Srilankan_340 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2002, 201 posts, RR: 2 Posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 5295 times:
He was all over the TV channels here last night with his propaganda bandwagon about Virgin operating Concorde.
These are some of the main points :
He and a team met with Airbus officials (Airbus does the Concorde maintenance) yesterday for an initial meeting to "get an accurate idea of the cost of spares and so on and hopefully that will provide us with more ammunition in our campaign. "
Virgin if successful plan to fly it to JFK, the Caribbean and the Middle East.
(Note that BA are currently flying to JFK and Barbados and Concorde's inaugural flight was to Bahrain.)
He further commented "Hopefully we'll be able to embarrass BA into not scrapping Concorde"
- Aha.... So that's your motive, not about saving one of Great Britain's icons and possibly the only supersonic passenger aircraft to grace our skies ever?
He appeared on ITV's This Morning programme yesterday,did an interview, and came back into the studio after his interview has finished on hearing that BA's CEO Rod Eddington was on the phone to the programme. He then accused Rod E of making a phone call to Airbus to tell them not to support Virgin's move!! When the show's host asked how did RB know about the phone call, RB replied that Airbus told him!!
In my opinion,that answer shows how childish his behavior is, not at all like a chairman of a large company. Even a child of 10 would see through that answer!!
He wants to show BA as the Big Bad Bully at each and every opportunity!
He had also visited the Imperial War Museum's aviation branch at Duxford, Cambridge, where he toured one of the early models of Concorde, which is on show in a hangar.
Call me a cynic, but if that wasn't done for a Photo opportunity I'd be dammed! One does not need to go look at an early prototype to see what the real thing is. All he needs is to buy a ticket and travel on the real thing! But then, how can he get his photo taken standing next to it?
I am afraid as things are at present, the only chance that he will have to board Concorde is the prototype model !
Just my tuppenny's worth.....
People are often unreasonable, illogical and self- centered: Forgive them anyway - Mother Theresa
Shamrock_747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5112 times:
At least now he seems to be doing the right thing by having meetings with Airbus managers. Branson trying to get British Airways to sell him their Concorde fleet is pointless without the backing of Airbus.
If BA said today that Virgin are getting the Concordes on November 1st, but Airbus maintain theie position of not supporting any operator after October 31st, we'd end up with seven grounded Concordes parked at LHR.
If Branson can get the support of Airbus and comes up with a decent plan to keep some of the aircraft flying that would be great, but if he can't get a deal with Airbus then I think he should just drop it and let BA get on with their retirement plans.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12951 posts, RR: 79 Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5057 times:
The TU-144 never carried commercial pax, basically the thing did not work.
On Channel 4 news last night, he was at the UK pre-production aircraft at Duxford.
I spotted a retired senior BA E/O in his 'team'.
But, it will take a whole lot more than a few retired flight crew.
We have just, after a considerable effort, got some final agreements with Airbus relating to support until October, even so, it will be tough, we also got a feel of future requirements, believe me, that much talked about £40 million is just the start.
The danger is that if Branson takes this too far, goes to court, it will actually endanger BA's operation of the aircraft, even for the 5 remaining months.
BA have tried to keep it as a commercial argument, the initial announcements spared both AFs and Airbus's blushes, that will change if it gets into a technical argument.
BA are still clear on this, they want a great send off for Concorde, plans are at an advanced stage now, will the bearded one f*** it all up?
Stretch 8 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2561 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5047 times:
I still don't know how and why this guy was knighted. I have to take as gospel the opinions of Concorde experts herein (such as GDB) about the immense difficulty, practically and economically, of continued Concorde operations by any carrier. Just let it go.
Maggs swings, it's a drive deep to left! The Tigers are going to the World Series!!!
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12945 posts, RR: 62 Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5020 times:
The TU-144 never carried commercial pax
It did, but for a VERY short time. Moscow to Alma-Ata, I believe. Shortly thereafter it was relegated to mail service, and then withdrawn from the fleet entirely.
Since the plane was a commercial failure, the Soviet government, as it did with Josef Stalin, actually went as far as to attempt to eradicate all traces of its existence, making it look like the TU-144 never existed.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2445 posts, RR: 9 Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4874 times:
"Go Branson! Go Branson. I really hope he gets those planes. If he does, I'm so there!"
I hope you're right and I wish Branson luck, assuming he's serious-a BIG question mark! I so don't see this happening but if he could pull it off, I'd shake his hand. I hate that the SSTs will be mothballed before their time-the sad fact that Concorde has never been truly economically viable, notwithstanding!
Cx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6448 posts, RR: 56 Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4779 times:
As far as I remember, the Pepsi scheme could not be a long term scheme and more importantly, it could not fly supersonic for long periods purely because of the paint scheme. It was not a possible scheme if AF wanted to keep the aircraft in regular service and fly supersonic trips with it.
Dc863 From Denmark, joined Jun 1999, 1554 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4763 times:
I've seen a Space Models Concorde 1/100 scale with the full Silver Bullet scheme. However due to the high temps the Concorde generates at altitude i doubt the Concorde would appear in the fleetwide Virgin scheme. Branson would have to operate the Concorde at a loss just like BA. It's simply too expensive to operate and the ticket prices reflect that.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12951 posts, RR: 79 Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4723 times:
That truly vile Pepsi scheme was very temporary, limiting both supersonic speed (Mach 1.7) and endurance.
