Well, the engines have spooled down for almost the last time, so its now safe to make a post on this forum without it being moved!
Concorde.
Welcome to the fold; I hope you have a better future as an artefact than some of the other poor souls we discuss on this forum from time to time.
This must be the first time, that (with one sad and obvious exception), the entire production run of an aircraft has been preserved. It remains to be seen how kind time will be to them.
I have felt an overwhelming sadness today, as I sat in an office and worked on a still older design. I cant exactly place it, nor can I lay blame at the doors of the businessmen, politicians, and perhaps as importantly terrorists who have brought about the demise of the supersonic dream.
It is fine to criticise BA, Air France and Airbus over the decision, but at the end of the day, if you were driving a bus with no passengers then you too would stop. Perhaps that is an unfair analogy. Perhaps it is better to say that if you were charging your passengers less than it cost to operate, then you, too would stop. BA is no longer the behemoth of old that could afford to do this. It still loses money all the time. Having to foot the entire bill for the future operation of Concorde, after Air France pulled out really was a bridge too far. It would have added perhaps 60% to the ticket price making it an unrealistic proposition. Perhaps I am being cynical, but I wonder if Branson ever really expected to have a shot at Concorde, or whether all of this sabre rattling has just been part of his long running spat with BA… It certainly makes good publicity for him!
The aftermath of 9/11 led to the end of the dream. Fewer passengers, and many fewer tourists have left ALL of the airlines struggling. So if you want to blame someone, then perhaps you should look to the terrorists. That said, the latest war hasnt helped, so maybe Mr Bush should also stand up and be counted!
I am sad to see it go. I doubt we will see its like again in my lifetime. (I’m only 35!!). Earlier, I watched the news, and Tony Benn described it as watching the end of British manufacturing. That is the really sad part. In the last century, the British were the inventors. We invented most of the things we take for granted in the modern world. Sadly, others have capitalised on this, and very soon, us Brits will be a footnote on history.
Enough of this melancholy. Over to you.
Cheers
Bruce
By: cas - 26th October 2003 at 12:08
Re: G-BOAC
Originally posted by D R
Knowing BA, they will cancel G-BOAC on Corcorde and apply it to a god damn Airbus 747-400??!!?? or what ever the hell they call those things!!!
well that is one thing they BA can`t do
once a reg is issued and taken up it can`t be transfered
By: Der - 26th October 2003 at 11:48
So, thats it all over then.
Another great British institution bites the dust.
I suppose the only other example of Brit lateral thinking still flying is our old friend, the Harrier.
Once its American replacement comes into service, we’ll all be crying in our beer again.
By: JDK - 26th October 2003 at 10:12
About time too DB!
How do we get hold of the emboidery Shuttleworth kit then?
Cheers
By: JDK - 25th October 2003 at 21:29
Hi all,
I’m not going to defend BA (I’m as unimpressed as the rest of you) but some of the stats and info flying around are a bit off – and I include BBCi’s patetically unpunchy ‘report’ among them. For some info BA have put a FAQ section on their website. Takes a bit of finding, but it does give answers to the £1 per aircraft story, and what was paid by BA at other times. Yes, I know it’s a biassed source, byut they also have to be accurate – I’m sure Branson’s lawyers are on the case!
I’ve posted my Birmingham Concorde pics at http://community.webshots.com/user/buchonalia Not as good as Damien’s but I think I got something of the crowds and the atmosphere. I can’t think of any other machine which might get so many, Brummies and enthusiasts, families, big kids and little kids, grandads and mums, black and white, to stand in a cold field outside Birmingham for an hour or more.
Certainly the end of something Great.
In memoriam,
By: Bruce - 25th October 2003 at 15:35
Yes, but second time was money from Large institutions as much as we the tax paying public.
But I take your point!
Cheers!
Bruce:D
By: warbirdUK - 25th October 2003 at 14:07
Originally posted by Bruce
Geoff,I think your logic is a little out.
Yes, taxpayers paid for the development costs (British and French taxpayers)
(first time, the money from taxpayers)
When they were sold to BA for whatever it was then some of that development cost came back to the government. As BA were still government owned at the time, this was really only a paperwork shuffle.When BA were privatised, i.e. sold by the government, another chunk of money came back to the government. If Concorde was operated at a profit whilst BA was in govt ownership, then in effect it paid back some of the development costs (in simple terms)
(second time, chunk of money from public/taxpayers)
If Concorde was in profit in the privatised years, then BA got the money for their coffers.You can work out the operating costs from your 60% load factor above. If you know the ticket price, you can work backwards, and work out how much one flight costs, and from that how much it cost per annum to fly, if you know how many flights there were. For future operations, factor in the Airbus costs, and you should be able to see if it could be profitable!
Cheers
Bruce
So it was only twice that the public funded Concorde & not three times! I stand corrected.
Cheers………………………:)
By: Bruce - 25th October 2003 at 13:03
Geoff,
I think your logic is a little out.
Yes, taxpayers paid for the development costs (British and French taxpayers)
When they were sold to BA for whatever it was then some of that development cost came back to the government. As BA were still government owned at the time, this was really only a paperwork shuffle.
When BA were privatised, i.e. sold by the government, another chunk of money came back to the government. If Concorde was operated at a profit whilst BA was in govt ownership, then in effect it paid back some of the development costs (in simple terms)
If Concorde was in profit in the privatised years, then BA got the money for their coffers.
