Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Return Of Concorde To The Skies...  
User currently offlineJenkingeorge From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2007, 34 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 30293 times:

Hi,
I was reading this earlier in a magazine...

A group founded by former pilots and executives have identified one which they claim could fly again within 3 years. The scheme is estimated to cost £10 - £15 million, of which, £1 million has been donated by Sir Richard Branson.
"Save Concorde" has the backing of some 30,000 supporters and is currently in talks with other major investors for the scheme.
The Concorde they claim that could fly again is at the French Air and Space Museum, Paris. ( F-BTSD I guess?) However, there is French bureaucracy that stands in their way.

http://www.save-concorde.co.uk/

I was trying to work out, whether after such a long period of time since the last one flew, is this a realistic idea???

-JenkinGeorge


I reject your reality and substitute my own!
218 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineOHLHD From Finland, joined Dec 2004, 3962 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 30266 times:

If this is true and people will be able to fly with it on sightseeing flights I will start saving some money!

User currently offlineKL911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5261 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 30222 times:

Quoting Jenkingeorge (Thread starter):
I was trying to work out, whether after such a long period of time since the last one flew, is this a realistic idea???

Well, guess it shouldn't be a problem. They could let this beauty fly again as well :



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Willem Honders






KL911


User currently offlineOHLHD From Finland, joined Dec 2004, 3962 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 30167 times:

Quoting KL911 (Reply 2):
Well, guess it shouldn't be a problem. They could let this beauty fly again as well :

Will it do flights for passengers? Air Show or sightseeing?  Smile


User currently offlineFlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7425 posts, RR: 57
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 30150 times:

Quoting Jenkingeorge (Thread starter):
However, there is French bureaucracy that stands in their way.

The French bureaucracy has no responsibility in the fact that Concorde will never fly again.
Since Concorde flights were ended almost four years ago, we can read here and there, every three months that a group of ...............* (choose what you want in the list below) want to bring back Concorde in the air.
It won't just happen.
Concorde is not a "simple" DC3. It's not a matter of "age".
However, It is true that the only 2 AF Concorde in "flyable" conditions are F-BTSD (stored at Le Bourget) and F-BVFC (stored at TLS by Airbus).




*
Pilots
Former pilots
Future pilots
R.Branson
Concorde supporters
Businessmen
Politicians


User currently offlineRsg85 From Australia, joined Aug 2006, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 30135 times:

That site looks preety inactive, forums havent seen much action
Cant see it going anywhere


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4065 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 30135 times:

Do a search in the Airliners.net forum archive - save-concorde.co.uk comes up often and has been discredited on many many many occasions by many experienced people.

Its a pipe dream, nothing more.


User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3308 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 29914 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Concorde has also lost its Airworthiness Certificate IIRC. Would this be an issue for a rehabilitation, or not?

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 offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 29877 times:

I think we should wait for GDB to get wind of this thread to find out the truth behind the hopes that Concorde will fly again/

User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10925 posts, RR: 37
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 29454 times:

I would rely on them:

http://www.clubconcorde.co.uk/

more than on SCG....

Seems that a Vulcan will be returning to flight.

About a Concorde going back to the air I will never say never.
Not soon though.... Sad



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 29190 times:

I tend to think of Concorde like Princess Diana: let the dead rest and keep the memories.

There's no bl**dy CofA anymore. The beast, beautiful as it was, required maintenance by
very specialised technicians -- as I'm sure GDB will underline once again in this thread at
some point.

Concorde, like it or not, may have been a one-time thing. The economic hurdles to a future
SST, as well as environmental ones, are simply put quite large. In a carbon-trading future,
could anyone realistically afford it ? An SST BJ, maybe. One that slinks along at M=1.4/1.6
or so. And only for a very select few -- which makes it less likely on a business-case basis.

Concorde ain't comin' back, except in your dreams.

Kind of like an old girl friend.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineJenkingeorge From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2007, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 29004 times:

Oh, pitty but I did wonder whether they would really get her going again.  Sad I just went off the fact that they are getting the Vulcan flying again so I thought that they would shurley be able to get Concorde up!?! But there are those of us who are optimists, and I am one, so I will always hope...

(and I have heard that they are hoping to get the Vulcan flying beofre '07 is out) Big grin

JG



I reject your reality and substitute my own!
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7034 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 28893 times:

Concorde's next flying mission will be transporting snowballs from Hell.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4065 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 28870 times:

Quoting Jenkingeorge (Reply 11):
I just went off the fact that they are getting the Vulcan flying again so I thought that they would shurley be able to get Concorde up!?!

The people dealing with the Vulcan restoration were there from the very moment the aircraft was retired from RAF service - they took the aircraft, every spare part they could get from anyone (RAF, Rolls Royce, individual contractors), set up idling support lines with the various parts suppliers, scrounged all the service manuals, blueprints and modification documents and sat down and spoke with various authorities right from the get go. It was a concerted effort to get her flying from the moment the wheels touched the ground for the last time in RAF service.

The Vulcan to the Sky people were *extremely* smart.

Thats why the Vulcan will fly again, and its also why Concorde won't.


User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 28738 times:

I would guess that the manufacturers of the engines, servos and other vital supplies would stonewall supplying spare parts to any aircraft such as the Concorde that could crash full of people. There is an extremely high liability. While the Vulcan may or may not ever make it back into the air, if it does, it will have just two or three people on it. On the other hand, the temptation to sell rides on the Concorde to help pay the expenses would be just too much for the manufacturers to want to risk the liability of what if something goes wrong.

