Concorde- Let her fly on
Oops pardon me
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Manchester England
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde- Let her fly on
It is with despair that I read of Labour's hand washing of the Concorde affair.
My mind goes back to the TSR2 days and how Labour then saw fit to banish one of Britains greatest aviation acheivements.
British Airways and Air France have maintained these flagships of aviation for over a quarter of a century and despite protesting do gooders moaning about noise and the environment and over reacting media safety experts, she has graced our skies and brought pride to the nations that built her.
So what now?
Richard Branson seems to have always had an eye for Concorde and is perhaps the only piece of British Airways he would ever like to own! (Remember when he painted the model on the roundabout at Heathrow in Virgin colours much to the annoyance of Lord King and his merry men)
As Mr Branson ponted out recently,BA were given Concorde with all its debts underwritten so in effect it is the British tax payers property. Therefore it is not BA's to sell.
If Virgin can put up a credible bussiness plan, then the government should take a serious look at it to give the tax payer a further return on his investment.
Lets not see these wonderous beasts become museum pieces yet. There are already enough of them dotted around the UK and France to preserve the memory.
Lets keep as many as possible in the air as no other jet liner comes close to its grace and performance.
It is still looked upon by the worlds airlines as the jewel in the crown and if Virgin are not up to the task, then perhaps it should be put up for grabs by another.
What could replace it? Nothing around now or even on the drawing board.
When I first saw it appear at a rainy dark day in 1972 at Farnborough with Mr. Trubshaw at the helm, I thought science fiction had become science fact. Talk of this slim delta becoming the norm of all future airliners was the order of the day. In reality, it has been a miracle that it has manage to survive all the obstacles in its way.
If I am guilty of being an aviation romantic, then I hold my hands up. I am sure there are a lot of people out there, both aviators, engineers and Joe public who share my view.
Don't let Labour screw this one up as it maybe, not in this lifetime you will see anything like it again.
Write to your M.P. and Mr. Blair and tell them you want them to act in your interest. After all thats what the government is supposed to be there for.
The British Aircraft Industy has been desimated over the last fifty years to the extent that not a single airliner is now built in this country. Isnt it about time the trend was reversed and a little U turn in Labour's desimating history was made?
Speak up and be counted!
I challenge anyone not to feel shivers down the spine as four Olympus reheats thunder into the sky!
No appologies for the soap box....it had to be said.
Coopervane
My mind goes back to the TSR2 days and how Labour then saw fit to banish one of Britains greatest aviation acheivements.
British Airways and Air France have maintained these flagships of aviation for over a quarter of a century and despite protesting do gooders moaning about noise and the environment and over reacting media safety experts, she has graced our skies and brought pride to the nations that built her.
So what now?
Richard Branson seems to have always had an eye for Concorde and is perhaps the only piece of British Airways he would ever like to own! (Remember when he painted the model on the roundabout at Heathrow in Virgin colours much to the annoyance of Lord King and his merry men)
As Mr Branson ponted out recently,BA were given Concorde with all its debts underwritten so in effect it is the British tax payers property. Therefore it is not BA's to sell.
If Virgin can put up a credible bussiness plan, then the government should take a serious look at it to give the tax payer a further return on his investment.
Lets not see these wonderous beasts become museum pieces yet. There are already enough of them dotted around the UK and France to preserve the memory.
Lets keep as many as possible in the air as no other jet liner comes close to its grace and performance.
It is still looked upon by the worlds airlines as the jewel in the crown and if Virgin are not up to the task, then perhaps it should be put up for grabs by another.
What could replace it? Nothing around now or even on the drawing board.
When I first saw it appear at a rainy dark day in 1972 at Farnborough with Mr. Trubshaw at the helm, I thought science fiction had become science fact. Talk of this slim delta becoming the norm of all future airliners was the order of the day. In reality, it has been a miracle that it has manage to survive all the obstacles in its way.
If I am guilty of being an aviation romantic, then I hold my hands up. I am sure there are a lot of people out there, both aviators, engineers and Joe public who share my view.
Don't let Labour screw this one up as it maybe, not in this lifetime you will see anything like it again.
