That is what I call VERY bad management. VERY VERY selfish and thoroughly reprehensible. If, of course, it is true. :(

Yeah...but it is management (such as it is)...so not much the troops can do about it.

Tough beans.:{ :{

OTOH, doesn't this turkey have to go on another fleet...and if so, maybe 'friends' are awaitin'...:E :E

Actually, there's a lot the troops can do.

Only 3 of the trips are now under management command.

Concorde is retiring...FACT.

There are no other aircraft in the BA fleet that require FE's...FACT.

Can someone on this board (preferably a BA Concorde FE) say what they ACTUALLY want. No politician speak, a straight statement of exactly what they would like BA to give them.

The F/E: RIP - Wall Street Journal Article
 

For those of us who have spent some happy hours back at the panel, it is indeed the end of an era.

Drop rise, drop rise (double drop rise at some carriers) and check essential.

Looks like the WSJ forsees some innovative crew rest rules for the A-380:

"...Airbus's planned 650-seat double-decker A380 will be able to fly almost a full day at a stretch with a crew of two. "

__________________________________


PAGE ONE

Final Boarding Call:
As Concorde Departs,
So Do 3-Man Crews

In New Cockpits, Engineers
Are Seen as Extra Baggage;
Mr. Hazelby Plays 'Scotty'

By DANIEL MICHAELS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL


LONDON -- On a recent trip to New York aboard the Concorde, flight attendants served champagne on silver platters and offered passengers lobster and roast guinea fowl.

Warren Hazelby sat in the cockpit facing a windowless wall of dials and switches, shifting fuel among 13 tanks to keep the plane in balance. He barely had time for a snack.

When British Airways retires the Concorde on Oct. 24, another storied aviation tradition will almost completely fade from the sky: the flight engineer. The third person in the cockpit, who performs many critical functions that keep the plane in the sky, has the least glamorous job on what many consider the world's sexiest passenger plane.


"We're very much the Cinderellas of the aviation world," Mr. Hazelby sighed. "Even our friends don't really know what we do."

What they do is manage a plane's hydraulics, electrical systems and engines, telling the captain what the aircraft can handle, "like Scotty on Star Trek," Mr. Hazelby said.

The specialty reached its zenith on the Concorde, where the flight engineer handles four times as many controls as on an old jumbo jet. Air France, the only other airline flying the unprofitable plane, mothballed its five Concordes on May 31.

Ever since the jet age began -- with five-man cockpits -- flight crews have been shrinking in size. Now, economics are squeezing them to two people -- pilot and co-pilot -- as high-tech jetliners make much of the work unnecessary. Twenty years ago, 3,469 three-crewmember jet planes plied the skies, according to industry consultants BACK Aviation Services. By June, that was down to 660 planes, mostly Boeing 727s and older 747s, which tend to be flown by obscure non-U.S. airlines and cargo carriers. "We've been completely replaced by computers," Mr. Hazelby said.

Mr. Hazelby became BA's chief flight engineer in 1993, overseeing a staff of about 700. They flew planes such as Lockheed L-1011s, Douglas DC-10s and early 747s, all of which British Airways has retired. Today the airline employs just 11 flight engineers -- Mr. Hazelby and 10 others -- all of them on Concorde.

For the 52-year-old Mr. Hazelby, the passing of Concorde is particularly poignant, because his father worked at the factory where British Airways' Concordes were built. Mr. Hazelby, a 36-year British Airways veteran, was also the last person ever to be certified as a Concorde flight engineer. He earned his wings just last October, a year to the day before the plane is retired from service.

He'll spend his last three years at British Airways behind a desk. But until the last Concorde flight three weeks from now, Mr. Hazelby works from a chair that slides left and right on a five-foot track, engaged in a ballet of fingerwork. In front of him are arrayed 365 buttons and switches, more than 95 dials and about 100 warning lights, stretching from ceiling to floor. There are so many controls that some are made half-size, with dials no bigger than the face of a wristwatch. When Concorde was designed in the mid-1960s, small displays were cutting edge.

Mr. Hazelby's work begins about one hour before takeoff. Squatting and craning around the cramped cockpit, he runs through strictly regimented checks of the plane's systems. While pilots may stroll off for a preflight chat with passengers sipping champagne or enjoying tea and scones in the lounge, "Warren's doing the hard work," says Capt. Les Brodie, a Concorde pilot.