User currently offlineVC10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1412 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 28708 times:

I knew my picture would come up some where and then I looked up

http://www.clubconcorde.co.uk/

and there I was under captain's Log

As to Concorde flying again well I have learnt never to say never, but it was an extremely complex aeroplane using what is to day very old technology, and you have to remember that even the youngest of crews that flew are now in their 50s well in the UK anyway, and there is no simulator for them to refresh themselves on. It was a aeroplane that did not like to be left sitting idle for too long as this would normally result in hydraulic and/or electrical problems.and even the good ones have been idle for along time

Mind you nothing is impossible if there is a will,and after all nobody initially thought the airlines would operate it for more than 5 or so years ,and look how wrong they were

littlevc10


User currently offlineFalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6159 posts, RR: 29
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 28682 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 12):
Concorde's next flying mission will be transporting snowballs from Hell.

Or maybe we'll get to see her flying with some pigs.

All kidding aside. I was involved with an organization that operated a large steam locomotive. In the late 80s and all of the 1990s she went on some great trips on mainlines and branches of the NS, BN, and UP. Costs were high as was the skill level needed to operate and maintain such a machine. Eventually costs caught up and in 2001 the locomotive probably dropped her fire for the last time. Insurance premiums became the biggest expense even though a claim was never filed.
Smaller steam engine operators are much more successful, especially when operating on property the company that operates them own. UP, which is a large operator, has the money, the man power and their insurance covers their operations. A third party operating on their property pays high insurance bills if UP allows them to operate at all.
A steam locomotive and the Concorde are two different animals, but both have a lot of things in common. They both are expensive and well engineered pieces of transportation equipment. Both cost a lot to operate and a hell of a lot to insure. Both require a set of skills to operate and maintain, that few people have. Getting a Concorde up and running is one thing, but finding a entity who will operate it is another. Finding someone to insure it will be even tougher.

I am no expert, but those are the obstacles I see. I would love to see one fly again, but I am not keeping my fingers crossed.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 10):
Concorde ain't comin' back, except in your dreams.

Kind of like an old girl friend.

Well put.

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 4):
Concorde is not a "simple" DC3. It's not a matter of "age".

Plus there are lots of DC-3s still flying around. That goes back to my steam engine thoughts. There are a lot of smaller and less complex steam locomotive operating today. They are easier to repair, operate and cost less. In the 1980s and 1990s lost of organizations restored large mainline steam locomotives and ran them on excursions. There are still some operating, but many of them are now sitting cold. There are lots of smaller and less complex aircraft still in the air today that are older than the Concorde. Age isn't the issue it is operating costs.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7034 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 28416 times:

Quoting Falstaff (Reply 16):
Age isn't the issue it is operating costs.

That, and as you said, insurance. Insurance companies do not like insuring things that nobody can quantify, and there was just not enough experience with Concorde to provide a good database. If it hadn't been for the Paris crash the Concorde could at least present an unblemished record, but that went up in smoke (literally.) The fact that Concorde was so much different than any other civil airplane means that if any insurance company looks at it they would only do so at prohibitive rates; i.e. the highest operating cost would be insurance. It isn't like JT's 707 at all.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13241 posts, RR: 77
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 27589 times:

Want to see another Concorde flight?
(That's subsonic, airshow appearances only-the best you'd get).

That will be AT LEAST £100 million, probably nearer £150 million, please.
These are serious figures estimated by those who are best placed to make such an evaluation, so not including anyone from any of this campaigning groups.

Why so much?
For the same reason that BA, who investigated such a thing in 2003 found.
That will be the cost of re-instating the unique support network both BA and AF used, 4 years gone now.
So any idea that even if possible, an 'airshow' Concorde would be economically viable, was clear even before Concorde finished service.
BA found then, (and they knew more about this than anyone), that running an airshow Concorde would cost-once you got those initial start up figures I mentioned above out of the way, around the same to run a single non pax carrying Concorde as a revenue earning fleet.

Vulcan is a lot easier-and this effort is very late, almost collapsed last year, since many more were built, the spares holding is huge, many more people were intimate with the type, compared to Concorde.
Vulcan is also an order of magnitude less complex than Concorde, while all civil airliners are 'complex' they are usually built in the 100's or 1000's, not just 16 production, 14 service aircraft, that was Concorde. And operated by many more carriers when exponentially more people familiar with the type.
Concorde was also much more complex than a normal jetliner, if anyone doubts that, think of the flight envelope of a Mach 0.85 jetliner, and the Mach 2.04 Concorde.

In December 1997, the people who maintained the NASA Space Shuttle visited us at BA, they felt that Concorde, while in no sense a spacecraft, was still the nearest air vehicle they could investigate to look at issues like spares support, aging, maintaining expertise, when you are dealing with a small number of unique vehicles that were long out of production.
Consider this when assessing how likely a non airline organisation could operate a Concorde.

In service, with the support network fully intact and functioning, Concorde was much more expensive to operate, required many more man-hours, really ran on the expertise of a small number of people.
And constantly threw up challenges that tested even our large group of ex BAC types, who'd helped to build the things, before joining BA.

It won't happen folks, I was in the BA Concorde Engineering dept from April 1997, to the very last flight of G-BOAF to FZO on 26th Nov 2003.
Everything I saw then, convinced me that Concorde could only be operated by the airlines who had brought it in the first place.
I also saw how increasingly hard it became to support Concorde technically towards the end.

