Prince of Darkness
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
From: USA and a Brit
Hi NW1 I've read and reread your post in reply to my analogy with the software industry and have come to a couple of conclusions. First, it is clear you love the aircraft and I guess if it were possible, you would want to see it continue to fly.
However, I still don't see a good rebuttle to my previous post. If Boeing were to say, "Okay we no longer sell or support 747s" as a leverage point to increase sales of newer design - would the airline operators accept this as BA and AF have accepted the Airbus position re Concorde. In fact, you explain this when addressing RB's publicity campaign re: "cheap shots at BA for a situation which is not of their doing".
Secondly, operating costs. If Virgin could either run it breakeven, deploy it as a loss leader, or perish the idea, actually make a small profit, then you could not fault RB for wanting to do so.
Again, I don't think it's fair to not allow RB to succeed or fail. If he is willing to pay the Airbus support and maintenance fees, then why can't he get it right or wrong on his own nickel (or 7.5 pence!)
Ozzy
However, I still don't see a good rebuttle to my previous post. If Boeing were to say, "Okay we no longer sell or support 747s" as a leverage point to increase sales of newer design - would the airline operators accept this as BA and AF have accepted the Airbus position re Concorde. In fact, you explain this when addressing RB's publicity campaign re: "cheap shots at BA for a situation which is not of their doing".
Secondly, operating costs. If Virgin could either run it breakeven, deploy it as a loss leader, or perish the idea, actually make a small profit, then you could not fault RB for wanting to do so.
Again, I don't think it's fair to not allow RB to succeed or fail. If he is willing to pay the Airbus support and maintenance fees, then why can't he get it right or wrong on his own nickel (or 7.5 pence!)
Ozzy
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 266
Likes: 17
From: UK
Ozzy
Those who think it is merely a question of Virgin agreeing to stump up the increased maintenance fees to Airbus, where BA have declined to do so, are missing a crucial point.
Here is a recent quote from Noel Forgeard, Chief Executive of Airbus, in the Financial Times:
“We will absolutely not support any initiative to put Concorde back into operation by any other operator."
Regrettable though it may be, this is the current position of Airbus, and Forgeard has been clear and consistent in making this point to anyone who will listen.
Unless Virgin can get Airbus to change their stance about supporting Concorde with a new operator, they won't be flying it.
Had they been seen to make a strong, serious, genuine and well-planned attempt to change Airbus's view, then they would have attracted considerable goodwill and support from those associated with Concorde in BA, none of whom want to see her stop flying.
Sadly, they haven't, and that leaves many of us sharing NW1's suspicion that this is all just too good a chance to miss for some cheap shots at BA's expense.
If it is solely BA blocking the Virgin attempt to fly Concorde, then why not acquire the lower-hour AF Concordes, available from the end of this month, and start operations much earlier, possibly running a service in direct competition with BA?
I wonder why they’re not?
Regards
Bellerophon
Those who think it is merely a question of Virgin agreeing to stump up the increased maintenance fees to Airbus, where BA have declined to do so, are missing a crucial point.
Here is a recent quote from Noel Forgeard, Chief Executive of Airbus, in the Financial Times:
“We will absolutely not support any initiative to put Concorde back into operation by any other operator."
Regrettable though it may be, this is the current position of Airbus, and Forgeard has been clear and consistent in making this point to anyone who will listen.
Unless Virgin can get Airbus to change their stance about supporting Concorde with a new operator, they won't be flying it.
Had they been seen to make a strong, serious, genuine and well-planned attempt to change Airbus's view, then they would have attracted considerable goodwill and support from those associated with Concorde in BA, none of whom want to see her stop flying.
Sadly, they haven't, and that leaves many of us sharing NW1's suspicion that this is all just too good a chance to miss for some cheap shots at BA's expense.
If it is solely BA blocking the Virgin attempt to fly Concorde, then why not acquire the lower-hour AF Concordes, available from the end of this month, and start operations much earlier, possibly running a service in direct competition with BA?
I wonder why they’re not?
Regards
Bellerophon
Prince of Darkness
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
From: USA and a Brit
Bellerophon I accept that BA is not blocking Virgin, I agreed with NW1's point that "it was not of BA's doing". That's not my argument.
My point still stands, if Boeing's chairman and CEO Philip M. Condit
stood up and stated categorically that 747's were being withdrawn from sale and not supported from July 1 so they could increase sales of newer designs to increase margins, would BA take this lying down as they have the Airbus decision? No, they would fight it.
Ozzy
My point still stands, if Boeing's chairman and CEO Philip M. Condit
stood up and stated categorically that 747's were being withdrawn from sale and not supported from July 1 so they could increase sales of newer designs to increase margins, would BA take this lying down as they have the Airbus decision? No, they would fight it.
Ozzy