Once the plane is climbing to its cruising altitude above 55,000 feet, Mr. Hazelby constantly monitors the plane's systems. As Concorde accelerates to its top speed above Mach 2, twice the speed of sound, he keeps an eye on the "backups to backups to backups" for each system. His biggest job during the three-hour-and-20-minute flight, though, is shifting fuel around the plane's delta-shaped wings, to move the plane's center of gravity. Without him, Concorde would quickly fly out of control.

Mr. Hazelby signed up to train for Concorde after seven years as British Airways' chief flight engineer. It was a step down the chain of command for him but fulfilled an old dream. Returning from a flight on July 25, 2000, he learned that an Air France Concorde had crashed on takeoff near Paris. British Airways grounded its fleet for 15 months. In May 2002, he resumed his Concorde training, qualifying on Oct. 24.

As the recent flight raced in for its high-speed landing, Mr. Hazelby called out the altitude -- another job now done by computer on most planes. In the cabin, passengers braced themselves as the brakes kicked in dramatically.

With no supersonic successor to the Concorde planned, big jetliners are pushing a different envelope: flying farther. Airbus's planned 650-seat double-decker A380 will be able to fly almost a full day at a stretch with a crew of two. Still, Mr. Hazelby has hope for his profession. Ultra-long-haul jetliners will carry such elaborate electronic systems that they'll require "a guy in white overalls" to maintain the equipment, he said.

"They'll put him in a uniform to look smart, but in 10 or 20 years, they'll call him a flight engineer," Mr. Hazelby predicted. "We'll be back."

Really? :ooh:

Airbubba: You have to remember that a full day for most journos is 10 till 1 with an hour for lunch...........:D

Most of the time when I see a 727 it's with a U.S. major carrier.. :)

>>Most of the time when I see a 727 it's with a U.S. major carrier..

I don't think any of the U.S. majors are still running '72's these days... You might see some freighters, did it have windows <g>?

Yeah, DL were the last major to operate the venerable 72, their last retired in April this year. :(

First Bannister, Now Hazelby.

Is the whole of the Concorde fleet management?

The answer os obviously yes when it comes to the last flights!

I would never make management as I cant spell "is"!!

Bigears, it's only a missing comma.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While pilots may stroll off for a preflight chat, with passengers sipping champagne or enjoying tea and scones in the lounge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bigears

Some (all?) Concorde flight crews come into the Concorde Lounge to give pax an opportunity to ask questions about the aircraft, the flight etc. It's the pax who are 'sipping champagne' etc - not the crew. :)

Last Saturday morning, when BA002's crew came into the lounge at JFK, they were 'mobbed' superstar style, flashbulbs popping as when stars arrive at a movie premiere. At least half the passengers wanted their photographs taken with the crew and/or autographs. Good thing the likes of Victoria Beckham weren't flying or there would have been tears before breakfast - nobody would have been interested in her.
Superb PR which clearly added to the enjoyment of the flight for many passengers. The FO and FE looked rather embarrassed by the 'photocall' but politely obliged the groupies; the Captain was less coy, shall we say. ;)
That said, he fully justified his 'superstar' status with an absolute greaser at LHR. It really was one of those 'Are we down yet?' landings.

Such a terrible shame that BA's contribution to the centenary of flight is to relegate the most wonderful, beautiful and exciting civilian aircraft in the history of aviation to the status of museum exhibit.

Tudor Owen

L337

How little you know!!!

Flying Lawyer is one of the most knowledgable posters on this forum.

MP:yuk:

I may be wrong here, but isn't BA (totally selfishly and an utter shame to the nation) refusing to sell Concorde to Branson?

If the Concorde fleet indeed did go to him, wouldn't that give an opportunity to the Pilots and F/E's to move as well, thus continuing with Virgin, whom I'm sure would welcome them.

Thus by denying Concorde a chance to continue, doesn't that at least deny other opportunities to the crews?

Isn't BA a Public Company, if so don't they have to take shareholders accounts into consideration? If so selling them would also make more profit than just trashing them.

Heck even John Cochrane, deputy chief test pilot for Concorde, backed Branson! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/3078905.stm)

Also, glad to see Rod making financial decisions for Virgin, although maybe doing a bit more at home might be more beneficial for him!
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,38...108958,00.html)

Perhaps the real reason is our Rod thinks that if Virgin do make a success of Concorde, that'll make him look like a complete ass? Surely not, nobody could be that selfish!