Write to your M.P. and Mr. Blair and tell them you want them to act in your interest. After all thats what the government is supposed to be there for.
The British Aircraft Industy has been desimated over the last fifty years to the extent that not a single airliner is now built in this country. Isnt it about time the trend was reversed and a little U turn in Labour's desimating history was made?
Speak up and be counted!
I challenge anyone not to feel shivers down the spine as four Olympus reheats thunder into the sky!
No appologies for the soap box....it had to be said.
Coopervane
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just around the corner
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coopervane
I am with you on this.
During the summer months, should the sky be clear, I am able to watch Concorde flying overhead on its approach to LHR. It still astounds me with its beauty and so what if it is a dinosaur among all the modern equipment, so what if it is a gas guzzler.
Sometimes the beancounters should be overruled, after all not everything should be counted purely in terms of profit.
Rant over
I am with you on this.
During the summer months, should the sky be clear, I am able to watch Concorde flying overhead on its approach to LHR. It still astounds me with its beauty and so what if it is a dinosaur among all the modern equipment, so what if it is a gas guzzler.
Sometimes the beancounters should be overruled, after all not everything should be counted purely in terms of profit.
Rant over
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Twilight Zone
Age: 57
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing I would like more than for Concorde to continue rattling my windows every day, but the world is not about state subsidies or Governments making decisions on who operates what these days, - its about hard, realistic, commercial decisions. And those might not always be the favoured option by all.
Branson is just seeking publicity. That’s his trade mark, nothing wrong with that, but you need to realise it. Something for nothing. And he has achieved this very well by latching onto that he knew the British public would side with him on.
He even fibbed when he said that he had the manufactures support, something that the boss of Airbus completely refuted the very next day !
Branson is just seeking publicity. That’s his trade mark, nothing wrong with that, but you need to realise it. Something for nothing. And he has achieved this very well by latching onto that he knew the British public would side with him on.
He even fibbed when he said that he had the manufactures support, something that the boss of Airbus completely refuted the very next day !
BKB - you have no soul!
Despite the attempts by the bean counters and other miseries to turn aviation into just another biscuit company balance sheet, thankfully there are still some like Sir Richard who are prepared to stand up and remind everyone that the intangibale asset of an icon like Concorde cannot be measured purely on the balance sheet.
I despair of the locked flight deck, 'take your shoes off at security', 'we're cheap as chips - take us as you find us' era that has turned aviation into Just Another Job. Although the real glamour may have gone, to be replaced by the bus company low cost airline approach to life, Concorde must not be killed off in the way ba propose. (Without Concorde, they'll no longer be BA to me; just 'a british airline').
Good luck to Sir Richard; he has a genuine enthusiasm and this is not just some publicity stunt - even though nigel's management (an oxymoron?) might bleat that it is.
Despite the attempts by the bean counters and other miseries to turn aviation into just another biscuit company balance sheet, thankfully there are still some like Sir Richard who are prepared to stand up and remind everyone that the intangibale asset of an icon like Concorde cannot be measured purely on the balance sheet.
I despair of the locked flight deck, 'take your shoes off at security', 'we're cheap as chips - take us as you find us' era that has turned aviation into Just Another Job. Although the real glamour may have gone, to be replaced by the bus company low cost airline approach to life, Concorde must not be killed off in the way ba propose. (Without Concorde, they'll no longer be BA to me; just 'a british airline').
Good luck to Sir Richard; he has a genuine enthusiasm and this is not just some publicity stunt - even though nigel's management (an oxymoron?) might bleat that it is.
As an avid fan of Concorde (I'm in the draw for one of the free seats!) I would love to see her continue. There is however a simple fact that will prevent this happening. The aircrafts' type approval and thus it's certificate of airworthiness is being withdrawn at the end of October. Not by BA mind you - we want to continue flying, but by EADS. As successor to BAC/Aerospatiale (who built Concorde) they have decreed that they will only continue their support i.e. spares/mods etc if the aircraft are put through a 15 year life extension programme. This will cost billions. Sir Richard Branson knows this and thus his posturing is seen as nothing but cheap publicity at the expense of BA.
In a way we should "give" him a couple of the AF aircraft and sit back and watch the attempt to operate them bankrupt VS.......
