Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?  
User currently offlineYULspotter From Canada, joined Mar 2006, 150 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9009 times:

I saw a picture today of a Concorde which reminded me that we will never see one of these beautiful birds take to the skies again.

That got me thinking that it's truly sad that the entire fleet of Concordes have been retired and that not even one of these legendary aircraft was kept flying. After all, there are many examples of vintage commercial & military aircraft that are flying today.

It would have been nice if an aircraft preservation group had decided to purchase one of the retired aircraft and kept it flying. It could have toured the world visiting airshows and special events reminding people what it feels like to see and ride in the Concorde. Perhaps money earned from these events could have been used to fund the maintenance of the aircraft.

However, the Concorde's reputation as a noisy fuel guzzler as well as its complex design would make this idea unattractive to potential invenstors. However, despite it's short comings, isn't there at a spot left in the aviation world for one flying Concorde?

Thanks for reading ... just had to get this off my chest ... interested in hearing anyone else's thoughts on this.

YULspotter


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Magnus Trippler



53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBeeweel15 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8921 times:

Check this site out http://www.save-concorde.co.uk/ . I will be making a donation soon to get that magnificent bird back in the sky. I think it is quite unfair that all those birds from WW2 which represent death and destruction, regardless who won or lost, can survive to fly in the big blue skies of the 21st Century and an aircraft that not only represents progress, cooperation and modern technology but is an icon of European Aviation be grounded.

User currently offlinePiercey From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 2233 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8895 times:

Well, there is that rumor that a BA one will be restored for something to do with London 2012, don't know what happened with that, though.


Well I believe it all is coming to an end. Oh well, I guess we are gonna pretend.
User currently offlineCumulus From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1402 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8737 times:

Quoting Beeweel15 (Reply 1):
think it is quite unfair that all those birds from WW2 which represent death and destruction, regardless who won or lost, can survive to fly in the big blue skies of the 21st Century and an aircraft that not only represents progress, cooperation and modern technology but is an icon of European Aviation be grounded.

I never thought of it like that, and you're absolutely correct!

I want to kiss you (doesn't matter if you're male or female!!!)  kiss 



What Goes Up Must Come Down, Hopefully In One Piece!
User currently offlineCxsjr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8709 times:

Quoting YULspotter (Thread starter):
Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

.... because BA are miserable and couldn't stand the thought that VS might get their hands on it and use it to win over previous BA Concorde customers who now likely use BA first class!


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8142 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8623 times:

The cost is simply prohibitive. You can't compare a Concorde to a Spitfire or even a B-17. BA are a business to make money, not fritter away their shareholders' dividends on nostalgia.

And this whole Branson thing is a complete nonsense. The C of A was pulled, that's why BA stopped flying. They didn't want to ground the planes, they were making £150,000 profit PER FLIGHT with every seat filled. If it had been possible for Branson to keep em flying, BA would have been able to keep em flying, and would have.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8601 times:

Quoting Cxsjr (Reply 4):
.... because BA are miserable and couldn't stand the thought that VS might get their hands on it and use it to win over previous BA Concorde customers who now likely use BA first class!

Nothing could be further from the truth. First BA was not “miserable” and they were forced to terminate Concorde services when Airbus withdrew their maintenance support for the Concorde fleet and Concorde’s CoA was withdrawn in some countries. During Concorde’s grounding following the AF crash, BA spent millions refurbishing their Concorde fleet with new interiors as well as carrying out the compulsory safety enhancements to avoid any repetition of the tragedy at CDG. BA was obviously hoping to get far more usage from their Concorde services, otherwise they would hardly have made the massive investment.