L337
It's a pity you don't say what it is with which you disagree instead of making insulting comments. You'd have to keep it very simple for people like me who have "the brain of monkey", of course.

Suggesting I know and understand nothing about aviation is over-stating it just a little, but I'm obviously an outsider as my username makes clear. My knowledge, such as it is, comes from working closely with the aviation industry for some years, supplemented by what I read in the aviation press/on Pprune and learn in conversations with the many friends I've made who are insiders.
Coincidentally, my most recent conversation on this subject was about three weeks ago with a good friend who is widely regarded as one of the people who transformed Concorde into a commercial success when the Concorde Division was set up in 1982. By the time he retired, he was the longest-serving Concorde pilot but, along the way, had also been Director of Flight Ops BA, Chief Pilot BA and Commercial Manager Concorde. I heard nothing which caused me to think the opinion I expressed earlier was wrong.
BTW, congratulations on your recent promotion to the left seat. I'm sure you'll be more tolerant of mere mortals with whom you disagree when the novelty wears off. ;)

trium16
I suspect you're slightly on the wrong track in your last paragraph. The transatlantic first and business-class market is vitally important to the major carriers. It's in a slump at the moment but, when it picks up again, BA will want business bums back on BA seats. From BA's point of view, why take the risk (however remote) that another airline might be offering Concorde seats?
Just an outsider's theory which may be completely wrong. :D

L337

Your arrogance underwhelms me!

The level of your understanding of this thead would appear to be inversely proportional to the level of your ego.

Perhaps we can have informed comments rather than inane criticism now that you've been promoted.


Flying Lawyer

It looks like we both attract a fair amount of attention from the lunatic fringe that post here.


MP:D

trium16, the following may say things you already know. Apologies if so. The reasons for BA not selling Conc are well rehearsed here in the past months. Probably the key factor is that Airbus Industrie has decided not to support the machine any longer.

Branson, as a major customer of the company asked for their support and it does not appeared to have been given.

The reasons for Airbus not to support the machine are well rehearsed here in the past months. You can choose from economics (stated by the company) to any conspiracy that you like.

In the Biz market, depressed or not, the availability of Conc would not, I think, make a great deal of difference. Consider the following aspects of aviation that were not present when the a/c was designed in the 1960s and entered service in the 1970s.[list=1][*]Biz seats the same size as 1st in those days and probably more comfortable now![*]Biz lounges where folks can eat and work in advance of flight. Shower and change.[*]Ditto upon arrival.[*]Laptop computers allowing folks to work through most of the flight, if they wish.[*]Onboard phones and entertainment.[*]A business life so hectic that the idea of extra time in the air when they cannot be contacted appeals greatly.[*]E-mail.[*]Video conferencing. Audio conf existed but pretty basic.[*]WWW (different altogether from e-mail).[*]In the mid 70s, Fax took 6 minutes per page.[*]A choice of four carriers LHR~JFK direct and six or more indirects. Longer transit times but same biz facilities and possibly lower cost.[*]Biz jets that could cross the Atlantic on two or three engines with 1 to 99 pax. Everything from small bizjet to PrivatAir scale ops.[*]Biz jets - fractional ownership to keep cost down.[/list=1]
Corrections and additions welcome (I was not travelling Biz in the 70s!) but this list alone shows why Conc was struggling. For those who wanted the exclusivity and privacy - then Conc was worth the premium but shareholders do not want to hear that the Chairman and CEO are hopping Conc all the time.

All of the above benefits of going Biz are available at lower cost than Conc. Whilst some biz pax would continue to use the a/c, I suspect (my guess only) that the main market is leisure. If you look through the long discussions here since the announcement, you will read of the limitations on distance and fields. Trying to make that pay for the considerable engineering costs? To recoup your investment and make a profit in the (apparently) ten more years of the airframes?

Would Branson have made it work? We shall never know but I think that he is probably lucky that he could not get the machines.

Please know that I wish the machines could stay and my single sector flight in August of this year on BA0001 operated by G-BOAC, will be remain a delight of my life for ever.

