Jaspike
Topic Author
Posts: 4843
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:40 pm

Should Concorde Live On?

Sun Apr 22, 2001 12:13 am

Should it? What do you think? Or should Hyper-X take its place in years to come?

Jas
 
GOT
Posts: 1843
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 6:44 am

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Sun Apr 22, 2001 12:40 am

The fastest commercial jetliner should definetly come back in service, but not until the problems with the fuel tanks have been fixed. But when that is done (hopefully to the summer) Concorde should get back in the air.
Long live Concorde!

GOT
Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
 
ren41
Posts: 1456
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 3:24 am

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Sun Apr 22, 2001 12:41 am

I agree 100% with GOT Big thumbs up

Ren41
 
Guest

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Sun Apr 22, 2001 2:30 am

Of course it should. Are plans being made for it to come back in to service?
 
John G
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2000 12:03 am

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 3:28 am

The Daily Mail recently reported BA has set aside £30 million to get Concorde flying again
 
klm672
Posts: 2514
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 1999 6:09 am

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 3:30 am

Agree w/ GOT also
 
Guest

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 3:31 am

The Daily Mail recently reported BA has set aside £30 million to get Concorde flying again

And why not? This paragon of French Engineering is one hot airplane. It should continue to burn its way into the record books for some years to come.

Skippy
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 3:34 am

The Concorde is statistically the least safe jet that has been allowed to fly. (And that includes Russian jets people love to complain about!)

Any plane that can be brought down by a tire blowout needs to be grounded permanently. I hope that if the US FAA doesn't disallow Concorde service to this country, that they will at least put them through some incredibly rigorous tests (including a blowout) to insure that they are as safe as other jets we allow into this country.

I don't think it will really matter anyways. Celebs are afraid of the Concorde now. Their market has dried up. If the Concorde does come back, it will be short lived.

 
Guest

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 3:43 am

Ditto D L X on that one...
 
Greg
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 4:14 am

It's old reputation of speed and elegance is tarnished.
It is now a flying deathtrap.

I'm betting that Lloyd's will have most celebs, corporate execs, etc will have 'Concorde clauses' written into their life insurance policies prohibiting them from flying.
 
Ndebele
Posts: 2847
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2001 3:16 am

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 4:42 am

Who needs a 25-years old, loud, unefficient aircraft? Read the other topics in this forum - people are discussing about replacement of MD-11 and 737 Classic. The Concorde is simply out-dated!

There are so many museums in the world with many, many school classes who would love to visit one of those Concordes. And for the rest of the Concordes: I've been told there is still some space left at MZJ and MHV...  Wink/being sarcastic
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6418
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 5:18 am

Of course the Concorde shall fly again - if somebody wants to fly on it.

And I am afraid that DLX has got a valid point. Will there be a market?

The problem is that the Concorde unlike other airplanes was never really needed. And it is even less needed today than when it was new twenty years ago. Those people who (might think that they) really were that busy, they can much better use all aspects of electronic communication today, which is a thousand times faster.

The charter market, which was gradually taking over before the accident, may have evaporated completely that afternoon in Paris.

So it's second life may unfortunately become a rather short one.

But if you think that the Concorde should retire because it is technically outdated, then you should refrain from ever boarding a 747 again.

Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
KAZ
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2001 9:57 pm

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 5:21 am

Yep!

Last four postings just comfirmed it. It's still the envy of the world.
Seems ironic it was a Continental DC10 that caused the one concorde incident. As if that plane hasn't got a tarnished enough record already.
 
Julien.M
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2000 9:22 pm

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 5:22 am

I heard at the tv-news that all the interior of the british concorde have been replaced. That means new sits, new crockery and...a better confort!
I'm not realy agree with DLX...celebs are not the only pax in that plane, they are a lot of businessmans who needs that kind of plane, they are obliged to fly in 747 today and to loose several hours in it.
Don't forget only one of them crashed and they are modifying them!
how many 747 crashed! around 34!

I know for sure that this magnificent bird will fly very soon!
LONG LIVE TO THE CONCORDE!  Smile
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 6:04 am

well, if celebs aren't going to fly concorde, I will. There will always be a market for this bird  Big thumbs up.

This paragon of French Engineering is one hot airplane

hhhhhmmmm, not entirely true m8ey. It was a joint venture between Britain and France, and both prototypes were built in each of the countrys. I can still remember the historic day when Concorde first flew  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

The Concorde is statistically the least safe jet that has been allowed to fly. (And that includes Russian jets people love to complain about!)