The idea of a bunch of amateurs with the odd retired, should know better, type, is laughable.
The CAA will NEVER wear it-if he had been serious, (but he wasn't), Branson was also told as much by the authorities in May 2003. Oddly enough, he failed to mention this.

Both the seemingly defunct, paranoid, SCG, and this latest bunch, should not be taken seriously, what very few ex Concorde people they have, themselves retired before the period when events conspired to end Concordes service life a few years early (had they not happened, Concorde would have retired by now anyway).

VC-10 is right to never say never, but the chances of any kind of Concorde return to flight is extremely slim, and with every day that passes, it gets slimmer still.

I know many do not want to hear this, even so, we are talking, even if we could somehow magic away the huge costs, serious engineering and certification issues, no room for hopes or dreams here, it's about what is possible, no other BS counts for anything.

And yes, I still really miss Concorde too.


User currently offlineFairchild24 From Sweden, joined Jul 2007, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 27055 times:

Well,Never say never
The Concorde at TLS is standing there with all vital parts coverd, The windows are sealed, the tyrers are coverd with aluminium blankets and they have some kind or humidity control in the cabin.
and if Russia and US is able to get a Tu-144 in the air why not the mighty Concorde,



Radial engine does not leak oil, they only mark there territory
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7034 posts, RR: 46
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 26830 times:

Quoting Fairchild24 (Reply 19):
and if Russia and US is able to get a Tu-144 in the air why not the mighty Concorde,

This is a government sponsored operation, IIRC. That is the only way Concorde could fly again, and there are no governments interested. Governments don't have to worry about insurance.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineCloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 846 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 26670 times:

What is the status of the TU-144 anyway? I know Nasa was using it for a bit.

Do I think the Concorde could be made to fly again? Yes. Do I think it could be financially and logistically possible? Yes. We got it in the air the first time. It may be complex, but we have plenty of Supersonic Aircraft flying today in the military. It's no so specialized it will be lost.

The problem is there are too many egos, too many business interests that would be hurt for it to really happen. If the Concorde was up and flying again, then it would reflect badly on those who can't offer anything close to it. It would be bad to see it stealing the thunder form you regular offerings. And it could be potential marketing disaster if, god forbid, something did happen again. I would look bad for the engineering if a bunch of non-professionals or enthusiasts were making something far more complex and technical fly, and might prove all the theories about why something is technically impossible wrong. Insurance is always a great excuse, because there's no way to verify it, and everyone believes that insurance is ALWAYS a problem. But there are companies that do specialize in this stuff. Cheap it isn't but it isn't impossible. There would be huge potentials in marketing and promotion for it, and even some business practicality, too. But again, all that would be dangerous to the current business interests, who don't like change, because change always puts their advantage at risk. If the Concorde were to fly again, it would probably not be BA or AF who would do it, and that would more than likely have a negative effect on them. So why risk it? Just make sure none ever fly again.



"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7034 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 26453 times:

Quoting Cloudboy (Reply 21):

The problem is there are too many egos, too many business interests that would be hurt for it to really happen

You should re-read GDB's post #18 again. Here is someone who knows what he is talking about, while you clearly do not. I see no egos or business interests that would be hurt by Concorde flying again; I know of no aviation enthusiast who would not like to see it. But it is just too expensive a proposition, and is highly unlikely to happen.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineFairchild24 From Sweden, joined Jul 2007, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 26237 times:

Little bit of topic

I remember when I saw the Mighty Concorde IRL for the first time , it was around 1996-97 at ARN , and it was the "Pepsi" Concorde.
WOW, that´s what I call "Advertising"

The sound when she left, after that day I was in love. Forever.

Cheers

Göran



Radial engine does not leak oil, they only mark there territory
User currently offlineVC10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1412 posts, RR: 16
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 25999 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 20):
This is a government sponsored operation,

You are quite correct in saying that it would have to be a government project to get Concorde into the air again and not wishing to stir things up , but you never know what the French long term plans are.

The insurance premium alone would be a problem for any private group as many groups who fly restored aircraft in Europe are finding out already.

However say a private group did get one airborne, are there enough big airshows in Europe that could afford to have it at their event? Not many, I would say, and not enough to cover the yearly running costs, so it flies passengers on round the bay charters, but why, it would not be able to fly supersonic well no faster than mach1.3 nor get to 60,000ft so what would they be paying probably over a £1000 a trip for and even if they did, for how many years would they be willing to do.

No, the best chance of seeing Concorde flying again would be as a short term research project or if the French President wanted to have the only supersonic Presidential aeroplane in the world .  

She was a beautiful aeroplane to fly, but was always tempermental and required a lot of expertise from both flight and ground crews to make here the limited success she became. I think both the manufacturers and the two airlines did a marvelous job to keep her going for so long, and almost without loss, so lets us remember her as she was in here glory days, and accept that all things have to come to an end sometime.

Let us hope though that the museums have enough money to spend, so as to keep their aircraft in good condition here for future generations to see in all her glory.