In a way we should "give" him a couple of the AF aircraft and sit back and watch the attempt to operate them bankrupt VS.......
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Floatin' on th' Black Pig, Yarr!
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The design authority will, in the end, do exactly what BA and Air France want and provide a paper reason to kill the Concorde fleet. BA and Air France will do their usual trick of ensuring that the manufacturer is compliant by threateneing to take their ball home and only buy from Boeing if they don't get their way. They did this before and killed Laker, they will do it again until somebody has the bravery to stand up to the bullying management style in Hounslow. If anyone wants to deny the management style in Hounslow then I would recommend that they talk to the locals who are currently re-applying for their own jobs.....Roll on the tribunals.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Silly Cone Valley
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that this is a very sad moment in British aviation. Whether or not there is a business case for continuing to operate Concorde is debatable to say the least. British Airways has in the recent past withdrawn from many activities from which it has been unable to make a profit. During that period it has consistently failed to recognise that its failure to operate commercially stems from the company’s inability to run anything without a leviathan ‘civil service’ style management.
The loss of routes from BA to franchise operators in the past is by their own admission the fact that BA’s operating costs are far higher than the franchisee, and that the only way the route can make a profit is to ‘buy-in’ the services of a contractor. Given that the contractor operates the same aircraft in many cases, it’s a pretty long shot to blame it all on the Captain’s wallet. The truth is that the costs that BA faces are not disproportionately attributed to the aircraft, crew costs, or operating charges levied on the carrier. The overheads are still, even after BEP, even after FSS, a 3:2 overburden of management and ‘support’ activities. Since theses costs are not reduced by withdrawing from a route, the closure of any service simply spreads those overheads over fewer routes and increases unit costs. Until BA closes offices instead of routes, the problem will simply get worse!
And so to Concorde. Of all of the criticisms that can be levelled at the culture in BA, I would have to say that their ability to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing is surpassed only by their poor judgement. Even Tesco’s knows that you can sell some things at a loss in order to get the customers in through the door. That’s why we have sales and special offers. If one were to analyse the returns on some lines of stock, I’m sure that BA’s supermarket would not offer posh loo paper or avocados because they don’t make a profit.
The supersonic service offered by Concorde to cross the Atlantic is a unique enhancement to BA’s portfolio. There is little doubt that many customers are attracted to Heathrow by the ability to do the Atlantic quickly before or after connecting on to another destination. By divesting themselves of this strategic advantage, BA will now have to compete head to head with all of the other airlines who offer superior service levels to more attractive hubs than Heathrow. The battle lines will be drawn on the basis of customer service and cabin quality, something that BA is reducing by a death of a thousand cuts.
I hope that someone comes up with a way to keep Concorde in the air, and if that’s Richard Branson then so be it. But the fact that BA feel they can’t operate it at a profit comes as no surprise to me at all. There is still a ‘Harvard Hardman’ attitude within the management who have to prove their machismo by chopping off their limbs to show how they can bleed. Coupled with strategic myopia, we have a recipe for administrative decline. This they demonstrated clearly by their decision to spend £60m on renovating the jet, only to ground it in little over a year.
Lack of vision, lack of backbone, and indolence to commercial challenge. Such are the greatest threats to British Airways.
I’ll take on the opposition anyday. It’s my management I can’t beat!
The loss of routes from BA to franchise operators in the past is by their own admission the fact that BA’s operating costs are far higher than the franchisee, and that the only way the route can make a profit is to ‘buy-in’ the services of a contractor. Given that the contractor operates the same aircraft in many cases, it’s a pretty long shot to blame it all on the Captain’s wallet. The truth is that the costs that BA faces are not disproportionately attributed to the aircraft, crew costs, or operating charges levied on the carrier. The overheads are still, even after BEP, even after FSS, a 3:2 overburden of management and ‘support’ activities. Since theses costs are not reduced by withdrawing from a route, the closure of any service simply spreads those overheads over fewer routes and increases unit costs. Until BA closes offices instead of routes, the problem will simply get worse!