Firstly total respect to the F/E's (and Pilots of course) - being treated badly by BA isn't out of the ordinary these days, it's not the old BOAC days on the VC-10 and 707 thats for sure, those days are long long gone, nowadays shoddy treatment is standard :(


PAXBoy
My argument is Branson, for all his self styled publicity, is a bloody good businessman, I mean starting with a single 741, look where he is now, I don't need to hammer that of course, we all know.

It seems that BA is making the financial judgement on behalf of Virgin (as the link by Rod in my previous post substantiates), and stating that we ain't selling 'em coz we don't think anyone can make a go of them (or more likely as I said, Rod thinks Branson will make a go of them if anyone can, and heap major major ridicule on BA, it would be a flying embarrassment to them, Rod would be more of a laughing stock than he already is!)

At least give Branson a chance, if he falls on his face, isn't that better than no chance at all?

After all BA (BOAC?) got them from HM Government for free!

The Pilots and esp the F/E's I think would also be rather grateful (can you imagine the potential BA slagging in the cockpit amongst the crew on a Virgin Concorde, it would be classic!)

Flying Lawyer
You mean they are hedging their bets? Possibly, but my faith in Rod isn't too high (as you may have gathered), he'll follow the path of "Grand Schemes Galore Ayling Bob" mark my words.


On another point, have most of the fleet been D-Checked as part of the safety upgrades?

And to play devils advocate, why didn't the frogs flog their retired fleet to Branson? All I can find is "Billionaire Branson attempted to buy several of Air France's Concordes a few years ago, French newspaper Le Monde said"

"Flying Lawyer has the brain of a monkey". Ahem. You did, as FL says, not actually point out what you disagreed with in his statement. And although to fly Concorde is certainly out of my price range (though clearly not FL's, he must be doing quite well for a monkey brain ;)), I nevertheless agree it's a great shame. If you mean that FL appears to be unaware that Concorde's retirement is a purely business matter, then I can assure you he is well aware of that, L337.


FL modestly terms himself an 'outsider' wheras the truth is as a Barrister of many years experience in Aviation case-work, and experienced amateur pilot and aviation enthusiast, he probably knows more about the industry than most airline pilots.

As I stand on the sideline, it seems rather a shame that one of the saddest days in the history of aviation (bar loss of life) is marked not with the respect it deserves, but with petty bickering.

The Goverment of the time invested in the Vickers Viscount to help fund the two prototypes.

£1.8million was invested by the Ministry of Supply back in the late 1940s/early 1950s and £3million was repaid to the Goverment by Vickers.

Not a bad investment?

What would equivalent amounts today?

MP

;)

trium16 You are wrong here. The only reason BA is retiring Concorde is because they have to. When Air France unilaterally stopped flying with only a few weeks notice, Airbus quickly capitulated too and without manufacturer's support and without cross-channel support (Concorde is and always was an Anglo-French project in manufacture and operation) continued service is impossible.

And that is why Branson (or BA, or anyone else) cannot fly Concorde beyond October. The only reason Concorde is flying that long is because BA fought hard to extend ops that long - and the French are not happy we managed to do that.

But BA must publicly play the political game and tow the line that the retirement is a joint decision. Imaging the reaction from across the Channel if we had pulled the plug!

But it would be as well to remember that BA didn't get them for nothing - they paid many millions for both the aircraft and the support costs - they marketed the aircraft with flair and commercial bravery in the early '80s at privatisation and with out that investment and drive Concorde would have died a very early death with its "sink or swim" mandate from King & Marshall at the time. It became very profitable through massive investment and bloody hard work.

Actually, I wouldn't want move to Virgin except for possibly retirement or redundancy (the E/Os of course are in a very different and far less fortunate position than I). I deeply regret the demise of my 'plane, as all of us on the fleet do, but there's no way I would offer myself up to RB to be used as a political pawn and risk being dropped when his PR game finished. No - its blunties for me in October..... regrettably.

PS: Can we all lighten up here a bit and stop slagging each other off? Ta.

NW1
 

NW1

With all due respect to you, my point is, that Branson is willing to take them on. IF after this, it all falls flat, well, we can then start making the post-mortem analysis then.

My point is, he obviously thinks he can make a go of it, despite what others say, I say let him try, if he fails - well I don't think he will personally, because, he'd lose a lot of money and some of his golden boy reputation, and he's particularly partial to both.

If there is one in a million chance why the heck not let him try?
He obviously thinks he can get the Manufacturer on board, otherwise why would he waste his time, money and reputation?