Branson’s attempt to continue Concorde’s services was nothing more than a self-publicity stunt. For starters, he insisted that BA sells their Concordes to him at the same price that BA acquired them – a nominal GBP 1 each. Even if he had acquired the fleet, how the blazes did he intend to operate them without the manufacturer’s support and maintenance, and without the Concorde pilots, engineers, and technicians? Was he intending to employ the Airbus Technical team etc? Was he prepared to offer the pilots and crews the same salaries that they earned at BA? If he could not get the BA Concorde fleet, why did he not try to buy the AF fleet? Far from being Concorde’s “saviour”, Branson prolonged Concorde’s death for his own selfish and glory-seeking goals, and this is something that I will never forgive him for.

Without the manufacturer’s support, Concorde was doomed. Without the CoA, the lid on the coffin was sealed. There was nothing that Branson could do or was willing to do to give some credence to his plans to acquire and continue Concorde services.

[Edited 2006-09-15 12:10:15]


MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineShamrock_747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8498 times:

Quoting Beeweel15 (Reply 1):
Check this site out http://www.save-concorde.co.uk/ . I will be making a donation soon to get that magnificent bird back in the sky.

I'd think twice before giving money to a group who after nearly 3 years of taking donations and 'raising support' still haven't enlightened us as to how they actually intend to get a Concorde airworthy.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8489 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 5):
The C of A was pulled, that's why BA stopped flying.

With the Certificate of Airworthiness pulled, you're not going to be able to get one flying, even if you don't intend to use it commercially. And as has been said in other parts of this thread, the cost of refurbishing and operating the airplane (just to run the airshow circuit?) would be well above a realistic level. Frankly, I'm thankful the planes made it to museums. Too many airplanes have been scrapped instead, both military and commercial. Witness the XB-52, YB-60 and some others.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days ago) and read 8344 times:

Quoting Beeweel15 (Reply 1):
Check this site out http://www.save-concorde.co.uk/ . I will be making a donation soon to get that magnificent bird back in the sky. I think it is quite unfair that all those birds from WW2 which represent death and destruction, regardless who won or lost, can survive to fly in the big blue skies of the 21st Century and an aircraft that not only represents progress, cooperation and modern technology but is an icon of European Aviation be grounded.

Are you serious, or just fishing?  Confused

There's nothing unfair about it. Most people see WW2 as a noble struggle against Fascism, and the relics of that struggle are rightly honored. They are a remembrance of the people who fought, not of death and destruction. You've got it totally wrong. Would you propose bulldozing all war memorials? I think not.

Preservation of piston-engine aircraft, WW2 or others, is relatively easier and cheaper than trying to preserve something like Concorde. I emphasize "relatively" because it is still damned expensive. Given that, you will find that the costs to fly a Concorde, even if restored to flyable condition, will make it unsustainable. It's a sad fact - consider carefully before contributing your money.



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineLeezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4042 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8339 times:

Please please do a search on this. This topic has been thrashed to death hundreds of times since 2003 !!!.

Do a search for posts by GDB. He is A.net's resident Concorde expert, and to save him having to type the reasons why one will never fly again.

 Smile



"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
User currently offlineCVGpilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 588 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7834 times:

Quoting Leezyjet (Reply 10):
Please please do a search on this. This topic has been thrashed to death hundreds of times since 2003 !!!.

- Who cares? Anyways, the 2012 rumor is I was told as well, while I was living in Germany about a year or so ago...  airplane 



Globally Yours
User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7801 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 8):

With the Certificate of Airworthiness pulled

Wait, what? I didn't know the CoA had been pulled!!! Why?! Because of one crash? If they pulled the CoA of every plane that had one fatal accident the only planes we'd have left would be the 777 and 340 series!

Or is there another reason (none of which I could think would be rational ones!).

Such a shame for this unbelievable aircraft.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineSwissy From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1734 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7682 times:

It would be nice to get at least one going for show only however the cost would be ...... nearly out of reach, she was and still is the "Queen" of the sky and she will always have her place in history.

Cheers,


User currently offlineJetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1650 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7433 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The crash had nothing to do with the CoA being pulled.

