YULspotter
Topic Author
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:47 am

Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:36 am

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

 
beeweel15
Posts: 893
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 12:59 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:32 am

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.
 
piercey
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:07 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:43 am

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.
 
cumulus
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:39 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:38 pm

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!
 
cxsjr
Posts: 711
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 3:44 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:07 pm

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!
The world is a book, those who do not travel read only one page ....
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:51 pm

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
 
BCAL
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:16 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:07 pm

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."
 
Shamrock_747
Posts: 1499
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 3:25 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:55 pm

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.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:01 pm

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!
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:01 pm

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.
 
Leezyjet
Posts: 3540
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:26 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:05 pm

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"
 
CVGpilot
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:20 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:37 am

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
 
ANITIX87
Posts: 2952
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:41 am

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
 
swissy
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:12 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:51 am

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,
 
jetstar
Posts: 1366
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:21 am

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.
 
mirrodie
Posts: 6789
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 3:33 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:27 am

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
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:05 am

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
 
Flyboy14295
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 6:20 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:27 am

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
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:35 am

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 avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11747
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:41 am

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
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:52 am

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.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:20 am

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
 
swissy
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:12 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:40 am

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,
 
BOE773
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:02 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:20 am

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.
 
727200er
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:18 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:30 am

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
 
David L
Posts: 8547
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:11 pm

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 23):
Ohhhhh, dear. Right then.......

Well done, that man. I just couldn't be bothered this time - must try harder. Acclimatised to being upside down yet?  Smile

Quoting 727200er (Reply 26):
Had Air Canada actually purchased any, believe me they would have found a way to lose money on them

 biggrin  I'll take your word for it.

Quoting BOE773 (Reply 25):
Relax fellas, I'm just buggin the heck out of ya

No argument there. But how were we supposed to tell that one was any different from your usual offerings? Ever heard of the boy who cried "wolf"?
 
User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:24 pm

Quoting David L (Reply 27):

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 23):
Ohhhhh, dear. Right then.......

Well done, that man. I just couldn't be bothered this time - must try harder. Acclimatised to being upside down yet?

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!!

As for the Brit-basher...... He brought Concorde into it, so I had to say something!!!

Quoting 727200er (Reply 26):


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

Sweet!!! More BA Concordes!! Maybe then EXT would have one!! LOL!!!

Quoting BOE773 (Reply 25):
Relax fellas, I'm just buggin the heck out of ya.

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

OK, thanks for "buggin" us, but if you think that it was beautiful, etc, why would you write this.......??

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


[Edited 2006-09-16 12:46:01]
I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
 
VC-10
Posts: 3546
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:31 pm

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 15):
Airbus did the maintenence on all of the Concordes owned by AF and BA.

The respective airlines carried out the maintenance. Airbus supplied engineering support.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 21):
Now, part of my opinion is that Airbus pulled the CoA as for the Concorde it was rather expensive to maintain it (for Airbus).

The people who issue C of A's are the airworthiness authorities not the manufacturer.
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2107
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:54 pm

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 23):
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.....

 bigthumbsup 
Well said!
 
cumulus
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:39 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:27 pm

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 5):
The cost is simply prohibitive

Anyone got a phone number for the Sultan Of Brunei?? He likes planes!!!
What Goes Up Must Come Down, Hopefully In One Piece!
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:31 pm

Quoting Beeweel15 (Reply 1):
Check this site out http://www.save-concorde.co.uk/ .

I wouldnt bother, they are delusional.

Quoting Cumulus (Reply 30):
Anyone got a phone number for the Sultan Of Brunei?? He likes planes!!!

Neither BA or AF are selling, so its unlikely anyone will get the aircraft flying without the airlines approval.
 
mirrodie
Posts: 6789
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 3:33 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:34 pm

Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 26):
I've just got back from spotting all day at SYD with glennstewart, hopefully got some pics to upload soon!!

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 understanding but knew it wasn't perfect.


AS for Save Concorde, I too am delusional for hoping they would succeed but without massive amounts of money, bringing a Concorde back to life seems impossible.
Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
 
User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:46 pm

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 31):
Congrats! Glenn and I did the same a few months ago! But did you see the city as well?

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!!! I love Sydney.

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 31):
AS for Save Concorde, I too am delusional for hoping they would succeed but without massive amounts of money, bringing a Concorde back to life seems impossible.