The russian jets are just as noisy, and people complain about them for their noise rather than the fact that they just fall out of the sky (which does not happen), and the only one that was supersonic crashed in a test flight due to a serious defect. The Concorde crash was a result of many factors 1.)A 9 inch piece of metal punctured a tire blowout. 2.)The violence of the blowout ruptured a fuel tank, which there is a very low chance of happening 3.)Fuel entered the engine and ignited 4.)Engine Catches fire because of Ignited fuel 5.)Fire spreads to other engine 6.) Pilot opted to go-around instead of attempting to ditch and stalled.

The chances of all these happening together is very unlikely. If this is such a safety risk, how has it not happened for 30 years?

There is no doubt in my mind that this was a terrible accident, and should not have happened. But this does NOT make Concorde a death trap. If you step on that aircraft for a flight you are not risking your life or Playing Russian Roulette or whatever.

On average, Concorde has just over 7 hull losses per million departures, that is very slightly higher than the 707, with a rate of 6.98. So it is hardly a Dangerous aircraft. The Convair 880 for example, had nearly 13 hull losses per million departures, so it is far safer than them.

Thanks EGGD
 
FedExHeavy
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 6:50 am

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 6:14 am

Well seeing that the DC-3 is still used in part's of the world, I guess there could still be a place for Concorde to keep flying, there's always going to be a market for the super sonic flights over the Atlantic.
Have a nice day Smile/happy/getting dizzy!,
FedExHeavy
So far this is the oldest I've been.
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 6:14 am

Oh yeah, BA have already set a date for the first concorde to be Re-fitted's flight, i think it is in July sometime.

They are re-fitting (strengthening the fuel tanks etc) 1 concorde at a time, so it may be a while before all are back in service.

EGGD
 
Guest

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 6:31 am

I hope it is soon rentered into services, but, BA was planning to dump them around 2007 or so. Is that going to change now that the planes are bieng refitted? I bet that it will be later, provided that the market can return, which it probably will, as stated before.

Good Day
Amtran727  Smile
 
SIA_B777
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2001 2:28 pm

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 10:24 am

I wish to see the concorde in flight again.

However, I do have a question about them.

Why didn't the concorde ever fly across the Pacific? Why only the Atlantic?
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 10:37 am

The Concorde doesn't have the range for trans-Pacific operations. In fact, trans-Atlantic is approaching the limit.
 
MaxPowers
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 11:25 am

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 10:37 am

Of course the concorde will be needed. Businessmen like my dad go to paris and back in less then 8 hours round trip, go to a meeting, then go back home. He dosn't like to take the "slow" rout. But he did travel on the concorde at least 3 times a month.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24557
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 11:31 am

The Concorde can't fly across the Pacific. It can't even fly LHR-MIA, which is why Concorde flights to Miami (1984-1991, R.I.P) were routed LHR-IAD-MIA-IAD-LHR. Range is very limited, though if it weren't, LAX-NRT would be the perfect route for it.
a.
 
Logos
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2000 10:47 pm

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 3:41 pm

Seems ironic it was a Continental DC10 that caused the one concorde incident.

I love this. The DC-10 did not cause the incident as the feckless French are (or at least were) trying to claim. I'll bet that similar incidents happen, if not all the time, relatively frequently and don't cause other, well-designed aircraft to crash.

The crash was caused by a known design flaw in the Concorde which also caused a near-catastrophic incident at IAD in 1979. It will fly again but, as mentioned above, I have my doubts as to whether there'll be a market for it.

Cheers,
Dave in Berlin
Too many types flown to list
 
LUFC
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 8:00 pm

RE: Logos

Wed Apr 25, 2001 3:46 pm

I seem to remember something dropped off a DC10 that caused the incident are you telling me this is not true?

Regards.
 
LUFC
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 8:00 pm

RE: Mah4546

Wed Apr 25, 2001 3:50 pm

Concorde flew Heathrow to Barbados on a scheduled route, which logically tells me your information is not correct. Can you explain this?

Regards.
 
Logos
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2000 10:47 pm

RE: Lufc

Wed Apr 25, 2001 3:57 pm

No, the point is that the part from the DC-10 wouldn't have pierced the fuel tank of virtually any other aircraft and caused it to crash. The Concordes have a known design flaw there which is now supposedly fixed.

Cheers,
Dave in Berlin
Too many types flown to list
 
travatl
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2001 4:57 pm

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 4:32 pm

The demise of Concorde is the final demise of our industry as we know it. Despite it's exorberant cost and unrealistic RSM, it is the last "grasp" of airline "regalia" as we would all like to know it.

There are obviously those of us who think that it's time has come and gone, but of ALL of us here, who wouldn't sell a body part to be on a Concorde flight?? If it flew tomorrow, I'd be the first in line for a ticket (industry discount of course).

