JUcomair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (14 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2129 times:
I was reading the posts about the Air France/Continental deal and someone put that the SST will never fly again, however, I just saw on the news that they were supposed to enter scheduled service again sometime in the next month or two, I was quite glad and am sure I did not hear wrong....anyone else to confirm this?
ContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (14 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1995 times:
The Concorde probably won't be back in the air. The crash (and several prior
incidents) indicate a structural/design flaw related to the tires and possibly to
the fact that the engines are too close together.
Regardless of the fact that a metal strip from a Continental DC10-30 set off
a chain of events that caused the crash or not, the problem rests with the
design of the plane.
At 30 years and counting, it would be too expensive to modify a fleet of 11
Ilyushin96M From United States of America, joined exactly 16 years ago today! , 2609 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (14 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1974 times:
The grounding of the Concorde is as temporary as the grounding of DC-10s was due to faulty cargo doors and then the investigation after the crash of AA191 in Chicago. We can expect to see Concorde plying the airways high above 747s and 777s for the next 10 years, to be sure.
What remains to be done is that AF must modify the water deflectors as BA did, and sheilding must be added in the fuel tank areas underneath. Also, I am fairly certain new tyres should be and will be developed for the aircraft.
It's silly to say Concorde will never fly again; there is a demand for it, to the extent that BA at least will put its Concordes back online in the next month, so the rumours go. AF will have to do more work on its fleet, but I would think they will follow BA in putting Concorde back in service soon.
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9632 posts, RR: 42
Reply 6, posted (14 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1947 times:
> "At 30 years and counting, it would be too expensive to modify a fleet of 11 planes"
So, how much would it cost? I suspect none of us here has the slightest idea but also consider this: how much is Concorde worth to BA, for example, in terms of profit and prestige with potentially another 15 years in service?
PhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (14 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1933 times:
ContinentalEWR is just another purveyor of myths.
Tyres are not a structural item, they a short life, replaceable item and can be re-designed.
The proximity of the engines is a debateable point and there is no evidence, either in the July accident or previously, of FOD or blade failure damage in one having an effect on the other.
The structural problem with the fuel tanks/system is a valid point but there are ways and means to overcome this (the viability of which will be a subject of a close review prior to any decision on a relaunch).
Both Air France and BA face the same problem here, plus Air France will have to change its tyre spec and fit the deflectors BA fitted years ago.
As I have posted before, BA make an operating profit with the aircraft, it is their flagship (God knows they need one )and the lead aircraft is 26, not 30 years old with around 23,000 hours out of a currently projected 40,000. (How many times do I have to post that hours and cycles count, years DON'T).
It would be interesting to transport all the Concorde bashers back 45 years to the time when another high profile, extemely luxurious, aircraft kept falling out of the sky.
No, not the Comet, but the Stratocruiser which had many incidents, accidents and fatalities due to runaway engines, hollow bladed props and nightmare engineering intracacies which make Concorde look like an easy fix.
As the flagship for Pan American, Northwest Orient, United and BOAC, every effort was made to keep the aircraft flying.
Indeed advertising of its beds, lounge and roominess saw intensification after each incident and the aircraft, whilst high profile in the public mind (in the UK, the aircraft of choice for Royal trips was a Stratocruiser - always BOAC's "Canopus"), was never seriously "hammered" in the press.
No doubt, as a Boeing product, it would garner support from today's Concorde bashers
AFa340-300E From France, joined May 1999, 2084 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (14 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1915 times:
Air France and British Airways, along with the aircraft manufacturers are working to get back to operations as soon as possible.
So far, nothing unachievable. The only hurdle would be the price of the modifications to be made.
Roughly these modifications concern the tyre (in this regard radial tyres are better than those Gooyear provided because they don't explose so dangerously, but other specific design studies would be undertaken), and the protection of the fuel tanks with kevlar.
Starship From South Africa, joined Nov 1999, 1098 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (14 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1902 times:
All I can say is I get bloody irked by the forum members who think they know it all. Why don't they take the time to read what the airlines themselves have to say. This report might be six weeks old, but it is the most recent press release by British Airways on the issue. Of course the Concorde will fly again.
August 16, 2000
Concorde: Aiming to resume services
British Airways today confirmed it will urgently be seeking meetings with Concorde’s manufacturers and the airworthiness authorities to help develop measures to enable the aircraft to resume operations as soon as possible.
Following the Air France tragedy three weeks ago, the airline had already implemented an extensive series of additional procedures and checks on the aircraft’s airframe, engines, tyres and wheels, hydraulics and other systems and operating procedures, above and beyond Concorde’s already demanding schedule of maintenance , inspections and operating parameters.
British Airways took the unprecedented step of suspending its supersonic passenger services yesterday morning as soon as it became aware that the regulatory authorities had new information, detailed this morning.
Mike Street, British Airways’ Director of Customer Services and Operations, said: "We have kept in constant contact with the British and French regulators, the manufacturers and Air France throughout, and this will continue into the future, as we work together to access what measures are needed to enable Concorde to fly again.
"British Airways first concern is always safety. We will only resume Concorde operations when we and the airworthiness authorities are completely satisfied that all necessary safety measures have been taken in the light of all latest information."
