Ozzy asks a very sensible question: Why didn't BA fight the decision to end Concorde's manufacturer's support?

We mere line crews will never know the full details of negotiations between BA/Airbus/AF, but it has been made clear that at least some effort was made to keep flying the aeroplane longer.

AF operations were far more financially problematic than BA's - it is understandable that they wanted to end them. As I write, the final AF flight is 4 days away, yet BA is continuing to the end of October. THAT is the limited success achieved in these negotiations. We know that BA wanted to continue to at least the end of next Winter's schedule in order to capitalise on the profitable BGI season but was flatly prevented by Airbus.

Why would Airbus take this stance and why would BA apparently not take a firmer stand? To consider the scenario raised by Ozzy where Boeing announced the cessation of support for the 747:

There are hundreds of 747's flying. It would be financial and commercial suicide to do such a thing, so it is a remote possibility, but should such a thing come to pass then the market would be there for a third party to take on design authority and manufacture of components. This is what generally happens in this scenario - consider the multitudes of GA aircraft supported in this way, plus after-market freighter conversions, the support of Fokker types and so on. (I am aware that none of the foregoing example are of manufacturers wilfully withdrawing support while still in business, but that's because it doesn't generally happen).
So there would be little need for BA or anyone else to apply massive pressure.

Concorde is a different matter - I won't reiterate the same old arguments about how much manpower it costs Airbus to provide support, and how much more profitably these resources could be employed elsewhere - but it can be seen that the possibility of third-party support is non-existent. (The design is simply going to be outside the experience of anyone else, and the market too small). So Airbus has BA by the proverbials, and there is really very little that can be done.

There is a further aspect - this aeroplane was born of politics and multi-national agreements, and some elements of these will still be extant. It was long rumoured that a tripartite obligation existed which compelled each element (arlines and builders) to support the aircraft so long as the others wished. Clearly that is not now the case, but it could possibly be assumed that the inverse applies; removing the manufacturer's compulsion to support the programme if either airline wished to cease operations. Whatever, we won't know the truth in the near future, but it seems unlikely that the continued operation of this machine was as free from conditions as conventional types.

Finally - it has been long suspected by line crews and line engineers that the end was in sight anyway; it did appear to all of us that the fleet was been positioned to be wound up in the next couple of years anyway. So - if the decision had been made to kill it off in 2004 there would be little point in having a massive and fruitless fight to extend beyond 2003.

None of this, of course, detracts from the fact that structurally these machines could continue to perform in this unique operation
for years to come.

PS: Hasn't the Grinning Cardigan been awfully quiet since he met with Airbus?? Obviously BA have threatened awful things to the little Airbus company to force them to do BA's bidding......

Ozzy
 

Partly right - I would like to see the fleet fly out to its potential.

But your 747 analogy (and more so the Windows thing) is a non sequitur.

You are starting from a false assumption - this is NOT the Airbus position. How can you imagine Airbus might be able to use the ditching of Concorde "to increase sales of a newer design" as you claim? Do you really think Airbus would imagine that BA or AF would grab the 'phone and order up fleets of Airbi on hearing that Concorde's days were ended? Of course not - there is no such lever simply because there is nothing anywhere to replace them, and the comparison between the commercial situation of the maintenance and operation of Concorde and 747 types is absurd.

There are hundreds more 747s than Concordes. Many, many airlines operate 747s; but only 2 fly Concordes (and one has load factors in single percentage points). 747s are still in production, and have been developed on to be a 21st Century aircraft using 21st century techniques and technology; but there are a mere 9 airworthy Concordes on the planet, the jigs were destroyed decades ago and engineers need to be expert with 1950/60's technology and techniques - using skills and knowlege quickly receding into history, and the manufacturer needs to guarantee these components and the costs of doing this are rising exponentially - the 747 maintenance and support operation is modern, cost effective and well established. Its like comparing a 1930s Le Mans Bentley with a Vauxhall Vectra. I know which I'd rather drive to work next time, but a time and money comparison should convince you which one to equip your taxi rank with (clue: ring up Vauxhall and ask them for a price on a new head gasket for a 1999 Vectra, now try the same thing for the Bentley.... now do it for a commercial transport operation....)