To equate it's one accident in ratios as if it should be compared to any other aircraft, is insulting. This accident and aircraft should not be demeaned to "ValuJet Sensationalism".

Concorde is our last grasp of that "which could've been". I, for one, will not be anxious to herald it's death.


Regards

Travis



 
GE
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2000 5:01 pm

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Wed Apr 25, 2001 4:37 pm

Those engineers really should so something about the Concorde's range or they're gonna lose a lot of business.
 
LUFC
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 8:00 pm

RE: Logos

Wed Apr 25, 2001 4:38 pm

I accept your point but why are you so sceptical. This was a really freak accident. The safety record of concorde is impeccable, paticularly from an avionics point of view. There have been much worse design flaws (avionics wise) on many aircraft types including the 737 (rudder problems). Why has this aircraft not been grounded. The original designs will be roughly the same age as concorde.

BTW while I'm on this subject the statistics which say concorde is the most dangerous aircraft to travel in are totally flawed. For this index to work the natural life of every aircraft produced has to be totally expired (used up) otherwise it is meaningless. To take an extreme example - If a 777 crashed on first flight (which it will one day). That would have made it the most dangerous aircraft in the world to travel in. If it then carried on flying for twenty years with no more incidents then it would be the safest plane to travel in.
 
Julien.M
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2000 9:22 pm

RE: GE

Wed Apr 25, 2001 9:24 pm

They tried to sell the Concorde in the beginning of its existence but because of the "war" given by the USA about if he may land there or not (because...of the noise he makes) all the company canncelled their order!

Iran Air ordered 3 Concordes, CAAC: 4, BOAC: 19, Quantas: 4, Eastern: 8, Air Canada: 4, Air India: 2, American: 10, Braniff: 3, JAL: 3, Lufthansa: 3, MEA Air Libian: 2, Quantas: 8, Sabena: 2, TWA: 10, United: 6, Continental: 3, Pan AM: 9 (just imagin if they were all delivered! what a pleasure to see all that birds with their respective owner colors!)  Sad

by exemple Singapore AL tried to use one (leased from BAW) between Asia and Australia but the Australian didn't want it because of the noise he makes...or something like that..

You can see a pict of the Concorde in Singapore Al c/s here:

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Clive Dyball



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © AirNikon


 
Logos
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2000 10:47 pm

RE:LUFC

Thu Apr 26, 2001 1:26 am

I agree that it was indeed a freak accident. I was responding to the notion that the DC-10 somehow "caused" the accident, advanced in this thread and by Air France in trying to get Continental to share the liability. The fault for that accident lies exclusively in the design of the Concorde in that the same circumstances would not have brought down any other operating airliner.

Cheers,
Dave in Berlin
Too many types flown to list
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Thu Apr 26, 2001 1:31 am

Logos - If the piece of metal was not on the runway, it wouldn't have happened right? Therefore that is the cause of the accident.

The design flaw isn't the cause because the cause is the first cause (lost you now Big grin)

EGGD
 
Jaspike
Topic Author
Posts: 4843
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:40 pm

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Thu Apr 26, 2001 2:43 am

Well said egg!

Tom
 Big thumbs up
 
Logos
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2000 10:47 pm

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Thu Apr 26, 2001 3:16 am

Well said egg!

Well, not exactly. My point (and I think EGGD understands this) was that the conditions created by that piece of metal would not have caused another aircraft to crash in all likelihood.

It's as if an airplane has its wings tear off when encountering turbulence and thus crashes. Yes, the turbulence "caused" the crash, but a properly designed airplane would have withstood the turbulence and thus the aircraft's design is at fault.

The fault with the Concorde's wings was known, had caused a previous incident and a recommendation to repair the flaw had circulated before the crash. In view of that, to say that Continental is at fault is disingenuous.

Cheers,
Dave in Berlin
Too many types flown to list
 
737doctor
Posts: 1291
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 4:52 pm

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Thu Apr 26, 2001 3:28 am

First of all, I would like to say that I am a fan of the Concorde. I think it hearkens back to the more "romantic" days of aviation. The aircraft was designed by men with slide rules (not computers) and therefore, is flown in a "slide rule sort of way". The aircraft is an awesome feat of engineering and it deserves more than a footnote in the book of aviation history.

That being said however, I am tired of hearing about the Concorde's "impeccable safety record". That is simply not true. The aircraft has had a dozen incidents involving tire blowouts and subsequent damage to the aircraft as a result. The most serious event occurred at Washington Dulles in 1979, when two tires exploded and ruptured three of the fuel tanks. Fortunately, the leaking fuel did not ignite and a possible tragedy was averted.