The airline has at this stage cancelled all Concorde services until early September, but will be able to resume operations at 24 hours’ notice should clearance be given ahead of then.
It is contacting all passengers booked on Concorde’s scheduled services until then and offering them travel on the airline’s subsonic flights, and looking to put additional capacity between London and New York.
The airline is also examining the feasibility of bringing forward fitting the planned new Concorde cabin interiors while the aircraft are on the ground. The new seats, bathrooms, interiors, tableware, are part of a £14 million package of improvements to the airline’s supersonic services originally scheduled for installation early next year.
JUcomair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (14 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1862 times:
The news source...gosh I'm trying to remember..I'm in jacksonville, and I think it was just the local news basically giving the city the highlights on a nation-wide story from the wires.
Think about it..for 30 years the planes operated without such a serious incident....30 years back and forth...30 years up and down those runways....it is quite hypocratical to say, whooops....its not safe, the engines are too close all due to one incident..though it is true that it costed lives. If this is the problem, why not make a mandatory sweep before every departure? Simple solution...works to the benefit of other aircraft as well.
The 737 has had a possible rudder problem for years now...2 rolled out of the sky...however they were never completely grounded...and I never heard anyone say that they would never fly again until new rudders were put in..only now, years after has boeing introduced a COMPLETELY new design for the aircraft.
I am pretty confident that the concorde will once again fly, in the very short future.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 12021 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (14 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1836 times:
No, think about this. A very similar incident happened at Dulles in the late 70's iirc. That plane made it back with undercarriage damage, and fuel tank damage.
The difference between the 737 and the Concorde is that the Concorde numbers about 10, while the 737 numbers about 4000. The Concorde logs a total of 3 or 4 flights a day, while the the 737 logs many thousand. In 30 years, the 737 has proven itself to be an incredibly safe jet, while the Concorde in 30 years has proven differently. Do you realize that the Concorde has the highest rate of US-certified commercial jets? The next closest (the MD11) has about a 3rd as many, and the next closest (the DC10) has about a sixth as many.
The reason it is my belief that the Concorde will never fly again is simple. Engineering corrections necessary to make the plane safe would not be cheap. nor would they be light. So, not only does the actual repair get cost the airline a lot, but the operation of the jet after the repair would be more costly as well. These jets are nearing the end of their service life, and I think it will be determined that these costs are greater than the airlines will afford for a soon-to-be-retired airliner.
Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
Gordonroxburgh From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2000, 550 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (14 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1802 times:
We will see them all in the air before not too long. I
understand the engineering teams have some good ideas: such as new impoved tyres that do not bust into big chunks (BA think their tyres could be at this standard already as they we modifuyed after busts in the lat 80's) and also some sort of kevlar (lightweight) that can be put under the wings to give additional sheilding. The underside of the wings are not too critical as it is the upper part of the wing that provides the lift. Weight is not a massive problem as Bristish Airways are about to fit new cabin interiors that are around a tonne lighter , this was to be used as a fuel saving measure but I somehow suspect that they would nto mind this being used to get the fleet back in the air.
The worst case is that the are retired from regular passenger service but they are still used in they flagship roles of both airlines eg carrying sports teams, politicians , fly pasts etc...
We will see the aircraft in the air again but doing what...we will have to wait to see?
Greggj From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (14 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1794 times:
Not everyone is a huge fan of Concorde.
There is not much prestige in having the flagship of your fleet go down in flames. Those images will be burned in the eyes of the travelling public for a long time. The fact that so much spectacular video was taken does not help it's case....
I don't think BA or AF will press them back into service any time soon. At least I hope not.
PhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (14 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1767 times:
Why do people on these threads INSIST on talking about the age of aircraft in YEARS.
IT IS IRRELAVENT. Hours and, for a pressurised aircraft, rotations or cycles are what count.
For the record (again) the lead Concorde has 23,000 or so hours out completed out ofa projected 40,000, so is just over half life.
Whether it will be economic to carry out any major structural enhancements remains a decision for the boards of AF and BA, once a fix has been approved by the regulatory authorities and the engineers have costed the work.
As for public perception, did any other accident that killed pax ever cause more than a blip in bookings?
Did you ever see the shots of the PSA 727 at San Diego or the Pan Am/KLM crash at Teneriffe? Didn't do much for the confidence of travellers in pilots' ability to look out and communicate but it didn't harm the airlines much.
There are hundreds of people in Europe who can't wait to take up their plans to fly on the Concorde Experience 1-2 hour flights and who will be sorely disappointed if they can't
Mr.747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (14 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1758 times:
yes i wanna see this aircraft back in air as soon as possible! because as far as im concerned its not the aircraft! its fob on runway that caued this accident!...and other thing that i dont understand why air france is suing continantal for this accident! coz it could have been one of their aircrafts lined up for takeoff in front on concorde!nn and since concorde is such a sensitive aircraft so where was the runway cleaning crew!!! before this aircrafts departure!!!
as i work on yyz ramp i always see airport group vehicles running on runways after surtain number of flights to see for fobs!!!!.....