Concorde to fly again?

For Once We both see eye to eye on a matter Sandy

Kevin

It’s been known to happen… 🙂

Hmm, I see here a lot of undue discredit done to BA. Some seem to think they were arrogant or too stubborn. And are to blame for concorde no longer flying.

Well, if they were stubborn, it was in the other direction. They invested something like £12 million in a new interior for their fleet that was lighter and would improve efficiency. Now, is that the action of an Airline that would willfully pull a plane out of service? Especially when the interiors had just been delivered and were awaiting installation?

I don’t think so.

There is also reason to believe that when Airbus announced it was withdrawing Concorde’s certificates and stopping the manufacture of spares, that BA tried to negotiate control of both the Certificate and Spare parts, even willing to buy up the engineers and specifications. Airbus refused.
It is also said that BA approached Air France to part out their already retired fleet. Air France refused, despite the fact that one of their planes had flown for the last few years mainly on BA spare parts.
If either are true, even in part, its pretty damning toward Airbus and Air France.

Also, remember that BA is the only one out of the two airlines that made money operating Concorde.

However, undeniable fact is that Airbus withdrew all manufacturer support. They pulled Concordes certificates. Without either of these, let alone both, no one could operate Concorde commercially. Regardless how much money Branson threw at BA.

The fault is collective. If anything BA are an innocent party. In my opinion it is clear that BA were planning on operating Concorde beyond her eventual retirement date.
I’m more willing to believe that the French consorted to stop BA, a British airline, being the only Supersonic airline.
There has always been a certain degree of jealously between the French and British. Many silly things have come about as a result. So if you think about it, its not at all far fetched.

For Once We both see eye to eye on a matter Sandy

Kevin

Hmm, I see here a lot of undue discredit done to BA. Some seem to think they were arrogant or too stubborn. And are to blame for concorde no longer flying.

Well, if they were stubborn, it was in the other direction. They invested something like £12 million in a new interior for their fleet that was lighter and would improve efficiency. Now, is that the action of an Airline that would willfully pull a plane out of service? Especially when the interiors had just been delivered and were awaiting installation?

I don’t think so.

There is also reason to believe that when Airbus announced it was withdrawing Concorde’s certificates and stopping the manufacture of spares, that BA tried to negotiate control of both the Certificate and Spare parts, even willing to buy up the engineers and specifications. Airbus refused.
It is also said that BA approached Air France to part out their already retired fleet. Air France refused, despite the fact that one of their planes had flown for the last few years mainly on BA spare parts.
If either are true, even in part, its pretty damning toward Airbus and Air France.

Also, remember that BA is the only one out of the two airlines that made money operating Concorde.

However, undeniable fact is that Airbus withdrew all manufacturer support. They pulled Concordes certificates. Without either of these, let alone both, no one could operate Concorde commercially. Regardless how much money Branson threw at BA.

The fault is collective. If anything BA are an innocent party. In my opinion it is clear that BA were planning on operating Concorde beyond her eventual retirement date.
I’m more willing to believe that the French consorted to stop BA, a British airline, being the only Supersonic airline.
There has always been a certain degree of jealously between the French and British. Many silly things have come about as a result. So if you think about it, its not at all far fetched.

Agent K
Very true indeed, but they could have given someone else the oportunity of operating the a/c rather than putting them in situations whereby they become useless. .That action was a wicked waste of technology. BA still technically own them to stop anyone else getting their hands on them. Speaks volumes to me that!

Concorde was a very demanding aircraft in services , it used old Technology. which was time comsuing and expensive, BA had discovered that in one of the aircraft that a major component , the main wing spar had cracked prices to repair was quoted at about £3-£8million per plane , The airframe and Avionics could not be upgraded due to weight ( the more she weighed, the less she carried)and space constraints then Airbus Withdrew Support,(stopped producing parts to keep it airworthy)
B.A did the right thing , retiring her with Grace, They had 30 odd years of experience in operating her , and have the enviable reputation of not losing one aircraft in that time Something that we all Should be proud of

I would rather see her in her former condition in a museum than watch some other operator run her into the ground ( remember there are no longer any on the shelf new parts coming from AIRBUS ) so at least the rest of the fleet would have to be sacraficed just to keep one flying

And for those who keep harking on about getting her flying again , time to smell the coffee and take a drink of reality “she never will “

Whats the score with the Concorde at Heathrow

Whats state it in

Has the engines ever been started

What is any future plans.

This article from the latest Sunday Herald offers some insights…

http://www.sundayherald.com/58617

I am pretty sure that she has no engines and that it is full of old BA News (or something similar) to weigh her down.

Whats the score with the Concorde at Heathrow

Whats state it in

Has the engines ever been started

What is any future plans.

Unfortunately BA is not a charity it is a business and has to make profits to continue to exist.

Thats the bottom line , no matter how good the aircraft is ( concord was right there in a league of its own) the airline cannot sustain it if the costs are too great and they end up making a loss , they have investors to worry about and also the fact that they might go under .

