UAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3946 times:
Oh wouldn't it be great to say its been moved because they have decided tp display her somewhere at T5. Alas, I suspect its simply been moved as it was obstructing maintenance where she was parked or something like that.
Lapper From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 1553 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3853 times:
I fear you may be right. Looking at the old position, it did look difficult to move the SA 744 that was parked up for the day when the time came to move back to the get, but that may have been deceiving from the road.
Gordonroxburgh From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2000, 550 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3285 times:
The mags were used as ballast in 2002, when she had engines in. The engines are long gone, but unsurprisingly BA could not find volunteers to take the mags out, so they are still there serving no purpose whatsoever. Concorde cofG problem went away as soon as one engine was removed, otherwise you wanted to have 3T forward ballast, usually fuel in the forward trim tanks.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21383 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2763 times:
Quoting Gordonroxburgh (Reply 3): As for T5; BA would like for her to be displayed down that side of the airfield, but until the facility opens and is operational they will not know where best to display her.
The best place would have been inside a large entry hall. How sweet would that be? She's not really that large, so it was doable. Seeing the AF Concorde at CDG it was surprising how small she was up close, even after being inside one at the German museum (forgot which one, but they have the Concord-ski there too).
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Jas161 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2007, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2447 times:
I agree, the Concorde shouldn't keep being move however sometimes it may have to be and it is something we have to face.
Also just for the record it wasn't just BA's fault for taking Concorde out of service. People could argue that is was Airbus' fault as they decided to take it out because Concorde needed updating (don't ask me what needed updating, I don't know!). It was Airbus' fault because they were the people who maintained Concorde. However Air France and BA had been experiencing low passenger numbers on Concorde Flights due to the Paris crash. So it was forced into early retirement because of those two factors and others possibly it is just that these are the ones I've heard of !
I personally would've given anything to go on Concorde or even just to see her fly.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13034 posts, RR: 78
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2347 times:
Our 'Aircraft Appearance Team' are rather more than just office cleaning ladies working on aircraft.
They are a dedicated team to maintain the external appearance of BA aircraft, using specialised equipment and materials.
I remember when Concorde was in service, they were always passionate about working on her.
EKSSkycargo370, maybe I'm biased (then again, I saw events at very close hand), but I do get riled at BA getting the blame for Concordes retirement.
A search on related threads here might inform you more, or a look at www.concordesst.com, but jas161 touched on some of the multiple reasons Concorde retired a bit early (trust me, if things had been different, it still almost certainly would had been gone by now, 2006/7 was always seen as likely-would BA still be the 'bad guy' then).
Why not do a bit of research or just searching, if not for BA's commitment to Concorde, it would have been retired by the mid 80's, or after the accident in 2000, BA really stuck their neck out there, without this there would not have been a mod programme to return to flight.
We pioneered charters which allowed many to fly on Concorde for a fraction of the scheduled service price, we invested very heavily in Concorde throughout it's long life (much longer than many thought in the early days).
But, Concorde had to pay it's way, adopting this posture was how it was saved over 20 years ago-( and if we'd have stopped, AF would have done too).
Another case of BA sticking it's neck out.
Sorry if this is a bit of a rant, nothing personal, but I feel sometimes that the hard work, dedication and passion of BA's Concorde people, (many having been with it since the start-many of them on Concorde before, building them at BAC), is forgotten, I don't expect anything from the general public given the standard of media reporting, but on a dedicated aviation site?
Anyway, go look around here and on the other site I mentioned, it's a fascinating, unlikely story.
Fruitbat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 548 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1799 times:
Quoting Jas161 (Reply 14): It was Airbus' fault because they were the people who maintained Concorde
As far as I remember Concorde was maintained by BA and AF Engineering - at least this was the case in the early '90's when I was lucky enough to spend 6 weeks working in TBB (now a car park) at BA Engineering's Heathrow base...
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.
