looks like this thread is in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy!

Commenting on the newspaper and evening news stories, this post was started yesterday, do you reckon PPrune is powerful enough to start a rumour that even the journalists in London can get hold of, and knowing journo's they probably just went with the story to sell papers without even bothering to ring BA to get a comment.

I have two points to make.

1) Concorde service's would struggle if either BA or AF stopped them, i.e one cant run without the other (in theory). But After Paris BA suggested it would go it alone if AF stopped flying.

2) I use to buy a few spare parts for the old girl, and believe me after the last refurbishment there are loads of Concorde spare parts lying about, problem is finding them or finding someone's grandad who knows how to make them!!! (that is a Joke)

Oh and an after thought would be that Air France are most likely to be the first to ground Concorde, cos if BA are having a bad time chances are AF are having it harder!

Thats my opinion anyway - Keep on flying the old girl ( you can ground her in ten years, once I've saved enough money to fly day return to JFK on her!!!!!!!)

qwertyuiop
 

Up here in Vermont they don't seem to do sarcasm too well either... can lead to some interesting conversations when it goes straight over them.

OAA/OAB will never fly again.

I'm sure any retirement will be timed exactly together by BA and AF and probably the end of Mar 2004 will see a tearful goodbye.

Apparently, Monty Python are going to make a sequel to Live of Brian....Life of Brian II and the words uttered are ' What have the French ever done for us?'

Dastardly Deeds
 

What is going on here? BA have clearly set a big PR snowball in motion but all they are saying is 'We will review Concorde". In other words there is no news here except that there is news that is no news.

Are they trying to drum up interest? Are they playing some internal politics to strengthen their hand in negotiations with flight crew or BALPA? Are they just completly incompetent?

Basically no-one hardly is paying for Concorde tickets. What a surpise. The World is in a major depression. It's a wonder anyone can afford to fly anywhere. But if Concorde is thought to be uneconomical (like First Class) then just announce you are shutting it down. Or shut up. Why have indecision on prime time news?

What pisses me off is none of these overpaid/underworked journos has had the balls to ask the question "What is this all about BA? What are you trying to say because if you don't tell us then you can f**k off and come back when you've got something cogent to tell the public"

Bad timing in my book.

The Conc on AB is one flare no shoulder launched SAM's gonna catch:E

OLD aeroplanes go to the desert to die, and Concorde is indeed OLD and will be retired sooner or later...more than likely, sooner.
Great while it lasted, but with fewer and fewer high rollers available to pay the price of admission, afraid Concorde is doomed.

Concorde isn't in any sense old. If this super-premium sector is uneconomic for the next few years, then just say you are going to mothball everything with a view to re-starting when things pick up. We know, even though that might be 10 years away, no-one is going to come up with another Mach 2 transport in the meantime.

They got the planes for free. I think they have a duty to pay for hangarage for a few years.

Maybe, however, the punters are leaking away to executive jets. They don't take much longer by the time you add the bits at each end and you can have proper meetings etc

Great suggestion Dop - More combined displays with the Red Arrows after Concs retirement would be awesome.

They were all gifted to BA by the british government, so all they have to face is increased maintenance costs to keep them flying. They have done extremely well by the aircraft in both financial and marketing terms, so, if the BA management are as great as appears to be the opinion in the posts above, then hopefully they will repay the debt they owe to her and keep her flying within their fleet, even though they seem to be papering the loads to get bums on seats, and thus losing financial yield.

Or at least have the decency whenever she DOES retire from revenue service, to make the same gesture as the brit government made to them, and pass them on to another organisation, be it a revenue or display operation in the condition in which they received it. i.e. in good working order, financially unencumbered.

Agreements are already in place that at least some of the Concordes are to be given to museums when they are retired. The National Air and Space Museum in Washington is going to get one. How many others already have an agreed home to go to I don't know.

Well that's good news, Conc.
I just believe that there is no good reason why at least one shouldent be kept in the air for display purposes.
BA have been the very fortunate custodians of the type when others have wanted to operate her commercially and been denied - they therefore have a duty to do all that they can to keep this wonderful piece of British history flying, even when they have finished with it for whhatever reason - financial or mechanical.