This is from someone who spent 23 years with the old girl and loved every moment [ well almost every moment as she could scare the life out of you on times] but you always forgave her, and like many of my colleagues I would like to see her stay retired and well maintained ,even if it only means people can admire her on the ground as even here she still is an amazing machine to look at

littlevc10

[Edited 2007-07-09 00:08:29]

25 Moo : That particular Tu-144 was mothballed in a particular state, with ongoing maintenance and a complete spares catalogue. The return to flight cost of t
26 THEENGINEER : Some people really don't want to get it. Everything has its end. I would personally support this action if it would be 10 years ago.
27 EGTESkyGod : Oh, dear............... The fact that there are no spare parts left, the fact that Airbus won't support her maintenance issues, the fact that all the
28 Gh123 : I met some guys in a pub back in the UK about a month ago - They were saying that the Vulcan will fly again very soon but I think that they had to se
29 Cloudboy : Would you really love to see it? Everyone who seems absolutely convinced that there is no reason to refly the Concorde loves to throw this in, as tho
30 Post contains images Bond007 : When 'everyone seems absolutely convinced' about something, there's usually a good reason. In this case the chances of Concordw flying again are almo
31 Embajador3 : With all due respect, it would such a waste. Those millions could be used to help people scape poverty, to help fight cancer and other diseases, etc.
32 Cloudboy : Everyone was convinced the world was flat. Everyone was convinced man couldn't fly. And everyone was convinced the Concorde couldn't even be built. M
33 Post contains images Bond007 : Jimbo
34 WhiteBirdFlyer : Since the folks that actually flew and worked on the Concorde posting here rate the chances at next-to-nothing that the White Bird will ever fly again
35 Gh123 : For crying out loud. What a stupid thing to say. If everyone in the world did what you are saying then not only would nothing ever get done but more
36 A5XX : Never say never. Nothing is impossible. It'll take a huge pile of cash, to bring the Concorde back, but its possible. What's life, without dreaming?
37 Post contains images Zeke : Airbus withdrew the Type Certificate Data Sheet, this is a common way for manufacturers to prevent the aircraft from returning to commercial service,
38 Tonymctigue : What would be the point. Even if they could raise the funds to get Concorde airworthy again, how do they propose to make enough money to keep it airbo
39 GDB : Oh for heaven's sake cloudboy, egos do NOT come into it. Where do these bizarre ideas come from? It's about real life, real massive costs, real seriou
40 EGTESkyGod : A company with a lot more vision only has that, vision. BA and AF own their aircraft..... they are not for sale. If they were sold to another company
41 Avt007 : Good Lord, people- let them rest, and move on. If you don't, you'll end up like many Canadians (and I know I'm about to annoy a lot of fellow Canadian
42 Gkirk : Just leave the Concordes to rest in peace.
43 KhelmDTW : That would be awesome!! I'd help pay to get Concorde flying again. I really miss that Jet Age icon!
44 Embajador3 : Again, even if you have something to do with this, i maintain my position: to use 15 million for the 'revival' of the Concorde would be a waste. Let
45 SEPilot : I was going to say something like that, but Bond007 said it better The simple fact is that BA and AF own the planes, are not about to sell them, and
46 Gh123 : I don't work in Aviation so I don't have anything to do with Concorde. But as I said before, if everyone adopted your opinion then the world would co
47 FlySSC : I do work in Aviation. I 've been serving Concorde for several years. I have 1354 hours of flight on Concorde, which is a lot, believe me ! Nobody el
48 Cloudboy : And that is precisely my point. It is not the technical aspects that are preventing Concorde from ever flying again. It is not the insurance or the i
49 Post contains images David L : Strictly speaking, they were just approaching the point where they wouldn't be able to continue to make money out of it. People who know a lot about
50 Embajador3 : I do not aspire to see everyone sharing my point of view regarding this matter.
51 Bond007 : I can see I think one person on this thread that mentions it's not "appealing" to them .... the others find it VERY appealing, just not practical and
52 Moo : Imagine someone wanting to launch one of the remaining Saturn V rockets. Still think its an attainable goal?
53 Poitin : If this is the case, and I have no reason to doubt Zeke, then the aircraft could only fly without paying passengers, unless the European rules are di
54 GDB : One thing that really bugs me (though there are a lot of things that do!), with these 'Save Concorde Groups', is their absolute refusal to face up to
55 Post contains images Superfly : The Rolling Stones is a better analogy. It would be nice to see the Concorde in service in some capacity or another but as others above have noted, i
56 SEPilot : The bureaucracy is even less of an obstacle than the money.
57 GDB : Superfly, whatever falsehoods the campaigners claim, it is not bureaucracy, it's the huge financial and technical challenges outlined (yet again on th
58 G-CIVP : Concorde won't fly again. The engineers have been dis-banded, the flight crew have gone, the engineering rigs have gone, the spares have gone. Concord
59 Post contains images Superfly : Poor choice of words on my part. Sorry about that.
60 Cloudboy : Such conventional thinking. For years the Concorde was operated as an airliner - heck, as a very fast economy section with fancy meals and really high
61 Avt007 : I have reservations about this aspect as well. Given the way society is swinging towards environmental concerns, and Live Earth, and green this and t
62 EGTESkyGod : You're missing the point..... No-one other than BA or AF are allowed to have anything to do with the maintenance or operation of Concorde! Airbus and
63 SEPilot : Isn't it easy to spend somebody else's money?
64 Avt007 : Can you list a few of those ways, please? Keep in mind that the only justification to an investor is " We will make a profit."[Edited 2007-07-10 02:1
