The lifespan of the aircraft could have been extended to 10,000 cycles, taking the BA
fleet to 2012-14 assuming a return to double daily services which you'd need to fund it, in 1999 this work for 7 BA
Concordes was priced at £100 million.
But that would also assume that the airframes would need no more extensive work beyond the re-life 2 plan, which included 22 new elevons, probably a new set of rudders, replacement of many of the air intake ramps, more preventive work on strengthening the crown area, new lower fuselage panels.
As well as new I.N.S. units and other measures to improve the supportability of on board equipment and systems.
The first re-life programme which extended the cycle limit in the early/mid 1990's went smoothly as the airframes were found to be excellent condition.
In 1999 when BA
Concorde was making a profit of £30-35 million a year, re-life 2 looked possible.
But of course as the aircraft got older, more maintenance was needed, not so much the airframes but more the systems, though Concorde made up 30% of the BA
N.D.T. units workload.
A system example was the need to replace many of the circuit cards in the Air Intake Control Computers, to improve reliability and supportability, that was an expensive exercise.
Post sept 11th, re-life 2 looked dead, though the 15 month hiatus in 2000/2001 and the reduced flying afterwards pushed the decision back a couple of years.
We thought the whole idea was dead by last year, as Airbus found the aircraft more difficult to support the aircraft economically for day to day operations, let alone something like re life 2.
seemed set to operate until somewhere between 2005-2007, and BA
went along with that, until things went very sour for AF
in Febuary this year.
The 'Concorde Alliance' plan may have involved possibly bringing 2 AF
aircraft back, but it was a plan largely pushed by BA
Concorde personnel, along with some brought out of retirement.
staff, current and former, may have been involved, I never heard of it though, of course Concorde qualified AF
people would be involved in any operation out of CDG
I'm sure many would be been happy to do so.
It appears that combination of Airbus and some Engineering managers at BA
put a stop to this plan at an early stage, though Eddington was fairly supportive in private, if AF
had any input officially I do not know.
Soon a book called 'Supersonic Secrets' will be published, look out for it, the writer has spoken to people involved recently, on reading it you may find some of the answers to your questions, in particular why Airbus were so keen to stop any Concorde operations post BA
I heard about 'Concorde Alliance' in July, on the understanding I kept quiet about it, private talks going on and all that, it deserved to work but I guess asking other airlines to have a stake in it was a victim of the times we live in now, though VS
should have been keen given all the noise Branson made.
It deserved to get a chance as it did not ignore maintenance issues, as those closely involved with Concorde drew the plan up.