The reason that one will not be kept in the air 'for display purposes' is that it is not financially viable. BA have a duty to their shareholders not to fritter money on nostalgia. If the RAF won't pay to keep a Vulcan airworthy I can't see why BA should pay for a conc.

To think that this amazing piece of aviation technology first flew 34 years ago (in the 60's) is incredible.

If BA do break even at 34 pax + then good luck to them keeping her in the skies where she rightfully belongs .
Heaven knows they have invested enough in her in more recent times.

She is still right at the forefront of civil aviation in the 2000's and is a beautiful testament to it.



Current world climate and commercial pressure deny us of having anything close to it in the foreseeable future.

She may be a privelege to the (farepaying) few,but more than that , in a world where travel is second nature, she is the ultimate symbol . (and a stunning one too).

gorgeous bird

Guys and Gals

I'm not one of you aviating folk, merely a lowly Controller at LHR, but in response to the questioning of Conc's importance may I volunteer the following...?

We don't have quite as many visitors up there as we like (come on guys, bring us some coffee and chocolates!!) but it AMAZING that 99% turn up at 1045 and, oh yes, BAW1 departs at @1100. They watch the old bird get up off 09L, fly the hair raising CPT, then they vanish. The Rocket pulls punters, plane enthsiasts and the public like no other in the business. Ok, so no-one can afford to fly on her regularly, but everyone still aspires to have a trip on the old girl once. If BA can afford to, and want to try to keep her going, then I for one say good on them. Folks are to quick to try and knock down something that we have if it against the grain and captures the public's imagination. Yes she guzzles fuel, yes she's elitist, but if you're lining up on 27R behind her, my how she looks impressive.;)

PhilD I may not have made my view quite clear, for which I apologise.
Of course BA shouldent have to pay for ongoing flying once they have finished with her, however I do believe that they have a duty to pass her on as they were given her (for free) originally - i.e. in flying condition, and financially unencumbered. In short, for Free.

They have indeed invested heavily in her, and also done extremely well by her, both financially and (even more so) in marketing terms. Well done BA for this, but I am sure that most would share my view that BA, having secured her commercially for themselves whilst others sought to operate her, should not seek to gain by her 'sale'.
Speaking as a significant shareholder in the company, I take the view that the company will be better served in the public eye by being magnanimous and making it possible for her to remain flying.

This has become a self-regenerating thread

It starts as a request for information about a rumour based on surmise, as with everything connected with this aeroplane considerable interest is generated, expanding the thread, much personal opinion is written.

On a "quiet news" day, the thread is trawled by a representative of the "popular" press who takes the opportunity to round up a couple of low key quotes from engineers in despair of the way they are managed and underresourced, and melds the two to create an instant article. Said article is picked up for free by other elements of the media, to the extent that the execrable Mail even plagiarises verbatim some of the Sun aricle.

So another dozen people post on this thread in the knowledge that the story is true.

It's not!

BA have made at least two press releases, neither has been published to my knowledge except for the "no decision has been made" element which is easy to dress up to make it look like something else.

twotun:

I am now aware of the two dropped services in March owing to projected lack of hulls. It's a very poor situation but it is not a problem inherent with the aeroplane but the chronic underresourcing of engineers, justified by the door mods.

As for FE establishment, I'll say again that I am as unhappy that the 'surplus' engineers have been dropped as anyone, but you know as well as I of the contingency planning which will allow services to be run for some time after '04. I'm not defending the principle, just stating the fact.

To give the lie to the reportage - the articles make great play of ststing that pilots and cabin crew have bben redeployed. THEY HAVE NOT, in fact there are three Captains returning to the fleet this Summer and there are new Cabin crew undergoing training today.

All this and more in BA's response to the articles, which was apparently not newsworthy enough to publish.

Oh and an after thought would be that Air France are most likely to be the first to ground Concorde, cos if BA are having a bad time chances are AF are having it harder!

But doesn't AF have a bottomless money pit - the French taxpayer? BA has to make its numbers.