65 Post contains images Superfly : Wouldn't be a bad idea though.
66 Cloudboy : Right. But unless there is some unannounced technical reason (which I am not willing to dismiss out of hand, mind you), this is purely a tactic to pr
67 Bond007 : LOL ... don't embarrass yourself. You've have no idea how 'big' it is do you??? Well, we know you don't! I do ... I've flown in it! Jimbo
68 EGTESkyGod : Right, here's a technical reason for you. Each Concorde was decommissioned. Drained of all fluids. The hydraulic fluid in Concorde was unique to Conc
69 Moo : Can't even do that, the piping and seals would have dried out by now, you would need to replace a significant amount of them throughout the airframe.
70 SEPilot : $100 million or more can buy a heck of a lot of conventional advertising that would be MUCH more effective than any flight of any plane could provide
71 EGTESkyGod : Moo, that backs me up even more, thank you. They would need to be replaced with parts that are now non-existant. Cloudboy, like I say, I admire your
72 David L : I'm not saying that's a reason for me not to want it to fly again but it's a very good reason why BA and AF, the owners, wouldn't want to hand it ove
73 SEPilot : Don't forget that the Concorde airframes had already far outlived their life expectancies and were ready for retirement anyway. The only reason they
74 GDB : Sorry Cloudboy, wrong again, it was not a 'malfunction' that caused the cert to be pulled, it was merely a reflection of the fact that BA and AF had s
75 Cloudboy : So far everyone is giving lots of reasons why a) it would be expensive and very difficult, and b) why BA and AF should be the only ones who should eve
76 Post contains images Bond007 : Can you give us some examples??? I don't see anybody badmouthing apart from you If you think it's such a good idea ... YOU invest in it ... your own
77 Post contains images David L : The reason BA and AF can decide whether or not anyone else operates them is that they own them. THAT'S WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!! How would you like it if a bu
78 EGTESkyGod : Right, you're missing the point again... BA and AF own them.... BA and AF are the only ones who would be ALLOWED to operate them in any way, shape or
79 SEPilot : They OWN the aircraft. If they don't want to sell them (which they don't) what do you propose to do; steal them? Take them by Eminent Domain? Wave so
80 Post contains images Superfly : No wait a minute. Didn't Branson offer to buy the Concorde? If I was getting rid of an old car, I would have no problem selling it to a bunch of "do-
81 SEPilot : Where do you get that idea? My understanding is that BA and AF DO NOT WANT to sell any of the aircraft. That has nothing whatsoever to do with my, or
82 EHHO : This is a technicality, we (EASA) can reissue the Concorde a type certificate if they apply for one and can fulfull the requirements set forth in the
83 Superfly : Relax my friend. Over the years I've read many post of those bashing Branson for simply offering to buy Concorde. An airline buying another airline's
84 Post contains images SEPilot : OK; I did not recall that post. I for one would say good for him if he did. But I still think it about as likely to see pigs in the sky as to see Con
85 Post contains images Superfly : Pink Floyd made that happen back in 1977.
86 Post contains links GDB : This is pure groundhog day, again, I'll try to make it clear; Even IF Branson was really interested in 'saving' Concorde (an aircraft he was slagging
87 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ....where are the rich Arabs when you need them.. ..in all seriousness though, as much as all of us want to see it fly again, we probably never will.
88 Superfly : GDB: Sorry if I missed your post back in 2003. The threads back then were 200+ replies of non-sense and members attacking each other. It wasn't worth
89 Confuscius : Some people are quite nostalgic. What's next? Fly the Concorde to Meigs Field?
90 Post contains images ShannoninAMA : And the difference between that and this thread is? Honestly, i say let the concorde rest in peace...enough revival attempts. Shannon
91 Post contains images Superfly : I have high speed Internet, more memory on my computer (thanks to Confuscius) unlike in 2003. How about flying Demolition Dick Daly on a one-way trip
92 David L : I believe he mentioned the mythical figure of £1 per aircraft. He seemed to believe BA should hand them over for a token sum. BA and AF took Concord
93 Post contains images Superfly : David L: I think you're a bit late. Scroll up and read #88.
94 Cloudboy : I miss a day and look what I come back to! Sorry, I don't have time to battle each and every point right now, and for that matter I don't think either
95 Post contains images Bond007 : Of course it is. That's exactly what this discussion is about. Why would anyone, Branson, BA, or us, ...or YOU .... want to debate this issue and pos
96 GDB : This weeks Flight International makes brief mention of that 'new' group hoping to resurrect Concorde, rightly they give this about as much credence as
97 Post contains images David L : I don't get it. I wasn't referring to the 2003 thread, I was referring to Branson's "attempt" to buy a Concorde or two and to another point you made
98 Superfly : Don't worry about it. GDB already explained what I needed to know.
99 Post contains images LH498 : I was really hopping to see Concorde fly once more, but after reading this thread I was shown... the reality: it is possible but not practical. At lea
100 Post contains links EGTESkyGod : Several! But for online information you will not find anywhere better than www.concordesst.com
101 GDB : LH498, there are two that I think are very complementary. The evergreen, best selling, 'Concorde' by Chris Orlebar, offers a very good general overvie
102 Cloudboy : Because the reason we don't think this will succeed is simply because there are too many critics out there insisting it won't work, and doing all the
103 Moo : Oh thats complete and utter bollocks, and you know it. But you want someone to blame, and here we are. The reason it won't work is because it would c
104 SEPilot : Well, in 1977 you could also see the Concorde in the sky. Boy, you REALLY like to spend other people's money, don't you?