There's nothing more I want to see than Concorde in the air, but it simply is never going to happen. I can only see one possibilty, and it doesn't involve Save Concorde Group. The only possibility is if Airbus decide in the next 10-15 years to design and build a new SST, and they might (not likely, but might) bring F-BVFC back to life for research/testing. That's it.

I know some Save Concorde Group reps read this forum and I'll probably get shit from them for saying this, but there is more chance of Michael Jackson becoming black skinned again than Concorde flying once more.
I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
 
wrighbrothers
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:15 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:47 pm

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 the Paris Olympics.
But even if this is true, I doubt the French would want it flying over the LONDON Olympics  Wink

Quoting Mirrodie (Reply 15):
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.

Sort of, as VC-10 said, the airlines carried out their own maintenance, but since AF didn't want to fly Concorde anymore, it was decided by Airbus that they would stop the production of all Concorde parts, therefore, BA could have only run Concorde until all spares were starved.

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!

1) BA kept Concorde in the air for about 2 more years than they could have, remember, they could have stopped all operations after the crash on cost basis, but instead, BA spent £millions on refurbishments and re-fits.
2) BA aren't dumb, why would they hand over their highest paying passengers to their competitor.

VS and SRB would have basically humiliated Concorde, no doubt painting it in their silver livery, converting it to a 2 class aircraft, which is not what it was built to do, it was built for the rich , elite and famous, not for families of 4 off on a holiday.
They had no Concorde stuff, they would have had to spent millions on converting them, building new hanger bays, getting airbus to re-start parts production, get BA/AF pilots, F/E's, cabin crew and engineers, and other smaller costs (catering for example).

Quoting BOE773 (Reply 23):
Relax fellas, I'm just buggin the heck out of ya.

Ahhh, it's our anti-British friend from Canada again, tell me, why do you feel it necessary to 'bug the heck out of us' ?

Quoting Beeweel15 (Reply 1):
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

Spitfires and B-17's don't represent death, they represent the fight for freedom and democracy, they represent the honour we owe to all those man and women who fought and died for our freedom, a Concorde isn't that.
Secondly, these aircrafts are a whole lot cheaper to run than a Concorde, the costs, the crews, everything.

We can't keep every aircraft that has made a breakthrough in some way flying, as it's just no feasible, why aren't we campaigning harder to get a TU-144 back in the skies, after all, that's a supersonic aircraft.

Wrighbrothers
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
 
swissy
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:12 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:51 pm

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 33):
We can't keep every aircraft that has made a breakthrough in some way flying, as it's just no feasible, why aren't we campaigning harder to get a TU-144 back in the skies, after all, that's a supersonic aircraft.

Isn't she back in the sky??? with NASA??? for testing???

Cheers,
 
User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:57 pm

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 33):
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 the Paris Olympics.

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 sometime last year.

Quoting Swissy (Reply 34):

Isn't she [Tu144] back in the sky??? with NASA??? for testing???

She was for a brief time, way back in 1996 if I remember correctly.
I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:58 pm

Quoting Swissy (Reply 34):
Isn't she back in the sky??? with NASA??? for testing???

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 for a transatlantic record attempt, but the Russian military wont allow the use of the airframe or engines (the engines used on the NASA airframe were military issue from the TU-160).
 
BCAL
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:16 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:50 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 19):
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.

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 each tour at £30 per head. So assuming that they do 5 daily tours on 50 days a year, the maximum that they could earn would be £75,000 from which they have to pay the staff etc conducting the tours and all administration, not to mention their overheads. Who is subsidising the venture?
MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11747
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:44 am

Quoting BCAL (Reply 37):
Who is subsidising the venture?

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 engine cost calculations, we would determine the wear and tear per takeoff with the assumption at the end of the service life the engine would be rebuilt (but not at the end of 30 years).

Its like my car, it costs way too much to maintain. I could safely drive it another 15,000 miles without putting a dollar into MX costs. But that would reduce its total service life and the delayed bill would be large.

So effectively, G-BOAC is doing that. But the first time those engines need a rebuild... Ouch! That will be a ~$10 million bill! I should have qualified my answer with a longer term perspective. Also, thinking about it, there are now 18 Concords+ worth of spare parts sitting around that AF, BA, and Airbus would probably happily donate to a charity. That will cut the MX costs in half (possibly more with volunteer mechanics).