OK, will take your suggestion and lighten up now *rant over* :)

trium16.

Sorry if you had not noticed that:-

1) The French decided to stop operating the aircraft.
2) The only company with design authority on the machine will not support the aircraft.
3) There is nowhere else to go, irrespective of what anyone may think.

It is over.

PAXboy
I agree with some of your points about business travel (earlier post) but not with your overall conclusion.
I'm a director and substantial shareholder of an international IT company which sells systems which, in theory, should make international travel redundant. Like most companies, we've reduced travel at the moment as part of cost-cutting but our key people still fly to the States about once a month. A few years ago it was more frequent and I've no doubt it will increase again when the economy improves.
In reality, business travel becoming a thing of the past is as likely as the paperless office which computers were meant to achieve. Nothing replaces direct personal contact - although that's not what we tell our customers in our sales pitch! :D

Just out of curiosity, can someone tell me what is the fastest time in which Concorde has crossed the Atlantic?

trium,

Your point that Branson is willing to take on Concorde is, er, not the point.

To try to clarify: Air France has voluntarily withdrawn its fleet from service. This has precipitated the withdrawal of support from the manufacturer. BA have extended Concorde operations as far as they were allowed to by negotiation.

Now if BA are not permitted to operate Concorde beyond October by this situation what on earth makes you think anyone else would be allowed to? You may well say "let him try" - but those who are actually responsible (and essential) for the aircraft's operational and licencing support will not let anyone try - BA included.

Regarding your point about why is RB trying - he is gaining massive PR points for free on the back of the demise of Concorde - perpetuating the myth that BA got them for free. That is enhancing - not risking - his reputation. He's brilliant at that, he knows the aircraft is being grounded - not by BA - but heck, if he can play the situation to come out smelling of roses and successfully imply that he's being badly treated then he will. Very clever - nil risk, nil cost and max. boost to public image.

So, having been grounded by the manufacturer and Air France, the only possible result of giving VS our airframes would be seeing them shipped off to museums in Virgin Atlantic livery for posterity - and after all the investment of time and money resulting in nearly 3 decades of successful supersonic transport it is unsurprising and, IMHO understandable, that BA are unwilling to countenance that.

nomdeplume:
From memory, 2hrs 52mins 59secs JFK-LHR. Unlikely to be bettered. What price progress?

Nomdeplume
I'm open to correction but I think the record of 2 hrs 52 mins 59 secs JFK-LHR (09) set in 1996 still stands - an average speed for the entire flight of over 1250 mph.
It was flown by the Captain, I think Captain Scott(?). The FO was Senior First Officer (now Captain) Tim Orchard. Tim's a total aviator who also runs the BA Flying Club at Booker - when he's not flying one of his hot air balloons! I don't know the FE's name or I'd post it - I'm sure the Captain would agree the record was a team effort with each member of the flight crew playing a crucial part.

L337
I didn't "rubbish all that BA has done" for aviation; I made one comment about one issue. I have strong links with BA, both professional and personal, and anyone who knows me knows I have a high regard for BA.
My views on this issue may well be coloured by my sadness at Concorde's premature demise. I was lucky enough to be invited to see the work BA was doing to the fuel tanks when Concorde was grounded - an absolutely fascinating day when three of us spent several hours crawling over every inch of the stripped out G-BOAF under the guidance of engineers and our Concorde Captain host. Fitting hundreds (possibly thousands) of small kevlar linings to the enormous fuel tanks was a mammoth task. Each small lining was shaped and numbered to correspond with the panel where it was to be fitted. Everyone was so optimistic then that this pains-taking and very expensive task would ensure Concorde would grace the skies for many more years. What a change in such a short time.

It shouldn't be forgotten that, from the very beginning, there have always been two strong bodies of opinion about Concorde within BA: one for, one against. I'm told by a number of reliable sources, whom I have no reason to doubt, that an anti lobby existed at Board/management level to the end and this final problem swung the 'middle ground'.
Concorde has always had to contend with opposition within the company. Some were convinced it couldn't survive BA's financial streamlining in preparation for privatisation and, but for the foresight and wisdom of Lord King who became Chairman in 1981, it may not have. King was pro Concorde, created the Concorde Division and gave Captain Brian Walpole (appointed General Manager Concorde) and Captain Jock Lowe (then a Senior FO) two years to turn it to profit. They did so. I declare a bias because he's become a friend, but I consider Jock Lowe to be one of the 'all round' cleverest men it's been my privilege to meet in aviation. He was Commercial Director Concorde until 1999.