The agreement with Airbus to keep Concorde flying was both airlines had to keep them in service. While BA was making money on their fleet, AF was losing money and it was AF’s decision to remove their Concorde’s from service. Once this happened then Airbus terminated its support of the Concorde fleet as per agreement and BA had no choice but to ground theirs. Airbus was not going to support BA’s small fleet and BA could not afford to support their Concorde fleet by themselves.

It was just economics that grounded the Concorde fleet. And remember the cost of fuel was lower when the Concorde fleet was withdrawn from service, with today’s fuel prices I highly doubt that BA would have made money with the Concorde if it where still in service.


User currently offlineMirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7444 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7395 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

GDB is indeed the expert. Find his previous thoughts on this exact subject in the archived section.

Quoting Cxsjr (Reply 4):
because BA are miserable and couldn't stand the thought that VS might get their hands on it

100% inaccurate.

Quoting BCAL (Reply 6):

Nothing could be further from the truth. First BA was not “miserable” and they were forced to terminate Concorde services when Airbus withdrew their maintenance support for the Concorde fleet

Yes. Here is my lay understanding of the situation:

A. Airbus did the maintenence on all of the Concordes owned by AF and BA.

B. AF decided that it would no longer fly Concorde.

therefore,

C. since Airbus could not afford to maintain the small fleet of BA's Concordes, this now meant that BA had no choice but to be forced to cease their Concorde service as well.

D. AF had its final flight of Concorde without any fanfare whereas with BA, it was a complete celebration of years of service.

Quoting BCAL (Reply 6):
BA spent millions refurbishing their Concorde fleet with new interiors

Yes. How lucky am I to have the spoils of excess!

Quoting BCAL (Reply 6):
nothing that Branson could do

Unfortunately unless Branson bought the maintenence to go along with owning Concorde techology, yes, its was just the usual Branson media flush.



Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6474 times:

Quoting Leezyjet (Reply 10):
Do a search for posts by GDB. He is A.net's resident Concorde expert, and to save him having to type the reasons why one will never fly again.



Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 15):
GDB is indeed the expert. Find his previous thoughts on this exact subject in the archived section.

More specifically, he knows what it took to keep Concorde flying... because that was his job for several years.

Quoting Beeweel15 (Reply 1):
Check this site out http://www.save-concorde.co.uk/ . I will be making a donation soon to get that magnificent bird back in the sky.

As recommended above, don't waste your money. If you feel you absolutely have to contribute, make damn sure it's returnable.

It "ain't gonna happen".  Sad


User currently offlineFlyboy14295 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6324 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 18):
Quoting BOE773 (Reply 17):
THE Concord was the world's worst and most expensive failure as an airliner.

There speaks an expert. sarcastic

Indeed. You can have your own opinions but what you said is asking for a flame war.



Greetings from New York. "Take It to the limit." -Eagles
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6283 times:

Quoting Flyboy14295 (Reply 19):
You can have your own opinions but what you said is asking for a flame war.

OK, let me rephrase that.  Smile

I feel sorry for aviation enthusiasts who consider the world's most successful supersonic airliner to be a failure. As for the expense, BA paid much for Concorde than a lot of people think and they earned much more from it than a lot of people think, too.

Read the recommended threads.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13258 posts, RR: 100
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6252 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 5):
The cost is simply prohibitive. You can't compare a Concorde to a Spitfire or even a B-17. BA are a business to make money, not fritter away their shareholders' dividends on nostalgia.

And this whole Branson thing is a complete nonsense. The C of A was pulled, that's why BA stopped flying. They didn't want to ground the planes, they were making £150,000 profit PER FLIGHT with every seat filled. If it had been possible for Branson to keep em flying, BA would have been able to keep em flying, and would have.



Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 12):
Wait, what? I didn't know the CoA had been pulled!!! Why?! Because of one crash? If they pulled the CoA of every plane that had one fatal accident the only planes we'd have left would be the 777 and 340 series!