The problem we have is that the media looks at the big picture and fails to go beyond the mere surface of events. They see an aircraft that has flown for 30 years without a fatality and they say "wow, it has a sterling safety record", while failing to take into account the number of flights that the fleet has accumulated during those 30 years. To put it into perspective, please read the following article:

http://airsafe.com/journal/issue14.htm

Then for further clarification, check out this chart:

http://airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

You can see by comparison that over their 30 years of service, the entire fleet of Concordes has only accumulated the equivalent of 10 days worth of flights by the world's fleet of 737's. It's like comparing apples to oranges. This should hopefully help to dispell the myth of the Concorde's near perfect safety record.

As far as the cause of the crash, yes a piece of metal caused the tire to blow out, but as Dave in Berlin mentioned, with any other aircraft that wouldn't have been a factor. And the Concorde's history of tire failures bears that out...

Now for the subject of debris from other aircraft... I am an aircraft mechanic and I've been involved with aviation for my entire adult life. Let me tell you, little pieces of airplanes are dropping off of every different type of aircraft at every airport in the world all of the time. Anytime you have such a complex piece of machinery, constructed out of a million parts undergoing such high stresses over and over again, things are going to fall off. I don't know how many times I've had a plane come in missing an airstart or external power door, because someone forgot to latch it properly. These things happen.

So, while I'm not trying to attack anyone, I just wanted to include my $.02 and hopefully help set the record straight on a couple of things.

Best regards...
Patrick Bateman is my hero.
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Thu Apr 26, 2001 6:28 am

The Times, January 21st 1976

BAC / Aerospatiale Advert.

"From today there are two types of airlines.

Those who have Concorde.

And those who take twice as long."
 
DL727-200adv
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2000 10:23 am

RE: 737doctor Said It Best

Thu Apr 26, 2001 2:33 pm

737doctor said it best! It drives me nuts to hear people saying how safe the Concord is or any other aircraft that are rather few in numbers (like the L1011) just because they managed to go many years without many major disasters. Then the same people attack an aircraft like the 737 even though the world 737 fleet has accumulated far more total flight hours and cycles than any other aircraft. People seem to forget that at any given second there are probably 1000+ 737's airborne worldwide. How many Concords were ever airborne at any given time?...& how many total hours and cycles has the world Concorde fleet logged? Think about it if you apply the same logic to cars you would think that the safest cars (safest in this case meaning avoiding an accident completely not survivability once in an accident) you'd probably find that more Honda Accords & Toyota Camry’s are involved in accidents than any other car meanwhile some unique specialized kit cars have been in nearly 0 accidents. Does this mean that Accords and Camry's are particularly dangerous & the kit cars are particularly safe. NO because there are so many more Accords & Camry's there will naturally be more Camry & Accord accidents meanwhile a garage kept kit car that is driven 1 mile a month will be more likely to never be in an accident. I guess Howard Hughes's Spruce Goose is the safest plane ever built!  Smile

DL727-200adv
 
LUFC
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 8:00 pm

RE: Dl727-200adv

Thu Apr 26, 2001 4:37 pm


Your logic is correct.

So if the same amount of Concordes had been built as 737s how may do you think would have been lost by now. My guess is about 50, same as the 737.

See my earlier post on this topic.
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Mon May 07, 2001 7:16 am

"So if the same amount of Concordes had been built as 737s how may do you think would have been lost by now. My guess is about 50, same as the 737."

Wrong. There would be far less than 50. There would be about 10, and they all would have been lost in the same month. After that, they would have been grounded permanently, and you'd be drinking Pepsi and Mountain Dew out of them.

And about CO being at fault... ho hum. What if it had been a rock on the runway that Concorde had hit? Same fate. Tire would have exploded, fuel tank would have punctured, all souls aboard lost. Blaming CO is just like this crazy situation: Someone decides it would be fun to play football on the freeway. Not surprisingly, that someone is hit by a car, and killed. His family then turns around and sues the driver that hit him. Can you see the parallel?

As for the market for when they come back, just take a look at the number of people who flew Concorde in the week or so after the accident. Normally approaching a full flight, these flights were leaving with about 1/3 to 1/2 of their normal load. It's a sad end, but it is an end indeed.
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: Should Concorde Live On?

Mon May 07, 2001 8:12 am

The average load factor is around 50%!!!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AirCbp, David L, Emperorvalse, euroflyer, Google [Bot], hyd09l27r, LAX772LR, michaelg90222, qf15, StTim, travelhound, Unflug and 204 guests