Their challenging task had only been under way for a few months when Concorde's future was threatened by a different and very serious crisis: the government gave notice it wouldn't fund Concorde's support costs beyond 1983 (later extended to 1984.) Many in BA thought (and the anti lobby hoped) that really was the end of Concorde and when King told the government BA would consider taking over the support costs, the anti-Concorde body thought he was barking mad. However, King and his team negotiated new contracts with the relevant companies and Concorde was saved again. The anti lobby forecast financial disaster but the BA Concorde fleet was making a profit 20 years later when the retirement was announced.

We're all entitled to our views. I understand, and don't underestimate, the serious problems created by the Air France decision. I merely believe, rightly or wrongly, that if a man with the genius and courage of Lord King was still Chairman, a way would have been found around the latest problem. How? I have no idea. I'm only a lawyer not a world-class businessman and, in light of events in recent years, perhaps the less said about having a lawyer running the business side of BA the better!
Equally, you're entitled to your view that I'm a moron with a monkey brain who knows nothing about aviation. I'll have to face that with such fortitude as I can muster. ;)


(I'm sorry I misunderstood your history with BA. You said in an August post you were a new captain in BA on the 744 and I didn't take into account your time with BA Regional at BHX.)

L337

With Flying Lawyer, I was one of the lucky three who spent over 6 hours with our host Concorde Captain looking in almost every orrifice 'AF' has at LHR.

I feel as he does about Concorde. Indeed, as most people feel about it.

But, you really should know your 'subject' before you rubbish people you obviously do not know. FL is a much experienced and well informed person when it comes to aviation. He is also a FRAes. That MIGHT tell you something.

Nice to know you have been a Captain with BA for ten years though.

nomdeplume: Having been in telecommunications for 23 years, I agree that the paperless office is not going to happen this year! My first involvement with video conferencing was around 1986 and I have always said that it is a supplement to existing business relationships, not the the way to make new ones.

However, I don't think that I was saying that biz travel would dry up? I was saying that the justification for Conc has been overtaken by the events I listed. In a nutshell: Travel in Club and pay less money whilst getting more time to eat/sleep/work and not incur the wrath of shareholders? It's easy not to travel Conc.

Another example is the Eurostar. When it's biz plan was formulated, LCC airlines serving short haul had not started in Europe, nor was there any prospect of them. Waterloo is over an hour's train/tube journey away from me. LTN is 15 mins. True, I have to sit in the lounge duriing extended check-in but the hassle and the price are lower. I think Eurostar is brilliant but I rarely use it.

L337,

I don't know you, but I have met Flying Lawyer on several occasions and can assure you that he is most knowledgeable in many areas of aviation from accident investigation to aviation employment law. Furthermore, as he is not a professional pilot, I believe it may even be reasonable to suggest that from my short aquaintance with him I gleaned the impression that his interest in the aviation world is that of an enthusiast - something that is actually relatively rare amongst most professional pilots - and thus his interest and knowledge of the industry is actually more broadly based and in-depth than many professional pilots.

I have never known Flying Lawyer to resort to insults in any of his many postings on this bulletin board and that alone seems to separate the two of you intellectually. Were it not for the fact that you have made follow up posts on different days, I would rather have hoped that your childish insult was made by a wind-up merchant following a failure on your part to log off a company computer in the Compass Centre. Sadly, it seems that you are for real.

From the tone of his subsequent postings it is clear that FL is big enough not to need others to jump to his defence, but you need to be told that your unnecessary and insulting post does you no credit. I hope you treat your first officers/cabin crew/dispatchers etc. with more respect.

I think the decision probably was unavoidable for the reasons posted by NW1 but I've been around long enough to remember the two occasions when everyone was saying it was unavoidable that Concorde had to be dropped, especially when the government pulled the plug. Everyone said it couldn't be done and then Lord King pulled off the impossible. Walpole wasn't everyone's cup of tea but you can't take what he did for Concorde's success away from him. Jock Lowe was a star and a great loss to BA when he retired.
I've got no axe to grind, never been on the Concorde fleet and never wanted to but maybe Flying Lawyer's got a point. We'll never know the answer now.

