Concorde to fly again ?
Discussion
Don't shoot the messenger please http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/travel/83904/con...
One for display and subsequently one for flight - perhaps
One for display and subsequently one for flight - perhaps
Eric Mc said:
Has all the hallmarks of a scam to me.
As has been discussed many, many times here, getting a Concorde into the air is nothing to do with money.
i don;t see Airbus suddenly turning round and rolling overon the DA /EA stuff As has been discussed many, many times here, getting a Concorde into the air is nothing to do with money.
as RR Aero are unwilling to support the none afterburning aero application Olympus engines i don;t see them supporting the 593s in Concorde...
"They have two aims: firstly, to place one of the aircraft on a purpose-built platform positioned by the London Eye and above the Thames"
Eh? How exactly are they going to a) get approval for and b) physically achieve that?
Much as I'd love to see the old bird gracing the skies again this has non-starter writ large all over it.
Eh? How exactly are they going to a) get approval for and b) physically achieve that?
Much as I'd love to see the old bird gracing the skies again this has non-starter writ large all over it.
Like most people in aviation, I would love to see a Concorde flying again, but I'm very sceptical about this 'plan'.
In order to get an aircraft flying again the support and co-operation of the aircraft's owners, BA & AF, together with its manufacturer, Airbus and engine maker RR would be required. As far as I am aware, none of those organisations has any intention of participating.
Without them on board, it simply isn't going to happen.
In order to get an aircraft flying again the support and co-operation of the aircraft's owners, BA & AF, together with its manufacturer, Airbus and engine maker RR would be required. As far as I am aware, none of those organisations has any intention of participating.
Without them on board, it simply isn't going to happen.
mph1977 said:
Eric Mc said:
Has all the hallmarks of a scam to me.
As has been discussed many, many times here, getting a Concorde into the air is nothing to do with money.
i don;t see Airbus suddenly turning round and rolling overon the DA /EA stuff As has been discussed many, many times here, getting a Concorde into the air is nothing to do with money.
as RR Aero are unwilling to support the none afterburning aero application Olympus engines i don;t see them supporting the 593s in Concorde...
As already mentioned, no Concorde will ever fly again....full stop. The end. Finis.
Bradgate said:
Like most people in aviation, I would love to see a Concorde flying again, but I'm very sceptical about this 'plan'.
In order to get an aircraft flying again the support and co-operation of the aircraft's owners, BA & AF, together with its manufacturer, Airbus and engine maker RR would be required. As far as I am aware, none of those organisations has any intention of participating.
Without them on board, it simply isn't going to happen.
Personally id love to see a viable new generation supersonic airliner in our skies but I don't think that will happen in my life time either In order to get an aircraft flying again the support and co-operation of the aircraft's owners, BA & AF, together with its manufacturer, Airbus and engine maker RR would be required. As far as I am aware, none of those organisations has any intention of participating.
Without them on board, it simply isn't going to happen.
Foliage said:
Personally id love to see a viable new generation supersonic airliner in our skies but I don't think that will happen in my life time either
How old are you? If you have another 20+ years left I'd wager you will see another supersonic airliner.My grandfather was born before powered flight and died the day the Sukhoi Su-30 first flew.
I don't think the Branson offer was really anything more than a bit of publicity.
As I understand, Air France wanted out, and I don't think Airbus were too keen on having people employed on a bespoke fleet.
This meant the full maintenance costs would now have to have been footed by BA. BA tried to negotiate an extension until 2004, which was the end of their Barbados timetable, but Airbus wanted to pull the plug earlier.
Branson did not have the pilots, ground crew/engineering team to do it, and would pilots (some with many years service with BA) have really wanted to jump ship to Virgin?
With the decline in the market at the time, the death of many business travellers in 9/11, it meant that even with healthy loadings, BA could not not support all operational costs by themselves.
As I understand, Air France wanted out, and I don't think Airbus were too keen on having people employed on a bespoke fleet.
This meant the full maintenance costs would now have to have been footed by BA. BA tried to negotiate an extension until 2004, which was the end of their Barbados timetable, but Airbus wanted to pull the plug earlier.
Branson did not have the pilots, ground crew/engineering team to do it, and would pilots (some with many years service with BA) have really wanted to jump ship to Virgin?
With the decline in the market at the time, the death of many business travellers in 9/11, it meant that even with healthy loadings, BA could not not support all operational costs by themselves.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff