Concorde conspiracy theory - please read!!!

Concorde conspiracy theory - please read!!!

Author
Discussion

jv_as

Original Poster:

129 posts

217 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all
Taken from a specialist avaiation forum. This is believed to be the real reasons in chronological order of why Concordes future as the great british airline failed. Makes very interesting reading!!!!


1.Air France had a millstone and they did not know what to do with it (losing money hand over fist).

2.Airfrance decide to scrap.

3.Airfrance now have a poblem, if they scrap and BA continues they are seen as incompetent at best, malicious and incompetant at worst, and an affront to Frances world prestige.

We know that they can act this way, see the pressure on the CAA to supend Concord(e) flights after the accident.

4.Airfrance gets together with French Government and Aerospatial to be released from flying the bird, and hinting that it would not look good if BA were to continue to fly at a profit and inherited all the prestige at France's expense.

5.Aerospatiale now sugests to the French government that it will look once again at the figures, but in a less charitable light since it is not now French prestige at stake allowing the aircraft to fly (perhaps some creative bookeeping has been going on to allow the French government to effectively subsidise Concord(e) by the back door through aerospatiale).

6.Aerospatial now raise the servicing price.

7.Aerospatiale then decide to withdraw the Type Certificate to cap it all.

8 Faced with this BA capitulate, as they are getting no backing from the British government, against aerospatiale,

9.Branson now comes on the scene.

10.BA are now in the same boat as AirFrance. If Branson gets the
aircraft he could prove them publically andembarrasingly wrong, and that would be catastrophic, seriously threatening the financial stability of the company (The ratner trap).

11. Branson reveals he has backing from Middle east oil interests and intends to extend the flying routes back to Dubai. To the guys at aerospatiale and BA House, he now appears to have the limitless resources needed to actually bring this off.


12.Aerospatiale panic also for they could be asked to surrender design authority, and nightmare of all nightmares, Branson transfers design authority across the pond, and gives the keys to aerospatiales supersonic research to the americans (in exchange he gets preferential subsidised maintenance from JFK "a pathetic short term advantage" for selling France's "Birthright").


13.BA is put further under the hammer. There might be price revisions on the future fleet of airbuses that BA might want to order, if he goes along with this transfer. This in turn threatens BA stability.


Hence the determined standoff.

Why does the British government stand off?

Ans:-

Because France has now invested a lot of prestige in getting out of this deal, and things are sticky enough in the Council of ministers without France taking further umbrage at America's poodle, who could now be portrayed as deceitfully manoeuvring to steal EUROPEAN airspace secrets from the custody of the French only to hand them over for nothing to the Americans...once again comfirming how faithless the traitorous British are (and who will sell their own mothers for "half a sou").

oyster

10,134 posts

210 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all
There's not much conspiracy in that post - it's pretty much how it happened.

Except that I think the French government put pressure on Air France because it is undergoing a privatisation (and subsequent acquisition of KLM). Air France after all was run as part of the French state. Airbus also has a largew proportion of ownership from the French government - which in effect gave them carte blanche to do what they like.

BA were in a no-win situation. They could have fought it, and in some ways they did. Air France scrapped theirs within weeks - at least BA kept going for 6 more months, flying thousands on Concorde. I'm sure there were some bean counters within BA who jumped at the chance to retire her also.

Neil_H

15,317 posts

213 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all
Interesting, but as much as I'd like to blame the French, I think it just comes down to 'business'.

rich 36

13,739 posts

228 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all
My mate at BA Wales says they can't now get bits to fit the aircraft and no-one seems interested in tooling to produce them (lenses for example)
he appeared to say, that it only exists as a prestige model, that happens to still take paying passengers as an aside on a (fairly) regular basis, but on no balance of flying hours to say a jumbo over the years

dino ferrana

791 posts

214 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all
Sounds very plausible

pablo

15,431 posts

235 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all
if its a conspiracy theory, no doubt Paul Burrel will provide all the answers in his book about Princess Diana, he seems to have the answers to everything else.......

rich 36

13,739 posts

228 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all
Pablo to the naughty mat in the corner please

V8 Archie

4,703 posts

210 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all
rich 36 said:
...but on no balance of flying hours to say a jumbo over the years
Not entirely surprising as it takes half the time a Jumbo does for each trip. (And yes I know there were minimal numbers of flights in comparison).

craigalsop

1,991 posts

230 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all
Throw in the fact that our intelligence agencies have had info on threats to take out a Concorde with AA missiles, and I think that's pretty much bang on.