It costs money to keep a CoA current. Pretty big money.

Now, part of my opinion is that Airbus pulled the CoA as for the Concorde it was rather expensive to maintain it (for Airbus). Why?
1. Tiny fleet, not exactly a huge spare parts market (the long term biggest money maker of Airbus and Boeing)
2. Lots of problems (statistically, the concorde had a high number of non-reportable incidents per "1000 flights"). Partially, there just weren't enough flights to get through the debugging that usually goes on during year 1 and 2 of a mass produced airframes life.
3. Not many people *knew* the airframe. (Part of item #1).

As to keeping one flying, man that would be expensive...
To rebuild a P-51 mustang (or a Spitfire, whatever)... usually an ex-head mechanic *donates* his time for the rebuild one with a small team. Remember, a P-51 was simple enough that one mechanic could, over years of experience, know how to tune/fix/maintain the *entire* plane without consulting a manual.

I want to shake the hand of the person who knows how the tune/fix/maintain the *entire* concorde without consulting paper. Heck, I want to hire that person.

My best SWAG is it would cost $2 million to $3 million a year to keep a Concorde safe to fly *without flying it* that was already in mint condition. Its going to be one heck of a charity to keep one in flying shape.

Who made the tires for the Concorde? How long would they stay in airworthy condition? Remember, the thing took off 100 mph faster than a normal airliner and thus standard tires couldn't take that duty...

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6164 times:

Quoting BOE773 (Reply 17):
THE Concord was the world's worst and most expensive failure as an airliner.
Let the ugly old beast RIP.

That would be the Mercure. BA made pleanty of money with Concorde.


User currently offlineEGTESkyGod From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1712 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6080 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Cxsjr (Reply 4):
.... because BA are miserable and couldn't stand the thought that VS might get their hands on it and use it to win over previous BA Concorde customers who now likely use BA first class!

See reasons above why that is how Penn and Teller would say.... bullshit.

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 5):
And this whole Branson thing is a complete nonsense. The C of A was pulled, that's why BA stopped flying. They didn't want to ground the planes, they were making £150,000 profit PER FLIGHT with every seat filled. If it had been possible for Branson to keep em flying, BA would have been able to keep em flying, and would have.

Absolutely correct.

Quoting BCAL (Reply 6):
Branson’s attempt to continue Concorde’s services was nothing more than a self-publicity stunt. For starters, he insisted that BA sells their Concordes to him at the same price that BA acquired them – a nominal GBP 1 each

While the point of your post is true, the price isn't. BA, contrary to popular belief, did NOT purchase each Concorde for £1, they purchased 5 Concordes for a price that, at the time was about 20% more than a 747....EACH. Then when BAC/Aerospatiale had 2 British built Concordes they hadn't sold, they offered them to BA for the nominal price of £1. THATS where the myth comes from.

Quoting Shamrock_747 (Reply 7):
I'd think twice before giving money to a group who after nearly 3 years of taking donations and 'raising support' still haven't enlightened us as to how they actually intend to get a Concorde airworthy.

Quite. I'm a member of the group forum and many of us are getting extremely frustrated that nothing has been published in the way of a plan of action, and my own personal opinion is that if they wanted to "Save Concorde" then the money they do have (which I don't know how much they do, but I can guess...) should be used to get each Concorde inside, into protected buildings. It makes me livid that of all the BA Concordes in museums, the only one inside is G-BOAA, which hasn't flown since August 2000, and wasn't modified after the Paris accident.

Quoting CVGpilot (Reply 11):
- Who cares? Anyways, the 2012 rumor is I was told as well, while I was living in Germany about a year or so ago...

2012 Olympic flight is something that Save Concorde Group dreamt up as a "Goal" to reach for the Return To Flight project.

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 12):
Wait, what? I didn't know the CoA had been pulled!!! Why?! Because of one crash? If they pulled the CoA of every plane that had one fatal accident the only planes we'd have left would be the 777 and 340 series!

