PW4056 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (16 years 3 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 1001 times:
On the "Newsweek" this week, there is an article talking about EU is about to ban certain old aircrafts for high noise levels. This act will cost American aircraft owners millions of dollars due to the lost of a second-hand market for their old planes. As a retaliation, U.S. Congress is introducing a bill to ban Concorde from entering the US. So what is your opinion upon this issue?
dave From United Arab Emirates, joined Mar 2004, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (16 years 3 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 1001 times:
i have not seen the article myself... but there would be no way in "heck" concorde will ever be banned from the u.s. the business lobby to keep concorde operating to and from london and paris would be intence and immence. lets face it, stage 3 restrictions in the u.s. is really nothing any different.
must read the article first though... saw something similar in a recent aviation week and space technology issue.
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (16 years 3 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1002 times:
First off, the Concorde is a cool aircraft, however it probably will not be flying very much longer due to age, and pressurization which leads to metal fatigue (Concorde stretches 8 inches during its trans-Atlantic flight). Second, we already went through this 'ban the Concorde' thing when it was first introduced. Just look at Airways magazine--they did a great article on this. The EU has the same 'stage three' requirements as the US, correct? If so, then won't they have to ban other European made aircraft? As long as the planes are under the stage three noise level, let them fly!!!!!!
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (16 years 3 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1001 times:
I live 1Km (less then 1 mile) from the short final center line to rwy 28 here in FAO and I know that noise can be in fact a problem to local residents. When I go out Saturday nights and on Sunday mornings I want to sleep but I can't due to take off's, I go crazy. This is just to justify that the EU has a point to ban certain old aircrafts for high noise levels.
Don't forget it's ALL the old aircrafts, not only the ones from US airlines.
Conclusion: EU has a good justification, the US has no justification, just a ridiculous retaliation.
DC-10 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (16 years 3 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1001 times:
I can understand wanting to ban older noiser aircraft from the EU airports. But how will this affect the US carrier? I didn't read the article or anything. But US carriers fly A300's 767, 777, 747, and DC-10s. These all meet stage 3 requirements. I hope the Concorde isn't affected though, that happened years ago, and it still flys here. I mean lets face it what's a bit of noise 4 times a day (2 BA, 2AF)of those 4 afterburning turbojets on take off! Besides they will be gone in the next 10-15 years, too expensive to keep up, for a very specialized market that flies on it.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30014 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (16 years 3 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1001 times:
What has the US really p.o.ed is the fact that the EU is going to not allow the use of hush-kits to bring stage two aircraft into compliance with stage three rules. This rule was clearly devised to force airlines in europe to buy new airplanes instead of retrofitting old kits. Preferably they would like to see orders for Touluse built aircraft but the rule dosen't bar new Boeing aircraft.
I posted the news article a few days ago on this site. It is back a couple of days. There isn't that much support in congress for Concorde. Enviromentalists hate it and since there are so few of them there is actually very little buisness travel on them(as a percentage of total). When you throw in the fact it flys on a noise rule waiver, It makes a good sacrifical lamb. High visiblity and low consumer impact.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
DC10-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (16 years 3 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1001 times:
Concorde makes little business, right; but it is a brilliant image for AF & BA. AF is a "normal" airline, not very good, not very bad, but you can distinguish it because it operates Concorde! Don't always think to money&business
I leave near RoissyCDG (France) and every day I hear Concorde taking-off at 11h20: it's a good way to know what time it is ;-)
Markus From United States of America, joined May 1999, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (16 years 3 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 1001 times:
L-188 hit the nail on the head. What is going on seems to be a round-about way of getting more Airbus purchases. European operators can use their hushkitted aircraft, but after the ban sets in, they will not be allowed to change airlines. If this happens they will be grounded...unless of course they are sold to US customers.
Also, there is some discrepency over what qualifies as Stage-3 compliant. It seems that aircraft that are meeting the requirement here in the States are now not meeting them in Europe. This is really ticking off some Senators and Reps. Especially, Fritz Hollings (SC) who is introducing one of the Bills to ban the Concorde. IMHO, many European airlines are 'pressured' by their respective governmental bodies to purchase Airbus aircraft in an attempt to keep things 'home grown'. If your small country produced parts for Airbus planes, wouldn't it make sense for the government of that country to 'encourage' the national airline to buy the planes. It makes sense to me. It is purely economic. Air France, BA, Lufthansa, Austrian, Aer Lingus all have orders or newly purchased Airbus aircraft and no large orders for Boeings. The recent BA war especially sticks out in my mind. The narrow-body war far out-weighs the 777 vs. A340 skirmish.
I say, BAN THE CONCORDE!! and if that doesn't work...try something else. Airlines should purchase planes based on performance, not National pressure (or pride).