105 Poitin : Cloudboy, it is time to come down from the clouds. The reality is that the Concorde is grounded for a large number of reasons, many beyond the simple
106 GDB : So BA and AF 'can have Concorde back now' can they? Uhhh, no. They've been 'de-commissioned', a physical process, not just a name. No Cert. of Airwort
107 VC10 : Whilst agreeing with your other points, I have to say that although based on an original military engine, Concordes engines were a much developed and
108 Jas161 : Has anyone seen the bit on the News section of the Save Concorde Group website? Apparently Returning Concorde to flight was discussed in the House of
109 Moo : Vulcan to the Sky was only possible because of the condition in which XH558 was purchased from the RAF in. They took a 'just retired' aircraft, every
110 AirTran717 : What is this guy? The resident conspiracy theorist? I think the only ego involved anywhere in this board is his own. What sense does it make to be a
111 Cloudboy : No Certification of airworthiness. Right - it has to be reissued. As it stands it was pulled more because of Airbus and BA/AF not interested in it an
112 David_itl : If they are owned by BA and AF, exactly how do you propose to force them to "give them up"? Act of Parliament? Judicial Review? BA and AF bought by o
113 Viscount724 : Even in the extremely unlikely event that all the the other obstacles could be overcome, a major problem would be the environmental issues (noise, so
114 EGTESkyGod : Someone may well have "scooped them up" but they'd still be on the ground as only BRITISH AIRWAYS AND AIR FRANCE would be allowed to fly them..... Ho
115 Cloudboy : Well, I don't know the laws in England, but I would dare say that in the US, Virgin would most certainly have a pretty strong case to gain control, o
116 GDB : 'I don't know the laws in England'. It's the United Kingdom, you don't even know the name of one of the nations who built and operated Concorde! But '
117 RIX : - based on what? BA/AF did their best during decades to run the whole program (praise them for this, dude, don't bash) - suddenly, out of nowhere, so
118 Fairchild24 : Dear All I'm not sure about that, I was in a factory tour at the Airbus factory in TLS last autumn and they have a Concorde "mothballed", with all the
119 EGTESkyGod : This makes no sense whatsoever. You're saying that in America, Virgin would be able to gain control without BA's permission? Then what happens? I'll
120 GDB : When on 10th April 2003, the retirement (in BA's case) by end October that year was announced, it was of course a very sad moment, myself I was very d
121 Post contains images ClassicLover : ... and thankfully our cable TV channel in Australia carried the BBC, so I got to watch it live, even though I was 20,000 odd kilometres away GDB, yo
122 Post contains links and images 4holer : http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/tilting-at-windmills.html Dude, you've grown up with too many people telling you that anything that you dream is at
123 Post contains images David L : At the risk of introducing just a bit to much cheesiness (and apologies to anyone who's just eaten)... well said. I well remember one of the first qu
124 Cloudboy : Ego, ego ego. GET OVER IT The real world, huh? Is this the same "real world" that was so convinced that air travel would fall to pieces when deregulat
125 F27Friendship : I don't care if Branson will use it as a private Jet, as long as the most beautiful passenger aircraft ever conveived may fly again! (allthough I'm af
126 EGTESkyGod : Did you not read this part I said earlier? Just to re-iterate.... even if another company bought a Concorde, even if BA or AF decided to sell any air
127 4holer : You can't be serious. Are you? Seriously, THAT is your argument? I'm starting to wonder if our chains are being yanked. Because everything you type m
128 Post contains images Iwok : I did read once that SRB wanted to buy a good Concorde out right and get it back in flyable condition. However, BA & AF will never let that happen, a
129 ClassicLover : Cloudboy, do you understand - that no airlines in the world - except BA and AF have any experience whatsoever in operating a supersonic airliner? Do
130 RIX : - weren't there 120+ orders, canceled afterwards? What "keeping Concorde out of the hand of foreign operators" are you talking about, other than thei
131 EHHO : Having noted some information from this thread, I´ve spoken to a few colleagues yesterday who are with EASA certification, and here´s the deal: Forg
132 Post contains links David_itl : Just looked at http://www.britishairways.com/concorde/faq.html. Part of which has: Did the British Government give Concorde to British Airways for one
133 FlySSC : Not F-BTSD, stored at LBG. We (ex-AF Concorde Crew) recently had a picnic at LBG in the Concorde Hall, "under" F-WTSS and F-BTSD and, of course, the
134 Post contains images David L : Ah, FlySSC - you're one I was referring to as a former Concorde FA. Sorry for forgetting your name.
135 GDB : Cloudboy, if you cannot take it, don't dish it out, I am, as always, prepared to 'debate', however any sensible debate has to be from a standpoint of
136 Jwenting : An airworthiness certificate can be restored, so theoretically the paperwork isn't a problem. However the complete lack of parts, airframes available
137 Post contains images 6YJJK : GDB, I don't suppose one more makes any difference, but - for your patience, as much as for your knowledge - you're now on my RU list. Now write that
138 Post contains links GDB : 6YJJK, a book may be in the works, concentrating on the period from the AF crash, to retirement, but not by me. The best site on Concorde, has a 12 pa
139 Cloudboy : No, you are talking about you interpretation of facts. The only facts even available are the number figures for costs (and even those are open to som
140 777236ER : Not to barge in on this thread because I haven't read most of it, but what on Earth are you talking about? BA own their Concordes, no one has any oth
141 Dan2002 : GDB, I'm sure you have mentioned it before, but after Concorde was retired, what did BA do with your job? I assume they moved you to another maint. te
142 RIX : - whichever way it goes - it clearly shows it's not BA fault, nor a question of anyone's good or bad will. - do I smell Bolshevik expropriation here?
