|Quoting EGTESkyGod (Reply 143):|
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 in a heritage role. They found the cost to be too prohibitive. Now, in a heritage role, it would appear at airshows, and at the same time, would be an advertising board. Wait a minute..... advertising board! This is what you are suggesting now! So, it's already been proven that the cost was too prohibitive back in 2003, when the full maintenance parts and people were around.... yet you're suggesting thats what happens now?
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 listen to new ideas. That's why
|Quoting Buckieboy (Reply 149):|
reply 139 has to be one of the most funniest or saddest things I have ever read in all my life.
- because you are so confirmed on your own preconceived ideas that you can't even begin to accept any different ideas from other people. That's what is sad.
|Quoting GDB (Reply 147):|
So from LHR-LHR (or CDG-CDG) 'Round The Bays', to trips in conjunction with cruise liners, to supporting IMF meetings, to the Round The Worlds, a vast range of charters was carried out.
Remember that 9% of revenue figure, effectively, many of these charters were advertising.
(BA did not make money of the basic-and most numerous by far charters, the basic 'Round The Bay's, but they were easy to do, and were, yes, good advertising).
Another case of being so wrapped up in your own preconceived ideas that you fail to see the differences. BA operated an airliner with 100 seats. Essentially 100 coach seats. They operated tourist charters. You have to break these ideas first. You don't have to have 100 seats in it. you can outfit with 25 seats. You can put in a corporate jet style interior. BA found that at the beginning they earned more from the airline style, as they could fill up on enough decently paying fares. But you can also make money by charging astronomical sums to only a few passengers. You probably won't get enough for flying on demand only, but you certainly could find a number of passenger who would leave at five in teh morning from New York to get to a meeting in London at 1:30, and then fly home in time for a late supper. And that is only if you operated as a normal flight between the two cities.
|Quoting GDB (Reply 147):|
Sometimes to open a new (non Concorde) route-we used 3 when we launched the improved domestic 'Super Shuttle' in 1983 for example, or do a flypast (often with the Red Arrows), for national events, now these made no direct money, but as you say, 'advertising space'.
Well, at least you are starting to realize there is impact value. But again, all you are thinking of is a flying billboard. It's more than a flying billboard, though. It's a flying showroom, a flying theater, a flying tour bus, and a flying symbol. It has draw power to bring people to it, and that's the value. It's not just getting people to read your ad. It's a brand experience.
|Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 146):|
The last thing they want to do is have something out there that outruns what their enemies fly? I really really hope you explain this comment. It makes no sense whatsoever - Concorde for its entire career has been able to outrun many fighters, all tankers, ships, tanks and what have you - but you think this is an issue now?!?
Um, I really need to explain this? Do you think a paranoid US would like to see some rich Middle Eastern Sheik start playing around with a supersonic aircraft? If a 767 can cause that much destruction, imagine what a supersonic aircraft could do. It wouldn't be that hard to outfit it to carry some kind of payload, and certainly a lot harder to catch than a normal jetliner, when it outruns a large number of fighter planes and gives some missiles a run for their money. Do I think it is a worse threat now than before? No. But I think the panic level has certainly grown.