And so to Concorde. Of all of the criticisms that can be levelled at the culture in BA, I would have to say that their ability to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing is surpassed only by their poor judgement. Even Tesco’s knows that you can sell some things at a loss in order to get the customers in through the door. That’s why we have sales and special offers. If one were to analyse the returns on some lines of stock, I’m sure that BA’s supermarket would not offer posh loo paper or avocados because they don’t make a profit.
The supersonic service offered by Concorde to cross the Atlantic is a unique enhancement to BA’s portfolio. There is little doubt that many customers are attracted to Heathrow by the ability to do the Atlantic quickly before or after connecting on to another destination. By divesting themselves of this strategic advantage, BA will now have to compete head to head with all of the other airlines who offer superior service levels to more attractive hubs than Heathrow. The battle lines will be drawn on the basis of customer service and cabin quality, something that BA is reducing by a death of a thousand cuts.
I hope that someone comes up with a way to keep Concorde in the air, and if that’s Richard Branson then so be it. But the fact that BA feel they can’t operate it at a profit comes as no surprise to me at all. There is still a ‘Harvard Hardman’ attitude within the management who have to prove their machismo by chopping off their limbs to show how they can bleed. Coupled with strategic myopia, we have a recipe for administrative decline. This they demonstrated clearly by their decision to spend £60m on renovating the jet, only to ground it in little over a year.
Lack of vision, lack of backbone, and indolence to commercial challenge. Such are the greatest threats to British Airways.
I’ll take on the opposition anyday. It’s my management I can’t beat!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Age: 44
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde performance
Agree with the positive comments, am incredulous that BA's share price hasn't taken a battering over this - surely investor confidence should be dented at BA's inability to use this as a neat loss-leader (or even break-even if they managed it better) - must reflect appallingly on the strategists at Watership Down.
I have a couple of performance questions re Concorde's future viability if by some miracle Sir Richard actually would invest in a 15 year programme to keep the things flying. I'm assuming some major technical changes would be made, but can we do the following? I'm not an engineer or pilot so no clue.
1. Make it land on 2500m of runway?
2. Improve range so it can fly to Rio and Buenos Aires, or even Tokyo via the Arctic?
If not, what about starting from scratch to develop a new version supersonic passenger jet, same type of design, maybe slightly larger to allow say 150 passengers, improved noise and fuel consumption to allow more distance and flights over low-density population at least (I'm thinking in particular over north Canada and down to LA or even Mexico and up, or via Siberia to Far East).
Lots of the design is already there from Concorde, other supersonic projects and the laughable and very ugly thing Boeing were toying with. And there was a project to do with flights even higher than Concorde, I think over 90,000ft, to pick up some of the pull of orbit - not saying this is feasible but could tap the design technology.
From a passenger perspective, if you can better than halve flight times to these places, and rig the whole thing entirely business and first class, you could probably make it viable with 150 seats and >80% loads. Concorde's problem has been size and reliability (they have to keep adequate seat cover in Club and 1st 747's in case they cock up, meaning artificially lowering yields and turning it into a big loss-leader), and issues as to limited destinations due to range, noise and runway.
Thoughts please? Am I just a dreamer? Seems a shame to be taking retrogressive steps instead of going forward. Anyone got Clive Sinclair's number?
Cheers
frb98mf
I have a couple of performance questions re Concorde's future viability if by some miracle Sir Richard actually would invest in a 15 year programme to keep the things flying. I'm assuming some major technical changes would be made, but can we do the following? I'm not an engineer or pilot so no clue.
1. Make it land on 2500m of runway?
2. Improve range so it can fly to Rio and Buenos Aires, or even Tokyo via the Arctic?
If not, what about starting from scratch to develop a new version supersonic passenger jet, same type of design, maybe slightly larger to allow say 150 passengers, improved noise and fuel consumption to allow more distance and flights over low-density population at least (I'm thinking in particular over north Canada and down to LA or even Mexico and up, or via Siberia to Far East).
Lots of the design is already there from Concorde, other supersonic projects and the laughable and very ugly thing Boeing were toying with. And there was a project to do with flights even higher than Concorde, I think over 90,000ft, to pick up some of the pull of orbit - not saying this is feasible but could tap the design technology.
From a passenger perspective, if you can better than halve flight times to these places, and rig the whole thing entirely business and first class, you could probably make it viable with 150 seats and >80% loads. Concorde's problem has been size and reliability (they have to keep adequate seat cover in Club and 1st 747's in case they cock up, meaning artificially lowering yields and turning it into a big loss-leader), and issues as to limited destinations due to range, noise and runway.
Thoughts please? Am I just a dreamer? Seems a shame to be taking retrogressive steps instead of going forward. Anyone got Clive Sinclair's number?
Cheers
frb98mf
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hopefully, after Sir Richard reminds Airbus who is the launch customer is for the 380, and who is also planning other considerable Airbus aquisitions. They just might have to reconsider their position on whether to withdraw their support for Concorde.
Well it is worth hoping.
Well it is worth hoping.
One presumes that if Concorde is not taken over by another operator (say Virgin) that perhaps a larger proportion of these pax going to New York would transfer to BA First Class.
If Branson does get to operate Concorde then BA will lose the revenue from these pax which will do little to improve their profitability.
I say let's keep her flying - I am with Branson on this one!
If Branson does get to operate Concorde then BA will lose the revenue from these pax which will do little to improve their profitability.
I say let's keep her flying - I am with Branson on this one!
PPRuNe Secret Agent!
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul Stobbart told a friend he had an option on Concorde at his charity "Thunder In The Park" last year....the only time Minardi came 1st - cos all the cars were Minardi's !!!!!
Does he still own a % of EAAC or did he sell the lot ?
It was probably only a joke....
Does he still own a % of EAAC or did he sell the lot ?
It was probably only a joke....
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not stirring it, honest, but for gawd's sake let's ditch the mawkish rose-tinted sentimentality and face a few facts. Concorde was a technological blind alley, probably the worst exemplar of the British bent for chasing engineering chimera when others were building useful stuff. As a taxpayer I've poured in my share of the mountain of money that's gone into the maw of this machine, and my sentiments have been mixed. Personally I'd rather the Americans had built Concorde and we'd built the 747, because then we'd still have an aircraft industry. Instead, we've got a bunch of nostalgia-tripping duffers with hearts bursting with pride. Knock it off.
frb98mf
...Make it land on 2500m of runway?...
It already has, can and does. EMA, EWR, GLA, ORY and YHZ are all airports with runways under 2,500m, on which Concorde can land on at MLW, and BOS, BDL and LGW are all airports with runways under 2,150m which Concorde can land on at typical landing weights.
The shortest ever used is - probably - R/W 14 at LBA, with a promulgated LDA of 1,802m (5,912 ft) when Concorde last visited.
...they have to keep adequate seat cover in Club and 1st 747's in case they cock up, meaning artificially lowering yields...
Interesting theory, but wrong. Quite the reverse in fact.
There was (most days) a standby Concorde available, in case either of the front line Concordes went unserviceable, but there was never any seat cover reserved on the subsonic flights.
One of the benefits of Concorde was that it allowed the overbooking profiles in First and Club, on some JFK flights, to be raised, thus maximising corporate yield.
Any overbooked passenger in First, say on the BA179, could expect to be put on the late Concorde, BA3, and still arrive in JFK earlier than they had planned, usually with a big grin on their face.
...BA's inability to use this as a neat loss-leader (or even break-even if they managed it better) - must reflect appallingly on the strategists at Watership Down...
Ah, well, you may think that, I couldn't possibly comment!
Regards
Bellerophon
...Make it land on 2500m of runway?...
It already has, can and does. EMA, EWR, GLA, ORY and YHZ are all airports with runways under 2,500m, on which Concorde can land on at MLW, and BOS, BDL and LGW are all airports with runways under 2,150m which Concorde can land on at typical landing weights.
The shortest ever used is - probably - R/W 14 at LBA, with a promulgated LDA of 1,802m (5,912 ft) when Concorde last visited.
...they have to keep adequate seat cover in Club and 1st 747's in case they cock up, meaning artificially lowering yields...
Interesting theory, but wrong. Quite the reverse in fact.
There was (most days) a standby Concorde available, in case either of the front line Concordes went unserviceable, but there was never any seat cover reserved on the subsonic flights.
One of the benefits of Concorde was that it allowed the overbooking profiles in First and Club, on some JFK flights, to be raised, thus maximising corporate yield.
Any overbooked passenger in First, say on the BA179, could expect to be put on the late Concorde, BA3, and still arrive in JFK earlier than they had planned, usually with a big grin on their face.
...BA's inability to use this as a neat loss-leader (or even break-even if they managed it better) - must reflect appallingly on the strategists at Watership Down...
Ah, well, you may think that, I couldn't possibly comment!
Regards
Bellerophon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another fly in the ointment regarding the sums 'Concorde to other BA flights' is the fact that people are coming from all over europe and arranging their travel plans via London or Paris for the sole purpose of flying on Concorde.
With no Concorde they'll go direct Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Brussels and the connecting flights will also be lost.
If any-one can keep Concorde flying it'll be Branson.
Good Luck, Sir Richard.
With no Concorde they'll go direct Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Brussels and the connecting flights will also be lost.
If any-one can keep Concorde flying it'll be Branson.
Good Luck, Sir Richard.
Oops pardon me
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Manchester England
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont lose the plot guys
Well I read through all your comments on the Concorde issue and to be frank, there seems to be (apart from the odd sentiment), a resignation to the fact that nothing can be done.
How about looking at it from the other angle.......
What happens when Concorde is withdrawn? Answer ........Nothing and a big nothing at that. We are years away from seeing anything like its kind again. Look what happened to the sonic(Super?) cruiser......a Boeing pipe dream just like all the other design sketches that have gone before.
Someone commented that the British built it in an engineering blind alley......instead of building something useful!! What a bore!
If the car industry adopted that attitude, we would all be driving around in three box mono coloured clones.
If you look at the Boeing 707/DC8 and the A340......Ok the Airbus is full of fly by wire and computers, but at the end of the day what does it look like......it looks like nothing has happened in 45 years with regard to looks.
And what does the bus do that the first generation jets didnt......not a lot. Ok there is fuel efficiency and a bit more comfort, but regarding speed and impact at its launch?? No big crowd puller there.
Just imagine you were a spotter in the fifties and you were used to seeing DC6's, Super Connies and Stratocruisers......then along comes the first 707. It must have been like seeing a UFO for real for the first time. Dan Dare has arrived .....am I dreaming?
Concorde had that effect when it took to the Air in 69. It was the next great advance in aviation. And 24 years later there is still nothing to touch its speed and beauty.
Regarding the British Aerospace (waste of space) design authority. Well you built it so you should dam well support it. It is not up to the manufacturer to tell the customer that he cant fly his plane no more because its uneconomical to provide the bits to fix it.
I am not asking the government to step in and bail it out...that is immoral these days. I am asking for them to have a concerted effort (instead of washing its hands) to direct the powers that be to all pull in the same direction. As I said in my original post......there is past tax payers money written off in Concorde so why not let the public have what they want for a change..... a return on there past investment.
Come on Sir Richard......you can do this.....there is great support for your efforts from a big percentage of the population. Let the public speak.....get th SUN involved with one of its campaigns and tell the bureaucrats that sentiment in this case should out weigh profit.
As for British Airways......where has your pride gone...you are the British Flag carrier (yes you realised that at last with your new paint job)......you have an obligation to keep Great Britain great and what better way to do it than to support a real British icon.
Lets have some more positive posts and a few more positive suggestions insted of letting BA, BAE, Labour, CAA and worst of all.........the French dictate the end!
Coop
How about looking at it from the other angle.......
What happens when Concorde is withdrawn? Answer ........Nothing and a big nothing at that. We are years away from seeing anything like its kind again. Look what happened to the sonic(Super?) cruiser......a Boeing pipe dream just like all the other design sketches that have gone before.
Someone commented that the British built it in an engineering blind alley......instead of building something useful!! What a bore!
If the car industry adopted that attitude, we would all be driving around in three box mono coloured clones.
If you look at the Boeing 707/DC8 and the A340......Ok the Airbus is full of fly by wire and computers, but at the end of the day what does it look like......it looks like nothing has happened in 45 years with regard to looks.
And what does the bus do that the first generation jets didnt......not a lot. Ok there is fuel efficiency and a bit more comfort, but regarding speed and impact at its launch?? No big crowd puller there.