DanH

12,287 posts

222 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all
Don't think AA missiles do Mach2, so would be at take off/landing, and thats always a risk anyway.

JMGS4

8,529 posts

232 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all
Rather similar to the scenario I proposed on the first discussion on Concorde, eh?

DanH

12,287 posts

222 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all

Its clear that it was the French that killed it. Their route was longer which made it less profitable for them, then they fell out with the US so their planes had about 2 passengers a flight.

Inevitable that they wanted to kill it asap.

sparkyjohn

1,198 posts

208 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all
Less profitable ? More like -made an even bigger loss- . BA has kept Concorde flying despite making a loss on every flight for the past 2 years (according to BA chairman interviewed during final flight coverage).

It's scarcely a conspiracy. Air France needed to cut its losses without losing face, BA didn't want Branson to end up with Concorde, Air France gave BA a bit of a push, the bean counters gratefully accepted it. Sad, but just business.

Julian64

13,222 posts

216 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all
One point you missed which was the reason france couldn't make a profit out of it. Ba had the flights to america stiched up, and france couldn't get a lookin. No america for a tranatlantic superplane, no profit.

dino ferrana

791 posts

214 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all
On take off and landing Concorde would have been a very easy target for AA missiles. The massive heat the engines generate (they use afterburners for take off!)

sparkyjohn

1,198 posts

208 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all
Julian64 said:
One point you missed which was the reason france couldn't make a profit out of it.

Starting from Paris Concorde barely had the range to reach NYC. One cock-up and it would be forced to land somewhere in the Atlantic

DanH

12,287 posts

222 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all

Can't believe they didn't make a profit over the last 6 months. The planes were full. One of the BA guys speaking on the documentary said they made an obscene amount before France crashed one and forced BA to stop flying too. Of course if you only measure after that and add on the cost of a 17million quid refit Rod Eddington's statement may well be true if you net it all up, but can't see how those planes would lose money when full even with lots of discount tickets.

sparkyjohn

1,198 posts

208 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all
I have no way of knowing the veracity of either statement, not having been on every (or indeed any ) Concorde flight in the last six months, but
DanH said:

The planes were full.
doesn't seem to square up with
Flight International said:
Typical sales of 30% of seats [in 2003]

pedroman

227 posts

212 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all
Just a few questions for your conspiracy theory!
1. Air France have lost money for years, not just on concorde, state subsidy and national pride kept it going.
2. Do you not think the Paris crash had anythink to do with AF decision to ground concorde fleet?
6. BA did the servicing of Concorde, not Aerospatiale.
7. Type certificate (whats that?) i think its actually the CAA that certify the aircraft type, not the french.
11. Dubai? virgin cant even make it a viable route flying classics!
12. Why should selling the planes mean giving up design authority?
13. BA have airbus by the balls like all airlines, new aircraft orders are down, Boeing just let go 50,000 employees, who has the upper hand?
And there were other minor holes in conspiracy theory! like hours flown, rubbish, its cycles that count!
last point, i promise, calling the Brits "faithless traitors" is a bit rich coming from Germany, isnt it?

oyster

10,134 posts

210 months

Monday 27th October 2003
quotequote all
That quote of 30% sales from Flight International is only up to the announcement of Concorde's retirement, and is for Air France as well as BA.

Since the announcement in April, BA Concordes have rarely been less than 90% full. And in the last few months they've sold more tickets than they have seats for just about every flight.