Concorde conspiracy theory - please read!!!
Discussion
Concorde only needed 44% seat capacity to make a profit. BA always made a big profit out of concorde. The french on the other hand didn't because their route to america was blocked. BA had its hands on the lucrative america slots and wasn't going to give them up for anything even if it meant the demise of concorde. They could always use conventional aircraft to fill the slots which is exactly what they've already done.
sparkyjohn 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
London to Paris is about 200 miles, tops. I find that VERY hard to believe that London flights were that short of range .......
I believe Concorde had a value (which bean counters wouldn't understand) to BA out of all proportion to the measurable value of bums-on-seats. While BA flew Concorde, it was unique in the world (apart from Air France, and Air France don't count). Concorde was the loss leader, the aspirational top-of-the-range model that people couldn't afford but which got them into the BA showroom. Without Concorde BA is just another carrier with nothing to distinguish it from any other outfit except a finflash.
I heard that Air France had a Problem in flight in February this year, and it was a bit of a close shave.
Mainly due to the way the crew reacted.
AF nearly whacked themselves, and were frightened by what they saw on one of the Aircraft when examined.
They went to Airbus, who then said that would be X million to fix, they said no, called in BA who also said the same.
That is another rumour doing the rounds.
Mainly due to the way the crew reacted.
AF nearly whacked themselves, and were frightened by what they saw on one of the Aircraft when examined.
They went to Airbus, who then said that would be X million to fix, they said no, called in BA who also said the same.
That is another rumour doing the rounds.
mondeoman said:
London to Paris is about 200 miles, tops. I find that VERY hard to believe that London flights were that short of range .......
Concorde London to NYC was at the operational limit of the aircraft as defined by the FAA. Clearly that's not the same thing as it only being capable of reaching NYC, but rather that its reserve was insufficient for any greater flying time.
sparkyjohn said:
mondeoman said:
London to Paris is about 200 miles, tops. I find that VERY hard to believe that London flights were that short of range .......
Concorde London to NYC was at the operational limit of the aircraft as defined by the FAA. Clearly that's not the same thing as it only being capable of reaching NYC, but rather that its reserve was insufficient for any greater flying time.
Concorde could fly further at Mach2 at 60,000 feet but if there was a problem and had to drop to subsonic it used more fuel. Hence Cardiff was the emergency landing airport for Heathrow. So a NYC to Paris flight would have the same problems.
Going the other way they use Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Edited to say - here's an example - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2781275.stm
>> Edited by FourWheelDrift on Monday 27th October 18:04
Concorde WAS the biggest terrorist target EVER.
Due to it's flight regieme it was IMPOSSIBLE to retrofit (or plan to retrofit) any of the countermeasures that are available to "normal" commercial aircraft.
Try getting your fleet insured in a couple of years time.
IMHO of course.
MoJo.
Due to it's flight regieme it was IMPOSSIBLE to retrofit (or plan to retrofit) any of the countermeasures that are available to "normal" commercial aircraft.
Try getting your fleet insured in a couple of years time.
IMHO of course.
MoJo.
t...... that's Thermoman 
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff