Concorde: The Comeback

Author
Discussion

Silent1

Original Poster:

19,761 posts

235 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
I've just been watching this on Discovery Turbo.
It's heartbreaking to see these people talking about doing things that will last to the end of the plane and how they're not going to need to be replaced for 10-15 years and how optimistic they are about it flying again.
Of course whilst knowing what happened to Concorde now makes the program seem even more tragic, the way these people were so optimistic and the amount of money spent not on just keeping it flying but provisions for training new pilots to take over from the guys who retire in the next 5-8 years cry
How this could be let to happen and not just happen but make sure all the planes will never fly again, not even for displays, it's criminal really.

Eric Mc

121,994 posts

265 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
Why?

It was a commercial operation. When commerce dictates that if it isn't commercially viable then opperations need to cease.

offendi

244 posts

147 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Why?

It was a commercial operation. When commerce dictates that if it isn't commercially viable then opperations need to cease.
WOW! A commercial operation ? really ? I'd never have known if it wasn't for you. Where would we be without people like you ? I've no idea but no doubt it would be a much happier place.

OP I agree with you

Eric Mc

121,994 posts

265 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
offendi said:
Eric Mc said:
Why?

It was a commercial operation. When commerce dictates that if it isn't commercially viable then opperations need to cease.
WOW! A commercial operation ? really ? I'd never have known if it wasn't for you. Where would we be without people like you ? I've no idea but no doubt it would be a much happier place.

OP I agree with you
So you don't dispute that it couldn't be kept flying as a commercial proposition?

Zaxxon

4,057 posts

160 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
Is it worth having a seperate area on this forum for the monthly lament about the loss of Concorde? smile

Eric Mc

121,994 posts

265 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
I agree. It's all a bit hackneyed.

daz3210

5,000 posts

240 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
offendi said:
Eric Mc said:
Why?

It was a commercial operation. When commerce dictates that if it isn't commercially viable then opperations need to cease.
WOW! A commercial operation ? really ? I'd never have known if it wasn't for you. Where would we be without people like you ? I've no idea but no doubt it would be a much happier place.

OP I agree with you
So you don't dispute that it couldn't be kept flying as a commercial proposition?
I don't think that was the OP's point.

Commercial is one thing, but displays entirely different.

I have an idea, the Lancaster bomber is an outdated warplane, and not cutting edge for todays world, so lets ditch the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. What you say Eric?

Silent1

Original Poster:

19,761 posts

235 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Why?

It was a commercial operation. When commerce dictates that if it isn't commercially viable then opperations need to cease.
I was under the impression BA were actually making money on concorde, even if it was a commercial operation, once they ceased to be used as such there was no need to make sure that they couldn't be maintained for future display use, there were plenty of groups that would have had one and kept it as close to flight worthy as they could have and it wouldn't have cost BA anything.
I'd wager a decent sum of money that concorde if it was run like the Vulcan to the sky campaign would take in far more money that the vulcan does.

daz3210

5,000 posts

240 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
Didn't Branson/Virgin try to buy one at some point, for the simple purpose of keeping it flying?

simer553

483 posts

152 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
I read somewhere that Branson offered to but the operation from BA to run it commercially. He was refused....

Sounds a bit fishy? Suspect he was a victim of being 'non pc' as this would have embarrassed Air France and BA perhaps?

frown

Eric Mc

121,994 posts

265 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
I don't particularly want to debate this all over again as it has been done to death too many times here. So, if you don't mind, I'm not going to respond to those who want me to debate further.

I've said what I have to say on this particular topic many times already.

mph1977

12,467 posts

168 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
as per usual the subject of the lack of a design authority has been ignored.

Ian Lancs

1,127 posts

166 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
simer553 said:
I read somewhere that Branson offered to but the operation from BA to run it commercially. He was refused....

Sounds a bit fishy? Suspect he was a victim of being 'non pc' as this would have embarrassed Air France and BA perhaps?

frown
Pure publicity - Virgin were never seriously going to pay for the upkeep of a flying Concorde. Not to mention Airbus were no longer going to support it from a Design Authority perspective!

neilbauer

2,467 posts

183 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
I might be way off the mark as I know nothing about planes exept they fly! but I thought the reason they stopped using them was safety issues after the crash!

Edited by neilbauer on Sunday 4th March 13:59

Eric Mc

121,994 posts

265 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
Nope.

neilbauer

2,467 posts

183 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
ok

Petrolhead_Rich

4,659 posts

192 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
neilbauer said:
I might be way off the mark as I know nothing about planes exept they fly! but I thought the reason they stopped using them was safety issues after the crash!

Edited by neilbauer on Sunday 4th March 13:59
It needed a modification to the wing fuel tanks IIRC, carbon composite shield to protect it from damage.

BA/AF didn't have cash to keep it going, with the global downturn demand was low, more so after the crash as people saw it as unsafe (compared to other jumbo's it's alot bloody safer!!) so it became a black hole for cash, which neither party had.

I'm hoping that like the Vulcan, one will be restored, I'd like to think it would be restored to commercial standard and offered out to the public as sadly I never got to fly on one! frown

Eric Mc

121,994 posts

265 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
Concorde's not a "jumbo". Indeed, it's rather small.

Lost soul

8,712 posts

182 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
simer553 said:
I read somewhere that Branson offered to but the operation from BA to run it commercially. He was refused....

Sounds a bit fishy? Suspect he was a victim of being 'non pc' as this would have embarrassed Air France and BA perhaps?

frown
Branson is very good at self promotion , its easy to make such an offer that will be very expensive but also very popular if you know it will be declined

surveyor

17,817 posts

184 months

Sunday 4th March 2012
quotequote all
My understanding was that BA were making a Profit, but however Air France were not (and never did) make a profit. Air France pulled out and Airbus also decided to stop supporting the design, and that was pretty much that.