143 EGTESkyGod : It has been said several times in this thread, I'll say it this time. READ IT. BA looked, in October 2003, at keeping one or two Concordes airworthy
144 FlySSC : Only dumb and ignorant people may think it's BA or AF fault . After the grounding following F-BTSC crash, BA & AF worked the hell together to restart
145 SEPilot : Not only do you like to spend other people's money but you also like to take other people's property.
146 ClassicLover : This has to be the strangest thing I've ever seen on this board. Concorde is a security risk to two countries fighting a war on terror? Which two? Th
147 Post contains links GDB : Cloudboy, I previously mentioned charters, that (for BA), even at their peak, they represented just 9% of BA Concorde revenue, worth doing, but not fo
148 EGTESkyGod : I think now might be an appropriate time to close this thread. GDB, as always, thank you for your factual insight.
149 Post contains images Buckieboy : All, Been watching this thread develop over the last few days and reply 139 has to be one of the most funniest or saddest things I have ever read in a
150 Cloudboy : An advertising board? Is that all you think of for advertising? I hope they considered more than that. Again, none of you are willing to try to liste
151 FlySSC : We already talked about this once if I remember well. AF did actually much more "Special" flights with Concorde including "World Tours" (up to 3 x Ye
152 EGTESkyGod : I used your own idea! A flying advert. Still not gonna recover the costs, is it? BA will still lose money, won't they? You said yourself.... UNACCEPT
153 David L : An interpretation by someone who was right in the middle of it. I guess you think you have more chance of winning the Superbowl of you bring in someo
154 Jacobin777 : ..and what is that supposed to mean?
155 AirTran717 : The airlines don't control or issue/reissue or have anything else to do with airworthiness certificates other than posting them onboard... someone sh
156 AvObserver : I love your pie-in-the-sky, anything's possible attitude, Cloudboy and lament we haven't seen much of this prevail since the 1960's but I must defer t
157 ClassicLover : Yes, I'm sure BA or AF would sell the Concordes in museums to a terror state (your offensive generalisation of "Middle Eastern Sheik" notwithstanding
158 AirTran717 : Sounds like yet another conspiracy theorist who has absolutely no Earthly clue and no real knowledge of the topic in which he speaks. Ignore this guy.
159 AirTran717 : I agree with that entire post, with the exception of the above quote... if i have taken it out of context, then please explain... but I have to say t
160 GDB : I love that one, 'my preconceived ideas', translation from the Cloudboyverse (truly an alternate reality), reads 'actually involved with the aircraft'
161 Dan2002 : Boy, I couldn't imagine a Concorde in FedEx colors.
162 EGTESkyGod : What David L was saying, to back up my earlier posts, is that should Concorde be allowed to return to flight on something called a "Permit To Fly" th
163 Post contains links and images FlySSC : Could you imagine this one :
164 GDB : FLYSSC, very amusing Photoshop, but maybe President JFK had that image in his mind, when he authorised the US SST programme in 1963, months after the
165 Cloudboy : And this was studied when? Your biggest middle east markets didn't even exist back then! And in the seventies business travel, heck any travel, was m
166 Dan2002 : You basically summed it all up for yourself. There aren't enough people willing to spend the kind of cash to get things done. Companies stopped makin
167 Post contains images David L : I have reread it and it looks exactly the way I intended it to. Hold on a minute... Thank you! Isn't that exactly what I said? Sorry, AirTran717, may
168 Post contains images RIX : ...Why Air Force One SST has no cockpit windows? - you don't need the biggest market for one airplane. And you were clearly shown that none of your id
169 AirTran717 : Perhaps it's just an issue of the Department of Redundancy Department then. The only scenario I could think of for this is that they get it certified
170 Moo : Are we looking at the same image? That SST has windows, its just that the supersonic visor is up.
171 SEPilot : This is certainly more realistic than getting Concorde in the air again, and would probably be cheaper as well. Let's face it, all mechanical devices
172 6YJJK : No side windows behind the visor, though.
173 Post contains links and images FlySSC : Correct. The visor is fully up, but still the 2 side windows of the Cockpit are missing on the "Air Force 1 Concorde". This REAL cockpit picture show
174 David L : Yes, and I believe I at least implied that fairly strongly. I was just pointing out to Cloudboy that any certification is up to the regulatory author
175 GDB : SEPilot, actually, beyond the unique circumstances of AF4590, we found that generally, in structure terms, Concorde usually exceeded expectations, for
176 SEPilot : I was speaking from general experience; I truly appreciate the personal hands-on knowledge that you bring to the forum. Thank you for sharing it with
177 Cageyjames : I'm still confused. Will "rich Arabs" be able to save the project or not. One minute they are the saviors, the next they are going to cause problems w
178 Cloudboy : I do support the new SSTs. And I think that in the not quite so distant future, they are going to become quite a big thing, but are going to require
179 Post contains images Cageyjames : How are these any different than when it was flying before? There is always a risk of another 9/11 type attack, but that isn't why the airplane was r
180 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ...don't give GWBush the idea of it.....knowing him, he'll have some kind of "presidential edict" of taking over a Concorde or two.... Just goes to s
181 GDB : Ah, another visit from this alternate universe, Concorde was/could be some kind of threat to US national security. Forget Concorde, or SSBJ's, I think
182 David L : What data and figures? There have been some extremely detailed reasons given why people think it's a non-starter. I think it's your argument that's l
183 Cloudboy : As opposed to a major national, stock holder controlled company? Yes. Wow. I suppose things look very different on different sides of the ocean. I ca