The other thing you need to remember is that the Concorde is and always was a bi-national operation tied up in acres of legal contacts. Both sides of the channel are needed - BA cannot sanction another operator to go it alone, it is simply not in their power to do so even if the price made it worth their while (and investment). Which it wouldn't.

Well I have said what I wanted to say NW1 and you are closer to the issue than most of us. I didn't mean to suggest Airbus was using their position to leverage sales of other aircraft, I was using that motive only in the context of the Boeing example.

Sorry to see Concorde go that's all.

Ozzy

Most (if not all) want to see Concorde continue to fly well into the future, Airbus can jack up the cost of the support or farm out the parts production to a contracter (Boeing :E ) but I'm sure they looked into that:confused:

I loved the software analogy, but it's crap. Concorde is far superior to WindowsXP, it's only crashed once and it's 30+ years old:ok:

If the grinning sweater wants to try and make a go of it, let him, it's after all his business decision and he wants to remain profitable, I'm pretty sure that BA would have no problem with VS going tits up over this. I'm also sure Airbus don't want to support the aircraft at a loss, so why not make a decision to make a profit on it, or very least break even, Airbus do after all (from what I can see) hold the cards. If I purchase something should the manufacturer then be obligated to support it to obselescance?

When all is said and done, I would love to see the avionics and other 50's/60's kit replaced in a new production run but who would buy/operate this unique example of British-French cooperation?

As far as staff go, what is going to happen to the "ex" Concord pilots - do you think they'd be happy flying s***ty A380s? of course they wouldnt be happy flying anything less than concord.

To the point that if RB bought the A/Cs he'd have a load of ex BA aircrew suddenly joining virgin.

As far as technology goes - if the Mod took that attitude we'd still be flying spitfires (well that's good, but you know what I mean) the RAF have new fighters being developed all the time. So why not airlines?

Concord is a big big national asset.

Don't let it be scrapped. And remember RB is a pilot himself, I bet he would like to keep one of the concords as his personal A/C.

anyway, that's my two penneth.

WelshFlyer

Concord support
 

May I remind previous posters that most aircraft contracts state on the subject of technical and spare parts support that the manufacturer shall support the aircraft type when there are an x number of this type STILL IN OPERATION.
Fairly standard commitment.
Now compare the 747, or Fokkers, and Concord again.
It's a contractual obligation.
If the x number is is low as three, Branson or whoever will not be able to make any commercial sense out of that.

I stand corrected if there is a person around who actually knows the Concord contract to be different , but I doubt it.

Nothing to do with Airbus/Boeing attitude/ new sales opportunities or whatever cr@p is being spouted in this thread.

Yeah - we know better:

That's why the BA operation ends before the BEGINNING of the profitable BGI operation, rather than after the end of it.

From the horse's mouth.

Last I heard (from someone in the know) is that BA are considering bringing forward the end-October retirement to something earlier.

Apparently those who demanded its removal from service are not satisfied with end-October and want it earlier.

Not sure who 'those' people are (BA or Airbus). Probably something to do with the AF Halifax diversion problems of about 3 months ago, with the near loss of the aircraft.

'Twill indeed be a sad day when it last goes.

TopBunk

what "near loss"?

bunk- sounds right.

From Yahoo:

MarkD

Engine vibration in flight, precautionary shutdown involving shutting the HP fuel cock, LP pump still powered.

Fracture in the fuel line downstream of the LP cock caused 'a lot' of fuel to be pumped into the tailpipe through the afterburner system.

Fuel checks sometime after the shutdown discovered large discrepancy and the LP cock was then closed which stopped the leak. Aircraft diverted and landed in Halifax (?) with not a lot of fuel remaining.

NB 'a lot' believed to be over 16 tonnes

Its all so very sad isn't it? Cruise speeds worse than halved, Atlantic crossings doubled in time. Back to blunties, backwards to the future. Bizarre...

(Understand that BA and RE in particular are pushing hard the idea for a "heritage flight" on some form of restricted CofA from Filton... much planning to be done, very embryonic idea etc., - I'm off to find a good hat in case I have to eat it......)

Topbunk - apologies. Google was not my friend yesterday.

You're not kidding NW1 I'm hacked off about it and I never had enough cash to afford a single flight. Sir David Frost and Sting must be royally cheesed off...One giant leap backwards for mankind...:(