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:50 am

Quoting BCAL (Reply 37):
Who is subsidising the venture?

BA still have a maintenance budget for their fleet.
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7069
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:52 am

The concorde is still a magnificent aircraft. Hopefully one day she will grace the skies again.

MCOflyer
Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
 
User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:17 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 38):
Also, thinking about it, there are now 18 Concords+ worth of spare parts sitting around that AF, BA, and Airbus would probably happily donate to a charity. That will cut the MX costs in half (possibly more with volunteer mechanics).

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 decomissioned. It's not just the parts, its all the hydraulic/brake fluids and other things like this that were unique to Concorde. And IIRC, the majority of Concorde spare parts were auctioned off after the retirements in 2003.

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 40):

Concorde is still a magnificent aircraft. Hopefully one day she will grace the skies again.

Sorry, but it won't happen, don't put any money on it.
I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
 
swissy
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:12 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:22 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 36):
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 for a transatlantic record attempt, but the Russian military wont allow the use of the airframe or engines (the engines used on the NASA airframe were military issue from the TU-160).

Thanks RP, I should cut back my Beck's consume..... what day is it?? Big grin


Cheers,
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:20 am

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!

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). Multiply it by 100 (the number of seats on a BA Concorde). Multiply it by .75 (assuming a 75 per cent load factor).

The answer is £600,000. Now divide £1,000,000 (SRB's opening offer for 5 BA Concordes plus the BA Concorde LHR maintenance facility) by £600,000. It is 1.667.

Anybody not yet cottoned on to the significance of 1.667? It is the number of return flights LHR-JFK that it would take to recoup the £1,000,000 outlay of SRBs opening 'offer'.

Yes. I know he raised his 'offer' to £5 million or almost two weeks revenue with just a single flight on weekdays only. So do a little more arithmetic. Divide 5,000,000 by 20,000,000. The answer is a quarter. What is the significance of this number. Well VS had at the time just completed construction of their own maintenance facility at LHR at a construction cost of £20M. It is large enough to take a single 744. SRB's £5 million 'offer' - that is a quarter of £20 million - included the BA Concorde maintenance hangar (one of the necessities if Concorde was to retain a CoA) - that is large enough to hangar two Concordes or one 744. So that great 'offer' was 'realistically' priced at a quarter of the real estate value with the aircraft and most of BA's Concorde Class passengers thrown in for nothing!

The actual value of BA's Concordes is easy to determine. The BA accounts for the year ending 31 March 2003 gives a figure. It is £84 million. If BA had sold their fleet and maintenance facility for anything significantly less than this figure to a competitor they would likely be in significant trouble about their fiduciary duty to their shareholders. No management can transfer an asset with a known book value at a knock down price to a competitor.

Now let's give SRB credit for being a superb publicist and the original spin king. But surely nobody who is an a.netter really took his 'offer' seriously, or did they?
 
User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:19 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 43):

Absolutely correct, couldnt have said it better.
I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:13 pm

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, the answer to that is;
'Got a spare £100-150 million?'
Yes, around that much.
Why?
Being a very, very, small fleet, with little in common with that great mass of subsonics out there, a specific support network was needed-not only from the descendents of the manufacturers, but many more contractors.

Let me tell you, keeping that running was a major and expensive task while the fleet was operational.
Such a small fleet, what happens where you re-order a new batch of spares, is the original provider still certified? Is it even still in business?
If the former, do we pay to get them re-certified, or look elsewhere?

There were reasons why BA and AF never specified a retirement date, one was because neither had one, but if they had, the suppiliers would work towards that, running down as that date approached-but what then if the airlines had a change of mind?

'Miserable' BA (whose commitment to support saved the aircraft in 1982/3 AND in 2000/1), looked long and hard at a 'Heritage Flight' aircraft.
This was in 2003, the answer-even with one (subsonic restricted) aircraft for the airshow circuit, the support costs for this would not differ too much from the costs of running a fleet in commercial operation.
So where's the cash coming from?
Fancy going to airshow people saying 'yeah, we'll provide Concorde G-BOAG, first lets have several tens of millions of £ for it's appearence'.
Not going to happen is it?