Branson's silver Concorde model? Shows how little he knows.
Still carry on Rich, screw up the retirement plans, stop loads of people from getting a chance to fly on it, as long as you get your face all over the press.
He knows that the average person has not the slightest grasp of what is involved, they think you can just stick fuel on it and off it goes.
How many Concorde pilots (not retired) and licensed Concorde engineers has Virgin got exactly?
Vs601 From United Kingdom, joined May 2003, 33 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4685 times:
Come on guys, lets just see what happens. On the off chance, slim as it is, that Branson does pull this off, wouldn't you all be pleased to see Concorde flying for a little longer?
As an employee of VS I have serious doubts it will happen, but you never know. When VS operated their first ever flight back in 84, everyone said this airline will be gone in 6 months. So my point is lets see what happens..
LMML 14/32 From Malta, joined Jan 2001, 2565 posts, RR: 7 Reply 20, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4646 times:
Branson is doing it for publicity. I don't think he seriously believes that Virgin will ever fly Concorde. On the other hand he can put a lot of pressure on Airbus. Then again Airbus will not want to make BA angry at them again. As much as I admire Branson for his flair, I think Concorde should be retired with dignity. This "war" can only harm Concorde's image. The only person set to gain whatever the outcome is RB.
Leezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4041 posts, RR: 54 Reply 21, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4625 times:
If Brason was just doing it for publicity, do you still think he'd be going on about it almost 6 weeks later ?, or that he'd bother to set up a meeting with Airbus ? and go to all this trouble of getting these experts assembled ?.
From what I recall that has been said on here before, Airbus would support the a/c if 2 carriers continue to operate it. SRB has offered to operate it alongside BA, so if i'm wong that is still 2 carriers operating the a/c, but what I don't understand is why he's not going after the AF aircraft, as most of these have lower hours than the BA machines.
I think that had it not been for Air France announcing their intention to drop the fleet, then BA would still continue to operate it, but as the announcement had already been made that they too would cease operations, they don't want to loose face by saying that they will continue to operate it along with VS. Especially considering the so-called rivalry between BA and VS, which I must add is just another publicity thing in itself as BA and VS co-operate alot on the actual operational side of things, not so much in the UK, but at the outstations. BA cover alot of the VS engineering at overseas stations and they also fixed a flap problem a couple of weeks ago on one of the VS744's at LHR, and if one airline cancells a service, the other will take the pax for them - VS did this when I was in HKG at the end of Jan for BA (and I nearly didn't get on the flight because of it !!).
I think people need to look on the positive side of things, rather than just being negative about it. Some things are more important than money, and if there is still life left in those a/c and they can be operated safely for however many years, they should do so even if it is going to cost alot but if someone thinks it can be done and is prepared to spend the cash, then why not give them the support and keep the dream alive ?.
"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12951 posts, RR: 79 Reply 24, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4554 times:
That's a myth, the TU-144 had to use reheat in supercruise (unlike Concorde) so either range or payload, but not both at once, plus the intake system did not work, plus the wing was the wrong shape, plus it landed too fast, and much more besides, if it had worked, why did Aeroflot not use it on international routes? Say Moscow-Shannon-Havana/New York?
As for VS, it would have to be a joint BA/VS operation.
AF Concordes? Fewer hours but heavier interiors, (post mods only 92 seats), plus the only reason they've been able to fly at all these last few weeks is with BA support spares wise, they are totally out of serviceable rudders for one, good job they are stopping soon, as we need those parts and back and access to their spares generally, otherwise we'll be grinding to a halt pretty soon.
So how long could a BA/VS operation run for? Probably not much longer than late 2005, VS reckon they can do all that they've claimed with 3 aircraft (yeah right), but of the 5 flyable BA aircraft, 3 are not too far off 24,000 hrs, then a very extensive D check is needed, along with new components, all very, very expensive, also an acute lack of qualified people, both in BA and Airbus, a lot of retirements since the last big D checks were done from 1988-1995.
10 years ago, we had to get retired BAe people out of retirement for the new rudders, that and much more is needed for the 24,000 hr checks.
No one wants to see Concorde carry on more than I, it affects me personally remember, none of the above problems are insurmountable, but they need £, and lots of them.
25 Bellerophon: Leezyjet ...From what I recall that has been said on here before, Airbus would support the a/c if 2 carriers continue to operate it... No, not correct
26 AA61hvy: Even if Virgin does not get the Concorde, and they do get mothballed, I bet someone will eventually buy one. Maybe JT?
27 AvObserver: But AA61hvy, if they get mothballed, I'd think the chances of them EVER flying again will be even less. Someone might still buy one but only for stati
28 AA61hvy: I will still fantasize If you look an Branson's past, he likes to go all out for many things he does. (A340-6 "Mines bigger than yours" etc.) I think
29 737heavy: I can't see why so many people are against Branson have Concorde. If he wants it and can make a go of it good for him and let him have it. Yes he's go
30 David_itl: It was the gov that put the rule in about another company taking it over and as per usual the gov is whincing out. If the clause was there that allow
31 737heavy: I don't know but my understanding, and I could be wrong, was that when they were sold for £1 BA were told that when the time came to stop using them
32 David_itl: Check out gordonroxburgh's concorde website and look at the entry for 29th April. David