Wrighbrothers From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1875 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1593 times:
Quoting Fruitbat (Reply 19): As far as I remember Concorde was maintained by BA and AF Engineering - at least this was the case in the early '90's when I was lucky enough to spend 6 weeks working in TBB (now a car park) at BA Engineering's Heathrow base...
BA Engineering did indeed maintain Concorde, however, it was Airbus that made most of the aircraft parts, and they pulled the plug, so BA really didn't have much of an option other than to retire them or let them go until they ran out of spares.
BA wasn't at fault, people seem to forget how much time money and effort BA invested in Concorde, it was one expensive plane, and to face the harsh truth, most of the people who want Concorde back in the air, couldn't afford to fly Concorde anyway, certainly not more than once in a life time and that is exactly the problem Concorde had in terms of dropping passenger numbers, at one point, Concordes were going out practically empty every day and you can't simply rely on lots of 'once in a life time' flyers, you need regulars, so, all in all, to face the truth, Concorde went out pretty gracefully. Nobody other than Richard Branson wanted to buy Concorde at the time, and they aren't getting any cheaper to re-start.
Anyway, back on topic, BA probably will give 'AB a good scrub down, and I'm pretty sure it'll go back to where it was once this building work they're doing is over, sad though, I wuld have liked to have seen Concorde at T5.
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13034 posts, RR: 78
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1540 times:
Fruitbat, glad you enjoyed your time in Concorde Tech, I was there from 1997 to the end, we must know a lot of the same people.
The airlines did indeed maintain their respective fleets, BA, with it's higher utilisation after 1982, had most 'issues' hit them first due to this.
(The first AF rudder de-lam was in early 2003, so that was around the time their fleet averaged the BA levels from 1989/90.)
This also meant that big ticket items like the first (and last as it turned out), Re-life effort of the mid 1990's, was a BA show, heavily supported by major vendors like BAe and Aerospatiale-as they were then.
We did indeed have fluctuating pax numbers in early 03, though very few BA ones went out nearly empty, but that was not the point, the fact of a massive draw-down in major customers buying annual travel from BA, was the issue.
These were largely in the premium area, that is why at the same time, BA dropped 1st class from half a dozen routes, you can live with that with a conventional airliner, not with the all first class Concorde.
Charters could not bridge this gap, since even at their (BA) peak-a few hundred a year, they only made up around 9-10% of revenue.
BA could have rode this out, and planned to do so, (the BA001 re-timing from April 03, planned the previous October), but then an extra $40 million in engineering costs over the next two years came out of the blue.
Most of it was not even totally Concorde related, just aging aircraft in general.
Add the costs of things like the FAA mandated secure cockpit doors, which unlike many airlines, BA had to pay for themselves. On a subsonic, the procurement and installation of each door cost around £30,000, each Concorde was more like $250,000 per airframe.
This disparity with procurement and general costs, between Concorde and the rest, was typical.
Even then, if AF wanted out (which they did), then BA's Concorde would be sunk too, since BA would then have to shoulder the whole costs, not share with AF.
Airbus were obliged to provide support if at least two airframes were flying.
Irrelevant if both airlines (or anyone else if such a thing would be allowed by the CAA-which it would not be), could not make money on Concorde.
So I don't blame Airbus either, they had to provide that extra package of work-mandated by the airworthiness authorities in conjunction with Airbus.
If you really have blame anyone, go with Bin Laden, Sept 11th derailed BA's planned re-launch, in terms of rate of aircraft return and getting to a full (twice daily each way), London-New York service, vital to sustain BA Concorde in the medium term.
Well, after that event, BA could not see a time when they could reasonably operate these extra BA003/BA004's in the foreseeable future.
But remember, we are talking about the late 2003 retirement, compared to the likely (had things been different), 2005-2007 period.
Talk about 2009 onwards, only was about airframe, not all the other issues, like avionics/systems, the sheer increasing costs and length in work as time goes on for routine work as well as what the market was doing.