As mentioned above, the CofA wasn't pulled because of the accident, in fact because of the modifications after the accident, that's why Concorde got the CofA back!! The CofA was taken away for the last time because, as mentioned above, AF wanted to pull out, and Airbus didn't want to support a single airlines small fleet of Concorde aircraft.

Quoting BOE773 (Reply 17):
THE Concord was the world's worst and most expensive failure as an airliner.
Let the ugly old beast RIP.

Ohhhhh, dear. Right then....... First of all, there is no "The" before Concorde. Second of all, Concorde has an "E" on the end, "Concorde", and thirdly, having read some of your previous threads, I have seen that all you do is everything you can to badmouth ANYTHING to do with Great Britain. It seems Concorde is something else for you to bitch about.

As for the failure comment........ I don't call 27 years of profit making airline service a failure, how can you? If Air Canada had gone through with their options to buy Concorde, and they made money just as AF and BA did, I don't think you'd be bitching now. Word of advice, either do some research, or think before you write such uninformed drivel.

Rant over.....



I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
User currently offlineSwissy From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1734 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6054 times:

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 15):
C. since Airbus could not afford to maintain the small fleet of BA's Concordes, this now meant that BA had no choice but to be forced to cease their Concorde service as well.

That was quite the show.. saw her in YYZ and half of the airport stoped working Big grin including me  Wink

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 15):
Unfortunately unless Branson bought the maintenence to go along with owning Concorde techology, yes, its was just the usual Branson media flush.

You are right 100% don't we all know RB....

Cheers,


User currently offlineBOE773 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6006 times:

Relax fellas, I'm just buggin the heck out of ya.

Concorde was the most beautiful craft that ever went aloft, bar none.

It's interesting as I was reading some stats about the Olympus 593s.

The TSFC of each pony was 38,000 lbs of thrust with the ABs flashed up.
At a cruise alt of flt level 53, each engine pumped 10,030 lbs. I was expecting it to be a bit more than that.
The TSFC was kinda hi at 1.190 lb/lbf hr, but I suppose that was good with reheat on. OPR at take-off was 11.3 with an airflow of 410 lbs/sec.

Source for this comes from, 'The Engine Handbook' out of Wright Patt. AFB
which came from the Mfg; RR.


User currently offline727200er From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5989 times:

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 23):
As for the failure comment........ I don't call 27 years of profit making airline service a failure, how can you? If Air Canada had gone through with their options to buy Concorde, and they made money just as AF and BA did, I don't think you'd be bitching now. Word of advice, either do some research, or think before you write such uninformed drivel.

Had Air Canada actually purchased any, believe me they would have found a way to lose money on them, and would probably have sold them all to BA for $1



"they who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only at night" - Edgar Allen Poe
25 Post contains images David L : Well done, that man. I just couldn't be bothered this time - must try harder. Acclimatised to being upside down yet? I'll take your word for it. No a
26 EGTESkyGod : I love Sydney!! It's awesome!! In fact, I've just got back from spotting all day at SYD with glennstewart, hopefully got some pics to upload soon!! A
27 VC-10 : The respective airlines carried out the maintenance. Airbus supplied engineering support. The people who issue C of A's are the airworthiness authori
28 Post contains images UAL777UK : Well said!
29 Cumulus : Anyone got a phone number for the Sultan Of Brunei?? He likes planes!!!
30 RichardPrice : I wouldnt bother, they are delusional. Neither BA or AF are selling, so its unlikely anyone will get the aircraft flying without the airlines approva
31 Mirrodie : Congrats! Glenn and I did the same a few months ago! But did you see the city as well? THanks for the clarification VC-10. I had a pretty good unders
32 EGTESkyGod : I'm staying in Sydney til April, I'm out here to play cricket but I'm getting some time at the airport. Glenn has given me the tour, and it's great!!
33 Post contains images Wrighbrothers : If I remember correctly, I think I heard on the news once, that an AF Concorde had been kept in airworthy condition, as they wanted one to fly by at t
34 Swissy : Isn't she back in the sky??? with NASA??? for testing??? Cheers,
35 EGTESkyGod : F-BVFC at Toulouse was kept "airworthy" and was used for some sort of tests for the ongoing investigation of the Paris crash, she was decommissioned
36 RichardPrice : That program is well over and done with, it was cancelled in 1999. People are campaigning to restore the TU-144 used by NASA to flight status again f
37 BCAL : Concorde G-BOAC at Manchester AVP is in mint condition, albeit unable to fly. They do tours on selected days, normally for a maximum of 10 persons ea
38 Lightsaber : Porbably no one. They're probably haven't hit a maintenance check interval excluding oil and minor items. I probably quoted too literally. When doing
39 RichardPrice : BA still have a maintenance budget for their fleet.
40 MCOflyer : The concorde is still a magnificent aircraft. Hopefully one day she will grace the skies again. MCOflyer
41 EGTESkyGod : Actually of those 18, only 14 are production spec Concordes, and of those, only 9 were modified after the crash, and ALL of them have been decomissio
42 Post contains images Swissy : Thanks RP, I should cut back my Beck's consume..... what day is it?? Cheers,
43 VV701 : Please let's put all this silliness about Concorde, VS and SRB to bed. Silliness? Yes. Take £8000 (the approx Concorde return fare LHR-JFK). Multipl
44 EGTESkyGod : Absolutely correct, couldnt have said it better.
45 GDB : Firstly, while I fully understand why many (except that troll above who knows NOTHING of this industry, on here ), desire to see a Concorde fly again,
46 Babybus : From what I see BA had to drop Concorde as business travel was drying up anyway. I doubt many company shareholders would be sympathetic to the account
47 Silverfox : GDB, Wasn't there a hidden agenda in the quick retirement, between AF and Airbus ,that if AF bought a shedload of their planes, 'in exchange' for the
48 EGTESkyGod : There are no Vulcans flying at the moment, although hopefully one is imminent. And as for plans for Concorde, as was stated above, BA looked into it
49 GDB : No Comets flying either. There were no conspiracies around Concorde retirement. Just a bunch of events coming too fast together. Losing a year of reve
50 Cumulus : Michael Jackson was black????? NO!!!!!!!!!!
51 Lehpron : What would it be used for? Even retired products have a market, people have to buy a seat or ticket to look at it or fly in it. Where would it go wit
52 Fbgdavidson : Although do the maths regarding the hours saved over subsonic travel against the fare difference between First Class/Business Class and you'll see th
53 David L : I made four trips, only one of which was a charter, and I didn't pay anything like the full fare for any of the other three. There were plenty of spe
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
One World: Why Not AA/BA Transatlantic Mileage posted Wed Jul 26 2006 17:43:46 by Eastern023
BOM: Why Not One Airport? posted Thu Jun 5 2003 21:20:51 by Pe@rson
Concorde, Why Not Australia? posted Wed Mar 22 2000 11:30:55 by Airbus60
Why Not Many BA To S. America posted Thu Nov 23 2006 14:29:14 by Amirs
British Airways @ Heathrow T3 Why Not Also At T2? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 13:52:08 by 8herveg
Why NOT -- AA To GEO And PMB? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 01:34:08 by AJMIA
LGW -why Not A Tunnel To Pier 2, North Terminal posted Tue Oct 24 2006 15:22:31 by TimRees
Why A340 - Why Not A330 If Less Fuel Consumption? posted Thu Oct 5 2006 17:50:31 by LordHowe
Fuel's Expensive...why Not Use Tugs? posted Fri Sep 29 2006 02:25:53 by ATCGOD
JetBlue San-Iad, Why Not San-Bos? posted Wed Sep 27 2006 07:22:07 by Hockey55dude