Why haven't we seen any Concs at Manchester since the return to service? Have all the charters stopped? I lived my dream a few years ago with a Conc jumpseat ride from Manch supersonic to Paris (which I wrote-up as a 'Pilot' mag article). Post 11/9 I don't suppose that will ever be possible again.

The day wil come, of course, when she will just be a memory. But I think It's a while off yet.

SSD

WOK Please check your PM's.........

The word is that there are 3 dates that they are looking at: 2005(favoured by AF), 2007 and 2010(BA's preference). The smart money is on 2007. They can't afford to close the old girl down now because it would cost about £60mill in cancelled spares and support contracts, the suppliers have to be given an end date so that they can run down the stocks economically.

Funny that the Spams want one when protests greeted the entry to service, especially in NYC.

I suggested earlier that journalists are nothing but spineless layabouts who will sieze on any old tittle tattle so they can bung together a few library pictures and aimless quotes before belting down the pub.

Not entirely true, as it happens. My apologies in particular to the gentlemen of The Guardian. I am pleased to report they did not fall for this nonsense. They merely added a one liner to another story, mentioning that the Sun was speculating about Concorde and that was the last we heard on the subject.

WOK's right - we seem to be stuck in a feedback loop here with very few facts.

Particularly the regular posting "BA, having secured her commercially for themselves whilst others sought to operate her".

When Concorde entered commercial service absolutely nobody, not even BA, wanted it. Every airline with an option on purchase had cancelled and the government (who built it) had to run it under their own airline's (unwilling) operation. No one else "sought to operate her".

After selling the Concorde and the rest of the airline into the private sector, BA was required to pay millions toward Concorde R&D (far from the "free gift" story trotted out by the uninformed) in order to keep the operation and in very brave and ingenious "sink or swim" style made the operation work commercially and launched the supersonic transport into the success it became. BA built the successful SST operation from the economically bankrupt nationalised start and earned every penny of it, other airlines may have looked on enviously in the late '80s & '90s, but they had missed the boat by then.

Branson keeps needling that he'd "condsider it" or words to that effect, but the truth is nobody else could or would take it on now - it would be like trying to transplant a 200-year old oak tree into a garden allotment. Good for headline-grabbing, but BA has no duty to "give" Concorde to anyone else and nor would anyone else want it - they couldn't run it because the whole support infrastructure is so massive.

All that has happened here is that someone has noticed that all aeroplanes have a finite life, Concorde has served many more years than most others (maybe all? I don't know) and have then asked BA when is it due to retire. BA quite reasonably said "at some stage, but we don't yet know when - we'll tell you when the decision is made" and that didn't satisfy the hacks, who interpreted "sometime" as meaning gloom and failure. For heaven's sake even the Daily T. said something along the lines of "early retirment looms for Concorde" - early retirement??? Almost 30 years from introduction into service and 34 years from her first flight - "early retirement"!!!.

The capricious high cost / high revenue nature of an SST means that the commercially sensible operator will carefully monitor the latter years of the aircraft's life. That is all that is happening here - ultimately we must accept that all good things must come to an end. But not just yet, there are some years still left to serve, and even then - we bloody did it, didn't we!

This notion of Concorde being old is as bizarre as suggesting we stop playing Vivaldi's Four Seasons because it first went into production nearly 300 years ago. In techonolgy terms it is as new as any supersonic transport and as a plane it is very young in its service life due to very low utilisation. It is thirsty and expensive to run but that's because it is half airliner; half spacecraft. It's flight deck is a bit 'classic' but functions as well as any glass version - just a touch more expensively.

Concorde is special for two reasons. Firstly other capitalist products can be removed and re-launched at will but Concorde is a unique product - across the whole world. Once lost it cannot be replaced.

Secondly we, the British taxpayers, forked out a shed-load of money. Someone ought to take care of that investment.

Thanks for the passion NW1. You speak with great authority and can no doubt provide full reference for your assertions!

If my view that BA should make one available for display purposes unencumbered after they have finished with it, I am sorry.

There seems to me a splendid marketing opportunity for BA to help keep one flying in existing livery. Don't you think so ?

What effect on the "charter" trade?
 