L337
So the lawyer's a monkey brained moronic empty barrel who knows nothing about aviation, eh?
That's not the impression I get from his posts and it's not what the crews in the 777 stowaway inquest came back saying. He's well respected in the industry because he's earned respect. That doesn't mean he's right about this point but he's as entitled to give his opinion as anybody else, more entitled than many and he deserves more courtesy than you've shown in your childish insults.
Stick to the law matey? :rolleyes:
You've made a prat of yourself.

Well thats me put in my place!

I was most certainly angry, and tired when I made the first two post, However I still stand by my position, that Flying Lawer was out of order to post what he did. To condem so much of BA history, and its contribution to aviation because of the demise of Concorde is wrong.

I was wrong to post in anger, and wrong in the manner that I did. And for that I unreservidly apologise to the Flying Lawer, and for those here that I have upset.

It would indeed appear that I have made a prat of myself.

L337

L337 over-reacted to a comment that could have been misinterpreted as just-another-pop-at-the-world's-favourite. I'm not surprised; there are as many BA-baiters on here as there are Ryanair-baiters! Kudos to him for apologising.

However, his sentiments are correct. I have heard from a number in BA that Airbus told them that they would have to stop when Air France did; BA fought tooth and nail to be allowed to fly on to 24 October. They would like to have flown through 2004, but Airbus would not let them. The original pre-Re-life date of 2007 went out the window.

Airbus have killed Concorde, not BA. The whole thing is a mighty stich-up between Air France (who lost the bottle) and Airbus (we can't let the British have exclusivity).

It is worth remembering, that if BA had not taken over the entire Concorde operation in 1984, commercial supersonic flight would have ended then. Not 19 years later. BA should be praised for showing that commercial supersonic flight can be viable.

By all means feel angry. I've only flown her once, and I still feel angry that this marvel will be forever lost from the skies, gathering dust in a museum.

But direct your anger at those who deserve it. And that's not BA.

L337
I'm kinda hesitant to say anything about the use of English because as Shaw said we're two countries divided by a common language but I think you're still misreading what the Flying Lawyer said.
If you read it again he didn't say 'BA's contribution to the century of flight' which as you say would condem so much of BA history but "to the centenary of flight". This year. Very different meaning. Maybe you'll still disagree with him but then you can argue with what he said not what you think he said.

Interesting reading about the history anyways. I'll have to read up about your Lord King's time at British Airways now.

I'll miss seeing the Concordes taking off from Kennedy. The 31L departure was always worth seeing.
Click here. . Sorry it's an AF, I couldn't find a BA.

L337

Don't feel too bad. It takes a big man to admit that he is wrong.

I can tell you, without fear of contradiction, that Flying Lawyer would not have intended that anything he wrote should be construed that he was rubbishing BA. He is, as most of us Concorde lovers are, upset that the most beautiful thing that ever flew is to be taken away from us. I am 100% with him on that.

From a purely personal point of view, and from an operators point of view too, I am dismayed that Concorde will no longer grace the skies, it IS yet another very harsh end to the most innovative thing that is good in British aviation. Something that has happened all to frequently.

NW1 - which fleet are you going to?

L337

No hard feelings. Lawyers have to develop a thick skin - we're not exactly the most popular group of people in the country. :D

Having read Bronx's post, I can see how my comment could be taken the wrong way. My fault. I should have expressed myself in a way which wasn't open to misunderstanding. I don't think anyone who knows anything about aviation would deny the enormous contribution BA has made to aviation generally and civilian supersonic flight in particular. I certainly don't.

Flying Lawer,

Thanks for your post.

Capt PPRuNe messaged me your "resume".

I confess to a wry smile upon reading it. I was so far off target in my abuse of you as to be laughable.

HoHum. We live and we learn.

L337

Well done L337,

I guess part of the trouble is that there are so many wind-up merchants determined to spoil this site for everyone else that it is sometimes difficult for less 'addicted' PPRuNers to know which category other members fall into.

Obviously there is the catch all disclaimer on the main 'PPRuNe Forums' page (As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions), but in general, anyone who regularly puts their real name at the bottom of their postings (or even whose real identity is just known to lots of other members) will usually refrain from stupid or inflammatory posts.

Kind regards,

Arnold Schwartzenegger.



Joke... Honest!