Just imagine you were a spotter in the fifties and you were used to seeing DC6's, Super Connies and Stratocruisers......then along comes the first 707. It must have been like seeing a UFO for real for the first time. Dan Dare has arrived .....am I dreaming?
Concorde had that effect when it took to the Air in 69. It was the next great advance in aviation. And 24 years later there is still nothing to touch its speed and beauty.
Regarding the British Aerospace (waste of space) design authority. Well you built it so you should dam well support it. It is not up to the manufacturer to tell the customer that he cant fly his plane no more because its uneconomical to provide the bits to fix it.
I am not asking the government to step in and bail it out...that is immoral these days. I am asking for them to have a concerted effort (instead of washing its hands) to direct the powers that be to all pull in the same direction. As I said in my original post......there is past tax payers money written off in Concorde so why not let the public have what they want for a change..... a return on there past investment.
Come on Sir Richard......you can do this.....there is great support for your efforts from a big percentage of the population. Let the public speak.....get th SUN involved with one of its campaigns and tell the bureaucrats that sentiment in this case should out weigh profit.
As for British Airways......where has your pride gone...you are the British Flag carrier (yes you realised that at last with your new paint job)......you have an obligation to keep Great Britain great and what better way to do it than to support a real British icon.
Lets have some more positive posts and a few more positive suggestions insted of letting BA, BAE, Labour, CAA and worst of all.........the French dictate the end!
Coop
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why has there never been any new Concordes built ?
or why is there no modern day equivalent waiting to be built ?
Is it down to :
cost of development ?
cost of operating ?
political reasons ?
or is there some other reason ?
Would be a shame to see it fade into history
or why is there no modern day equivalent waiting to be built ?
Is it down to :
cost of development ?
cost of operating ?
political reasons ?
or is there some other reason ?
Would be a shame to see it fade into history
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: This week Reading, next week Barcelona ... and repeat
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At about 18:50 this evening, as I was walking to work (in Reading), I saw Concorde on it's climb out from Heathrow. Absolutely beautiful and still in a league of it's own 34 years after it first flew.
I'm sure that BA have done their sums and found it doesn't add up. I'm also sure that given favourable conditions Virgin could make it work, certainly for the next 10 years.
Maybe the ticket prices need to be increased to cover the costs of the refit. I'm pretty sure that it won't make a difference to me or Sting/Elton John if the prices doubled. I can't afford it anyway and they wouldn't notice the loss of a little more "pocket change"
Concorde is a wonder of the world. Lets not consign it to history just yet.
I'm sure that BA have done their sums and found it doesn't add up. I'm also sure that given favourable conditions Virgin could make it work, certainly for the next 10 years.
Maybe the ticket prices need to be increased to cover the costs of the refit. I'm pretty sure that it won't make a difference to me or Sting/Elton John if the prices doubled. I can't afford it anyway and they wouldn't notice the loss of a little more "pocket change"
Concorde is a wonder of the world. Lets not consign it to history just yet.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been partying with Sir Richard last night in HK [ :clang: ] it seems he is pretty serious about this. Whether he pulls it off is another matter, but he clearly had the support of his top frequent flyers in the room.
One of his colleagues commented that BA made a big mistake in declaring it "uneconomic" in that they can't really refuse someone else a chance to make it economic since Concorde is in some sense a British national asset. If they had declared it "unsafe" they would have been able to justify scrapping them.
One of his colleagues commented that BA made a big mistake in declaring it "uneconomic" in that they can't really refuse someone else a chance to make it economic since Concorde is in some sense a British national asset. If they had declared it "unsafe" they would have been able to justify scrapping them.
I'm with you coopervane and I still feel bereaved. She flies over my house every day on the approach to LHR and this compounds my distress.
I've not heard any comment from the regular passengers (e.g. Sir David Frost) but for them, the fact that in November there will be no supersonic service to NYC must seem quite absurd.
One giant leap backwards for mankind...
I've not heard any comment from the regular passengers (e.g. Sir David Frost) but for them, the fact that in November there will be no supersonic service to NYC must seem quite absurd.
One giant leap backwards for mankind...