184 Moo : Is it just me or is this one of the most insane conspiracy theories out there?
185 6YJJK : ...yet we quite happily sell these same private individuals their own 747s, A380s... Fly one of those into New York for "a meeting", fill it to the g
186 Cageyjames : BA and AF are private companies, not public companies. The fact that they are corporations has no bearing on that. The airframes are in private hands
187 Post contains links and images MadameConcorde : I have not had the time to read through the whole thread. Has this been posted yet? Club Concorde announces the launch of the Concorde 2010 Campaign O
188 Post contains images Temptress : Not suported by Save Concorde Group it would seem.....lol
189 Post contains images David L : You make some valid points, Cloudboy, but I don't understand your determination to keep Concorde out of the sky for security reasons. She was a beaut
190 MadameConcorde : Concorde f-bvfb was sold for one "symbolic" euro to the museum at Sinsheim. Her last flight was on 24 June 2003 to Baden Baden then afterwards she was
191 Cloudboy : Yeah, I suppose all a fighter pilot would have to do is roll his windows down and listen for it. ??? I suppose I probably should post this and give a
192 Moo : Airbus never owned any of them, they were the property of Air France and British Airways, but anyhow F-BVFB will never fly again due to her wing stru
193 Cageyjames : Yea right, or the millions of people who live underneath it when it travels overhead. Ah, this goes back to your theory of advertising on the side of
194 Post contains images TeamAmerica : I won't tell. God help us if Al Qaeda ever got hold of this idea! There's this thing called radar...it's not going to go undetected. Seriously, I'm t
195 GDB : The seeming descent into insanity carries on! A Concorde with external weapons? Well how do you think it would perform after that, Sherlock? Clue: It
196 Post contains images Jacobin777 :
197 Cloudboy : What, you can't mount sidewinders on a Concorde? OK, this is getting stupid. You know dang well that I am not talking about major military weapons. If
198 Post contains images Jacobin777 :
199 Post contains images TeamAmerica : What, we're avoiding a "sensible" discussion about mounting weapons on Concorde? Consider: Which would be easier; 1) resurrecting Concorde and mounti
200 EGTESkyGod : Not quite, Moo, my friend. Her wings were not cut. They were unbolted, hundreds of them on each wing, and then re-bolted at the museum after delivery
201 Cloudboy : No we are talking about avoiding a sensible discussion because you want to turn a comment about possible terrorist uses of an aircraft into mounting
202 Post contains images Jacobin777 : -too expensive to fly again....
203 6YJJK : Actually, I've changed my mind about ending this thread. Moderators, please let it run - this is quality entertainment! *grabs popcorn*
204 GDB : Cloudboy, is truly the Air Net version of a member of 'The Flat Earth Society'. 'Immature Taunts', coming from someone with the reasoning of a not too
205 SEPilot : Knock yourself out, entertainment value aside, I'm done with trying to provide information, context, facts from experience, to someone who is either i
206 Post contains images David L : Yeah, that's where it stopped being sensible. Fine. Come up with something more concrete than a few buzz-phrases and we'll see what transpires.
207 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Please read my posts very carefully. I said nothing about missiles on the Concorde. I wrote "weapons (of any kind)" precisely in reference to what yo
208 Fairchild24 : Hi TeamAmeica I think you just opened a "can of worms", this thread could live for ever. I would like to see the SAAB 90 Scandia in the air, the last
209 David L : For a project by aviation enthusiasts for aviation enthusiasts, without a doubt, though I'd rather see ten examples in museums than see those cannaba
210 Cloudboy : Ultimately, it's not about what is appealing to aviation buffs. Yes, there are a lot of aviation buffs looking to restore Concorde. But that is a very
211 G-CIVP : But in real terms, for Mr.Branson, there would be numerous risks in attempting to restore Concorde to airworthiness.
212 EGTESkyGod : And as I have said numerous times in this thread also.... Even if Richard Branson and Virgin got their hands on a Concorde, they would not be allowed
213 G-CIVP : Quite. The obvious risk is the financial but there is the reputational risk as well. If a restoration project failed, there would be repercussions for
214 Cloudboy : And rules CAN be changed. What it takes is a lot of time and money invested in campaigning for it and fighting for it. Now, whether Branson and Virgi
215 4holer : 747 in 1970 = Apples Concorde in 2007 = Oranges Ya can't compare them. As I said before, I think our legs are being pulled here. The person making th
216 EGTESkyGod : It holds a lot of "sway" as Concorde is not a new aircraft, it is an old, specialised, unique aircraft. When they were first manufactured, anyone wou
217 FlySSC : Brason cares about restoring Concorde as much as he cares about the first pair of socks he bought ... His only real, serious and official attempt to g
218 Post contains images Jenkingeorge : As it has been recommended a few times that this thread should be closed I will try and end it. If I dont get another chance thank you all very much f
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...
American Firms Demand Return Of CO To Stansted posted Sat Aug 9 2003 20:23:01 by DoorsToManual
Return Of Concorde... AirFrance? posted Tue Jul 24 2001 12:25:29 by VgnAtl747
The Return Of Germania posted Mon Apr 16 2007 15:33:54 by Lindy Field
Video Of Concorde Breaking The Sound Barrier posted Fri Feb 10 2006 11:42:18 by NoUFO
Could ATL See The Return Of KLM 747's? posted Tue Feb 8 2005 04:36:19 by AV8AJET
Return Of The Sonic Cruiser? posted Wed Dec 22 2004 22:25:18 by Mdsh00
Thanks For Flying The Friendly Skies Of UAL posted Thu Feb 5 2004 15:39:03 by Sevenair
Return Of The Jumbos... posted Sat Sep 27 2003 23:06:12 by 764
The Return Of East African Airways? posted Sun Apr 6 2003 05:13:35 by Thomasphoto60
Whereabouts Of The Times Square Concorde? posted Tue Apr 1 2003 05:19:27 by Mirrodie