HT1000 From French Polynesia, joined Jun 2005, 39 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12657 times:
Maybe an old topic but I wondered why did both AF and BA stop operating concorde shortly after they paid $$$$ for new certification program with new tyres ??
Just after the accident, wasn't it the right time to stop operating it although it was very prestigious for AF and BA ?
HT1000
Few Were Born With It. Even Fewer Know What To Do With It.
Bomber996 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 361 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12639 times:
The Concord became very costly to operate. Could you imagine operating an aircraft that uses more fuel on approach then it does while cruising at Mach 2.0 with today's oil prices? It just simply wasn't cost effective to operate anymore for BA and AF.
B2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1350 posts, RR: 60 Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12630 times:
To make a long story short, the lingering effects of the crash, escalating maintenance costs due to age, 9/11, and the recession made it unprofitable for AF to continue service. BA was still making money on Concorde in 2003, but without AF to split Airbus' support costs, it was forced to drop Concorde as well.
Srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 16888 posts, RR: 51 Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12606 times:
Airbus decided to quit supporting the a/c, which would have been quite expensive for BA and AF to keep flying without manufacturer support (While Airbus didn't build the Concorde, some of the companies involved with building it are part of the Airbus consortium.), as they would have had to fabricate parts and probably would have had to retire a few for spares as well.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6019 posts, RR: 55 Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 12554 times:
Alessandro is right.
Both the AF crash and probably also the escalating Iraq war removed the glamor of Concorde flights between Paris and New York resulting in extremely low load factors for AF. And AF therefore ended Concorde flights in May 2003.
With the total fleet cut in half Airbus refused to continue technical support of the aircraft which ignited the fuse for ending BA flights as well a few months later.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Carduelis From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2001, 1585 posts, RR: 11 Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 12520 times:
GDB
Where are you to relate, for the ten millionth time, the facts with regard to the withdrawal of Concorde?
HT1000
There must be thousands of threads on the subject. If you are REALLY interested in a definitive answer, just do a search for inputs from a very qualified BA Concorde engineer, Username GDB. Don't forget to look deeply into the archives as wel!
Read them, and digest them, then go away a far better educated person.
As usual, if this thread is not stopped we'll have yet another load of absolute waffle with over 100 replies, all based on hypothesis and dreams from the uninitiated.
Per Ardua ad Astra! ........ Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
Sponsor Message: 
From French Polynesia, joined Jun 2005, 39 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 361 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6019 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2001, 1585 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