Please, please do NOT give a penny nor a dime to SCG.
If a member of them on here, is warning you about them, well think on.
They have zero credibility with those whose help they'd need to see one flying.
Worse, they've actively annoyed them more than once.
I've had (not officially) the 'pleasure' of meeting their founders.
They've not a clue about what is involved, when you tell them, they don't like it.
Then act in denial.

Branson just did a cheap PR stunt in 2003.
In the May, he was told, to his face, by the CAA and Airbus, it was not going to happen, yet still he carried on, wonder why?
But he was a genuine fan, I admit.
A regular enough customer on BA Concorde-as a billionaire it was of course expected that as an airline employee, he'd buy Industry Discount tickets for the flights-despite them being standby ones.
Nice to have had your FULL financial support there Dicky (Not!)

Some of you will know that the several year long project to return a Vuclan to flight, very nearly ended last month, only a big single donation allowed it to carry on.
After large cost overruns.
Many more Vulcans were built than Concordes, many many more people had direct experience with it, the spares holding would have been massive compared to Concordes.
Yet still, it very nearly collapsed.
And Concorde is literally, an order of magnitude more complex than Vulcan.

The bottom line here is, if preserving a Concorde was possible, BA would have done so.
BA also allowed a senior pilot, to explore a possible alliance with others to re-launch commercial services, with BA being a partner, but though I don't know for sure here, I suspect AF's fast and determined retirement scuppered this, but you wonder if Branson was approached during this, if so, was he really prepared to put his money where his mouth was?
Or was it really about trying to get an airframe, not fly it, but paint it in his colours and stick it in a museum too?

We have professional, knowledgeable VS people on here, one I think who was ex BA Concorde, ask them if it was ever really a serious idea.

BA have NOTHING to be ashamed about the retirement.
And yes, I still really miss it.
 
babybus
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:07 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:11 pm

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 accounts of a company whose executives flew it. Things are getting tight.

It is a shame that there are vulcans,VC10's, Comets and a host of other ancient aircraft flying around, fully serviceable, and yet plans were never made to keep Concorde flying or in a potentially airworthy condition.

Thinking about it makes me very sad.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
 
silverfox
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 8:39 am

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:24 pm

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 retirement, there would be a nice little earner in it for them, or is that just a conspiracy theory?..
 
User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:30 pm

Quoting Babybus (Reply 46):
It is a shame that there are vulcans,VC10's, Comets and a host of other ancient aircraft flying around, fully serviceable, and yet plans were never made to keep Concorde flying or in a potentially airworthy condition.

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 in 2003, and found it was not viable.
I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Why Not Even One Airworthy Concorde?

Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:20 pm

No Comets flying either.

There were no conspiracies around Concorde retirement.
Just a bunch of events coming too fast together.
Losing a year of revenue in 2000/1, then worst of all, the huge damage to the market caused by Sept 11th, then a steep rise (£40 million over two years) in maintenance costs-many not even directly related to the aircraft itself, this was above a pending need for major investment in the higher hours and cycles BA fleet, AF's desire to exit being the final straw-for them, the business reasons were clear.

At any time in the aircraft's life, had one operator bailed out, it would have been terminal for the others operation, even in the good times.
Whilst Airbus had an agreement to maintain support for at least two aircraft in airline service, in reality, the other taking on the full support costs otherwise shared, would have made it financially unviable.

For perspective, had the accident and/or Sept 11th not happened, this site right now, would be full of discussions about the recent, or impending Concorde retirement.
Though no date was ever fixed, we thought that the 2005-7 timescale was likely, driven by increased costs as the (BA) fleet reached 24,000 hours.
This became clear after the Major (D) checks BA carried out in the late 80's/early 90's, allowing due to the excellent condition of the airframes, a rise in maximum supersonic cycles, but, like all types, as they get older, the heavier the maint burden.
So a lot more cost in raising the supersonic cycles further, however technically feasible it would have been.

Away from structure, the need to update many avionic systems was another factor.
This was in fact, the maint costs 'wild card'.

Post Sept 11th, BA certainly looked again at possible retirement dates, nothing was decided in full, but a clue to the thinking was given by Rod Eddington's comment on the Oct 2003 retirement, that it was '18 months to two years early'.
The maint. contract was also due for renewal in 2005.

Don't blame BA, blame Bin Laden.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Argustuft, AsiaTravel, Channex757, FLJ, hayzel777, mat66, NolaMD88fan, RalXWB, Wingtip1005, zkncj and 195 guests