You can work out the operating costs from your 60% load factor above. If you know the ticket price, you can work backwards, and work out how much one flight costs, and from that how much it cost per annum to fly, if you know how many flights there were. For future operations, factor in the Airbus costs, and you should be able to see if it could be profitable!
Cheers
Bruce
By: warbirdUK - 25th October 2003 at 12:28
It would be nice to have BBDG outside too for its arrival
If this is the Filton stored Concorde then you might not want to see it in it’s present state, nose, tail & most of the systems missing as I understand it.
I would be interested to know what the operating costs for Concorde were, hearing yesterday that the break even cost was 60% full anything over that they were in profit. I personally can’t see that the maintenance cost was any higher than say a 747, In fact, I would have thought as it is a smaller airframe cost should be less, as there is less of it! one problem of course is that where you can spread the cost of maintenance between 350 odd passengers in a 747 you can only spread it over 160 ish in Concorde.
It seems to me that the BA Concorde’s have been paid for twice by the British people, I could be wrong, the first time when the Government (tax payers) funded the BAC company for the development of the aircraft, the second time was when British Airways which I believe was funded by the Government (tax payers) at the time paid a large amount to the Government for the spares package which included the aircraft at £1 each so really with no capital investment they were onto a winner! Just thought of something else, If BA is a PLC then when it was floated on the stock market the aircraft cost must have been included as assets therefore included in the share price so public (Shareholders)(also maybe UK tax payers) paid for yet again! am I getting it wrong?? or is that 3 times??
Great pictures Damien!!
Concorde RIP
By: Arabella-Cox - 25th October 2003 at 11:35
Marvellous pictures from Damien as ever. Mine are all on soggy film (both the camcorder and the digital decided to die, probably out of sympathy for the old girl).
I can’t think of any other instance in history, where mankind has taken such a technologically backwards step.
Still, never say never, eh?
By: Bruce - 25th October 2003 at 11:04
BA are an easy target.
But as I mentioned right at the beginning; consider the actual reasons for the aircrafts demise. In the immediate past, the accident in France was a major contributing factor. Airbus increasing the price of manufacture support was perhaps the biggest problem. When Air France pulled out, and BA were left with the entire bill, then the end was nigh. You cant operate these things just because we happen to like them.
Go back further, and you will be surprised it lasted as long as it has. If you consider the interest it had when first mooted, then realise that the 70’s oil crisis effectively killed it off, that is the beginning of the end.
Without the oil crisis, the aircraft would have had all those sales. They would have built more than 20 units, and son of Concorde would have been built – bigger, more efficient and quieter.
Lots of ‘ifs’, but it didnt happen. So we are left now without a supersonic airliner. We are now a much more cautious society than we were 40 years ago, and are wholly driven by the industry. If the airlines dont want a supersonic airliner, then we dont get one.
Sad, but inevitable.
Bruce
By: Black Knight - 25th October 2003 at 00:57
Look everybody, Mach 2 no hands.
By: Black Knight - 25th October 2003 at 00:41
I was there from 8 am. I used to think BA stood for Bloody Amazing but now i’m sure is Bloody A*******s!
Fantastic day though a very sad ending. Even though the BA chief said that they are still trying to get the O.K to operate one in a heritage capacity but a definate answer won’t be given until next week.
By: Bluebird Mike - 25th October 2003 at 00:16
Just look at those shots of Damien’s. No, I mean, really LOOK at them. Do you see it? Do you really see what BA have done?
I hope like me, you will forever now think of BA as nothing but the company that got rid of our beloved Concorde.
Just LOOK at what they’ve done. 🙁
By: stevieb - 24th October 2003 at 23:41
Nice one DB!
By: David Burke - 24th October 2003 at 23:21
I think in reality the public identified themselves with the ‘British’
part of British Airways and they were happy to carry on with it.
We had British Airways in the 1930’s – at that time however they
were distinctly in the shadow of Imperial Airways .
As for the Concorde – well the simple facts that most activities can be carried out through cable or satellite connections negated
the need for businessmen to travel to meetings.
Another factor that came into play was the availability of true
transatlantic business jets to corporations and the ‘stars’.
Very much a ‘flying wardrobe’ – the pace might well have been slower but Concorde was very limited on destinations.
The arrival of three at Heathrow whilst symbolic also underlined to me that it could have been handled better.
How much more interesting would it have been for simultaneous
retirement landings at East Fortune – Filton – Manchester and London(LHR).
By: D R - 24th October 2003 at 23:13
G-BOAC
Knowing BA, they will cancel G-BOAC on Corcorde and apply it to a god damn Airbus 747-400??!!?? or what ever the hell they call those things!!!
By: Bruce - 24th October 2003 at 23:07
Damien,
You’ve been a busy man this week. Excellent pictures. I was hoping when I started the thread that you would post something!
And you are absolutely right
‘British’ airways no more. When G-BOAC is no longer in the fleet, how can you qualify!!
Bruce
By: Seafuryfan - 24th October 2003 at 23:07
As always Damien, the clarity of your photographs astonishes me. Well done, and thanks (as to all of our contributers) for sharing.
By: Firebird - 24th October 2003 at 22:30
Fab pics Damien…as usual:D
Don’t suppose you got a shot of the BAA Land Rover Discovery chasing that fox across the grass/taxiways towards the 3 taxiing Concordes did you….most amusing….:D 😀
By: Manonthefence - 24th October 2003 at 22:25
Top stuff, you just cant beat the “old” D60;)
Incidentally how was the chaos around LHR?
Sign In
October 24, 2003 at 8:16 pm