NZ Teletext is reporting that a 20,000 signature petition has been handed to British PM Tony Blair in an attempt to persuade him to get Concorde flying again. Save Concorde Group was protesting in Downing Street apparently.
“”We are not talking about passenger flights… just six or eight times a year at airshows,” the group chairman says,”
I don’t know too much about Concorde’s retirement except that most seem to be sold off to museums now. So what is stopping someone from buying and flying one? Has some special ban been put on the type specifically? Or is this group just hoping that the Government will foot the bill?
Does anyone seriously think that a Concorde will take flight again in Britain? Are any capable of flying right now or would it take a lot of work?
What happened to all the French ones? Are any of them still flying?
By: Andy in Beds - 13th November 2004 at 15:38
Thanks Andy – now you’ll be the one getting the abuse 😉
Bring it on.
By: Arthur - 13th November 2004 at 15:32
No!–not often, always!
Thanks Andy – now you’ll be the one getting the abuse 😉
By: Andy in Beds - 13th November 2004 at 15:07
Nationalism often goes down better with a bit of ignorance :diablo:
No!–not often, always!
By: Arthur - 13th November 2004 at 14:52
If this is the level of knowledge of the people involved in Save Concorde (snippet from Andrewman’s quote):
Dear Howard
Many thanks for the reply. With the greatest of respect to you and Iain and everyone at Airbus, the situation with Concorde is not acceptable to the nation. Concorde is a British Aviation icon, the likes of which we will probably not see again in our lifetime. To dismiss Concorde as a has been, is to totally forget that she is the only supersonic passenger aircraft in the world…
SNIP
…senior executives of BA and Airbus cannot be allowed to get away with the greatest industrial scandal in British aviation history !Kind regards
78derngate
then may i suggest another solution?
It’s called RA-771144. This was the last Tu-144 to fly (it made some test flights on behalf of NASA in 1999), and probably has far less obstacles which have to be overcome in order to have it back up in the air. Paint it up in some sort of paintjob that would make Margaret Thatcher proud, and i’m sure lots of people will be very happy. It seems to me the enthusiasm for Concorde for some people has to do more with nationalism than with aviation anyway – surely they won’t notice the difference. Even if they knew something like the Tu-144 existed of course. Besides, nationalism often goes down better with a bit of ignorance :diablo:
By: Canada TD - 12th November 2004 at 23:38
Totally irrelevant, Andy
No DA = No fly
…..snip rest
Yep Andy that is the bottom line as I have said before. I would love to see Concorde fly again, but ‘No DA, No fly’ is it (sung to Bob Marley’s music!!). Dear old Ashton…., please tell us your credentials old chap…..do you work for the CAA? Do you have huge knowledge of BCARs and other airworthiness issues? Do you have a DA waiting in the wings? (pardon the pun). You seem to insult other people nilly willy without laying your own cards on the table!
Regards to all
By: Der - 10th November 2004 at 18:08
Its on a different thread.
I’ll close the door on the way out……………..
By: Der - 10th November 2004 at 17:58
The post I was replying to there appears to have disappeared.
I’ll get my coat……
By: Der - 10th November 2004 at 17:55
Give it up.
You’re wasting your time. It isn’t going to happen.
By: David Burke - 29th October 2004 at 20:08
Anyway back to the original point – presenting a petition to Tony Blair is no
indication of possible success – I remember one years ago about not attacking
Iraq -that must have gone straight through the shredder!
By: David Burke - 29th October 2004 at 20:04
Glad to see the conversation has moved from the supersonic financial black hole to the iconic DC-3
By: RobAnt - 29th October 2004 at 19:32
The older an aircraft gets, the more it costs.
If it’s design goes out of production, and it’s engines become uneconomic to run by todays standards. Otherwise that might not be true.
By: Moggy C - 29th October 2004 at 13:25
That is true.
The older an aircraft gets, the more it costs.
Moggy
By: Ren Frew - 29th October 2004 at 13:18
The Atlantique pollution control fleet?