How much does this affect the "charter" trade, e.g. Goodwood Travel? Does a charter "fee" contribute to the cost of keeping Concorde flying?

How much service contraction can BA make before they(GT) can no longer offer 3 night's in NY with return flight on Concorde for £4,560?

A lot of nostalgia and emotion on this thread......and quite right too, as Concorde is a fantastic machine. I for one hope it keeps flying forever.

However, we need to be realistic. BA are not going to keep the machine flying out of 'goodwill' or a sense of history. Their responsibility is to their shareholders, and as soon as Concorde becomes uneconomic its flying days will be over.

Of course, any number of accountants will come up with totally different arguments as to what is 'economic'. How do you value the "PR" and "Advertising" which Concorde gives them?

Equally, further 'rudder separations' or other events (even though blown out of proportion by the press) will add more nails in the coffin as the consensus of public opinion, rightly or wrongly, adopts the view that the machine is too old.

Just to add a little bit of circumstantial evidence here, apparently R-R at Filton are chucking out the Olympus jigs, test kit and spares as part of the redevelopment announced this week. Now, why would they do that unless someone had tipped them as to the likelyhood of no future need ?
Perhaps a Patchway Ppruner could check this

VnV

http://www.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/photos/small/3/5/3/304353.jpg

Retire this airplane? Hopefully, not for a very long time and certainly not until I have had the pleasure of flying on her!

Concorde to retire in 2007?
 

Several sources today( Liberation France, NTV Germany) report that Air France will retire the Concorde 2007. Details and specific dates to follow soon.

Regards

In todays Times there is speculation that the old bird could be retired within months.

Any truth in the rumour that 2 aircraft (airframes never updates ofter the AFR crash) are off to Lasham for storage?

B-L

must be true it's front page of the Bristol evening post today

Looks like October!
 

I will be as sad as all but the cynics on this thread to see Concorde retire. It is still the one aircraft that people stop to watch when she flies over. I suppose that with the turmoil that is enveloping the industry at the moment it is inevitable that such decisions have to be made. I can only agree with those here who suggest not burning any bridges at this stage. After all, unless we're heading back to the Dark Ages, there should be an economic recovery one day in the future.

On a lighter note, I had to chuckle at the LBC Radio news this evening (17:30z) . "From October, Londoners will no longer hear Concorde's sonic boom in the skies . . . . " Excellent research there, LBC!

I'm immensely proud to have worked with Concorde during my 30+ years as a Heathrow Air Traffic Controller. I retired last November so she's beaten me, and she still goes as fast as when she started which is more than I can say for myself!

I never did get a ride in it, but we bought #1 son a "trip round the bay" for his 21st which blew his mind and which he'll remember for ever!

To all the Concorde crews I had the pleasure of working with, thanks for the fun.... especially to the Captain who slipped us a bottle of fizz one night after I gave him a "fighter" circuit.. but that was long, long ago and such things don't happen, except in dreams, do they?

H.D. For those of us that are on the outside of the biz, could you expand on what a 'fighter' circuit is?

I realise, of course, that no machine operating into or out of LHR would ever be given a circuit that might be just a shade too tight, or too fast, for normal operations. Such instructions would never be given by dedicated professionals, however bored they might get one night. So, this is purely an academic exercise of how such things might be run in a simulator.

If you are concerned about the journos, then a PM would be fine!

Cannot resist adding that I am now awaiting arrival of my ticket for 8th August, as I was able to get one of the 1,000 seat special one-way Conc that were sold on Thursday. :ok:

I first saw the Lady when she visited South Africa for Hot and High tests and sales pitch in (I think) 1971. Now it's time.

PAXboy wrote: "I realise, of course, that no machine operating into or out of LHR would ever be given a circuit that might be just a shade too tight, or too fast, for normal operations. Such instructions would never be given by dedicated professionals, however bored they might get one night. So, this is purely an academic exercise of how such things might be run in a simulator."

Of course, silly me, you must be right. But did you ever see the film The Snowman? Where the little boy dreams his snowman is really alive? When he wakes up next morning he has a scarf given to him "in his dreams". I just can't recall where I got this Champagne cork.......

Enjoy the trip; I truly envy you.