GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13492 posts, RR: 76
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1912 times:
Well Sept 11th certainly damaged the return to flight programme, only 5 aircraft modified, we lost a load of staff, internal BA politics really but those doing it could claim they were doing their bit to reduce costs in the very bad environment for business since Sept 11th, which they were not as the mods for all 7 had been paid for and staff were transferred elsewhere in engineering.
But it inhibited the ability for BA to provide more flights once the retirement was announced, so instead of making £5 million a week in the last few months, we could well have doubled that as demand was huge, easily have done double dailies as well as more charters.
However, dozens of Concorde customers were lost in the WTC, some of these would book other staff on Concorde as well as traveling on it themselves, and the general downturn would have been serious in itself, as it was until the retirement was announced.
AF had little choice but to retire, after things went very wrong for them both commercially and technically in Feb/March.
A bigger, more robust BA operation could well have been prepared to pay for extra support from Airbus, to April or maybe October 2004, even allowing for the work Airbus piled on us, to try to get us to stop at the same time as AF.
But with AF no longer operating Concorde, the end for BA was inevitable.
That's always been the case too, if one operator dropped out it would become unsustainable for the other eventually.