To maintain/store for several years airplanes in an airworthy condition not raising revenue is not feasible.

And thank god for BA that they didnt do it , the added cost would have been a big burder considering there pension benifits costs and them wanting to replace ageing fleet of 747’s and 767’s something that can cost upwards of 8 billion $ !!

Why on earth was there no “son of Conc” being developed?

Most likely because it was not feasable , SST as of now is not a profitable venture to get in , heck even a mariginally faster Sonic cruiser wont get the airline’s considering the higher CASM !!

You have to blame in part our aviation industry for making so many mistakes during development of aircraft.
The only real success story was the Vickers Viscount which was developed to meet many airlines needs especially the american market, however, the VC10,Vanguard, Trident were never great sellers as they were tailor made for BOAC and BEA. the makers made a huge mistake in not offering different versions acceptable to other non British airlines. With Concorde, a replacement should have been on the drawing board within 5-10 years of its first commercial service,

There were. Concorde B. ATSF/Alliance.

Yes, Concorde became a little unreliable towards the end of its life and we can all moan or dream for one to fly again, but it wont happen.
I think the main argument here is that the UK along with France had an SST transport in service from 1976 to 2003, and now there is no SST, its as if we have taken a giant leap backwards, I think this is what angers people the most.

I think we all have to accept, Concorde will never fly again, and as a previous poster said, ” airbus have more important things to think about than helping to get a concorde flying again.”

There were about as many Tu-144s as Concordes. And the Tu-144s were never as reliable as Concorde at the end of its life.

Well, nearly 20 years after the end of scheduled services, there were enough Tu-144s in good condition to make a return to flight for the NASA supersonic testing.

Why cannot Concordes do the same?

You have to blame in part our aviation industry for making so many mistakes during development of aircraft.
The only real success story was the Vickers Viscount which was developed to meet many airlines needs especially the american market, however, the VC10,Vanguard, Trident were never great sellers as they were tailor made for BOAC and BEA. the makers made a huge mistake in not offering different versions acceptable to other non British airlines. With Concorde, a replacement should have been on the drawing board within 5-10 years of its first commercial service, the cost would have been very high, but it could have been done as a joint venture with other manufactures around the world. We would still have an SST if this had happened,
Yes, Concorde became a little unreliable towards the end of its life and we can all moan or dream for one to fly again, but it wont happen.
I think the main argument here is that the UK along with France had an SST transport in service from 1976 to 2003, and now there is no SST, its as if we have taken a giant leap backwards, I think this is what angers people the most.

I think we all have to accept, Concorde will never fly again, and as a previous poster said, ” airbus have more important things to think about than helping to get a concorde flying again.”

Why on earth was there no “son of Conc” being developed?

Were there any plans as the old bird got older and longer in the tooth?

Concorde’s time had come. It was old. The number of occasions after the return to service that one had to return to stand because of a techincal problem was very high.

Yes, we’d all love to see one flying, but it just wasn’t commercially viable any more. I’d imagine that even if BA had charged 10k per ticket, it still wouldn’t have been viable.

Agent K
Very true indeed, but they could have given someone else the oportunity of operating the a/c rather than putting them in situations whereby they become useless. .That action was a wicked waste of technology. BA still technically own them to stop anyone else getting their hands on them. Speaks volumes to me that!

Unfortunately BA is not a charity it is a business and has to make profits to continue to exist. To maintain/store for several years airplanes in an airworthy condition not raising revenue is not feasible. Now, fluids are drained from the airplanes as they would be of no use left in an airplane deterioirating for years anyay?, this is just not a valid argument. Also, I think that Airbus have vastly more important things on their hands right now than to spend effort on supporting Concorde, they need to get the A380 and A350 sorted which will produce vastly more profit for them.

Keep on dreaming

Of course, we would all love to see Concorde fly again, frankly, I dont feel this will ever happen. The chance came and went. B.A. were very stubborn, my opinion is that they should have accepted or even considered Richard Bransons proposal to share the plane or allow him to buy one or two of them.

One thing that really angers me though, B.A. decided to drain all fluids etc and its reason for retiring the Concorde was mainly costs and fallout from 9/11, however, they never thought ” what if there is a sudden or gradual upturn in air traffic and demand for Concorde, if we keep them in long term storage, power them up occasionally we can preserve them until such times they are needed again” Why was this never considered. Ok there is a cost involved, but surely this should have been considered.

Meanwhile, our much loved non flying ex B.A. concordes are slowly but surely becoming in poor condition and B.A. seem happy to let it happen.

Shame on them

Airbus pulled manufacturer support which is why it was grounded……………….

Not entirely it seems!!!!!! 😡

And how would the airplane be able to fly without a certificate of airworthiness, which requires manufacturer support in order to be able to obtain one, and Airbus pulled manufacturer support which is why it was grounded……………….

BA are stupid and selfish they should at least let one off there Concordes fly 😡

James