Moggy
Fair enough, I tend not to think of working aircraft as historic mind you, although I would have to agree they are. What I meant was the costs associated with keeping historic aircraft airworthy in terms of parts and maintenance by comparison to their modern day counterparts.
By: Moggy C - 29th October 2004 at 09:25
Show me an economic historic aircraft ?
The Atlantique pollution control fleet?
Moggy
By: ashtonvillageuk - 28th October 2004 at 20:57
PETITION DAY……24/10…..
Dear All….I thought you might enjoy a read of the Press Release from last Friday’s visit to Downing Street. All media can be viewed on the www.save-concorde.co.uk Forum…..best regards Steve
SAVE CONCORDE: PRESS RELEASE: 21/10/04:PR1
It is almost a year since Concorde, the world’s first supersonic airliner, made its last commercial flight, but one group is campaigning to preserve this unique technology.
The Save Concorde Group are working to return at least one Concorde to flight for heritage. They have attracted support from the public, MPs, former Concorde crew and celebrities, and have been featured on television and radio across the UK.
Tomorrow, to coincide with the first anniversary of the British Concordes’ retirement from active service, they will be handing in a petition of over 20,000 signatures to the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street.
Among those expected to attend this event are former Concorde flight crew including Christopher Orlebar, Concorde captain and author of The Concorde Story, and Ian Kirby, Senior Flight Officer. Other guests include Baroness Ludford MEP and Roger Helmer MEP.
A staunch supporter of the group who is unable to attend is Sir Terence Conran, who has sent a personal message of support to the Save Concorde Group chairman Ross Mallett.
Sir Terence said: “I wish you every success with the Save the Concorde Group and applaud your efforts to get at least one Concorde flying again.
“A petition of over 20,000 signatures only begins to illustrate the level of support there is, not only in the UK, but also throughout the world. We should treat our industrial design heritage in a similar way to our architectural heritage – Concorde should be a Grade 1 listed monument, not left forgotten to rot in a God forsaken air hangar. “The amount required to keep it in the air is modest by today’s standards and to see it fly again would be a great symbol of Britain’s
design heritage and its future. “Good luck with the campaign.”
The day will begin with a rally in Downing Street at 10.00 am. The petition will be handed in at 2.00 pm. Later, from 7.00 to 9.00 pm, there will be a private view of an exhibition at 80 Strand (the Shell-Mex building), comprising work devoted to Concorde.
For further information on the group, please see our website: www.save-concorde.co.uk.
If you have any queries, please contact the Chairman, Ross Mallett: [email]rossmallett@save-concorde.co.uk[/email]
By: RobAnt - 28th October 2004 at 19:54
Economy generally revolves around scale – televisions, while very old technology, are cheap because so many are made.
I expect (not being an economist) that this argument could equally apply to old aircraft designs. Why design a new one using new technology, if the old design, using old technology will actually work out cheaper to run and build?
There might be quite a few old designs that could prove more economic to run commercially, which have already disappeared.
By: David Burke - 28th October 2004 at 19:15
Ren Frew – The Dragon Rapide springs to mind for an economical historic aircraft .
By: ALBERT ROSS - 28th October 2004 at 01:29
Let’s just sum this whole thread up by saying “NICE IDEA BUT IT JUST WON’T HAPPEN”
By: Ren Frew - 28th October 2004 at 01:25
Concorde is an un economic historic aircraft im sorry but face facts!
Show me an economic historic aircraft ?
By: Melvyn Hiscock - 28th October 2004 at 00:31
How much of this privately donated money goes into the pockets of the organisers?
I doubt if any of it will. I really don’t think anyone is being dishonest, there are better ways of doing that, but it is misguided if people are giving money to an organisation that is not set up properly. That was my original point.
It does not matter if the organisers lose money too, that is their problem, but egging people on to lose money on a no hoper is not good and shold not be encouraged
This may NOT be a no hoper, although I have yet to see anything that makes me think otherwise, but if it is then people should at least go in with their eyes open to the possibility of the venture not working.
All I have advocated is realism.
But then what do I know?
Sign In
October 23, 2004 at 8:07 am