Thanks for the compliment GD.

I can see where the others are coming from – in a perfect world, yeah, I wish Concorde could be kept for ever, and I also wish I could afford to fly on it! Trouble is, we don’t live in a perfect world.

I have a terrible habbit of bringing accounting into discussions on airliners, but please indulge me for a moment:

Under UK GAAP (US and IAS too, as far as I know. The UK standard is FRS 15 Tangible Fixed Assetsby the way) an asset must be valued at the lower of cost, or net realisable value.

Cost is clear – whatever BA paid the gov’t, probably either NIL or £1 or something. There might have been an argument for recording Conc at net realisable value, if this was demonstrably more accurate than cost. However, net realisable value is defined as the higher of recoverable amount (ie. market value) and value in use (ie. the cashflow you get from operating Concorde).

In other words chaps, if the cashflow BA expect to get from Conc is negative (it is) then the aircraft must be valued at a nominal amount.

If an asset is worth £1 and is then sold for £1, how can that be construed as “selling the crown jewels” as some of you advocate?

Yes GD, but the ashes of Concorde created Boeing’s nemesis – Airbus Industrie.

Also, the Concorde consortium set the tone for collaborations (usually minus the French) such as Sepecat (Jaguar), Panavia (Tornado) and Eurofighter (Typhoon) as well as the mighty A380!

Well, the US were extremely vocal opponents of Concorde and tried a few times to get it banned from US airspace. They seemed to really hate Concorde, so yeah, maybe they were prepared to be flexible if BA played ball.

Why?

I like Concorde, but…sorry to be so blunt, but it is a pice of metal.

Cadbury’s Rules!

You’re not comparing like with like!

We all know that, technically, foreign choccies are often more chocolatey than Cadbury’s. But, to be honest, I just love Dairy Milk!

Let me be the first to criticise European beer if you’re gonna start down that road!

Very apt.

They always used to write “Golden Falcon” on their aircraft.

Originally posted by Tempest
I don’t clutch straws INK. They may well have known that the Palestine was full of journalists.

But when troops are under fire they shoot at anything they think is shooting at them, call it adrenaline, call the battle fatigue, call it the moment. You don’t stop to think, oh there might be journalists there….they’ve even shot at their own people as you know.

Seen it more than once. I’d probably do the same in their position.

Not acceptable. People who can’t think rationally under fire have no business soldiering. I applied for officer training once, before I was offered much more money to train as an accountant (!) One of the testing regimes that was in place, was to test coolness and ability to think and act dispassionately under stress and in dangerous situations.

If “stress” or “under fire” were an acceptable excuse, nobody would bother with standing orders or rules of engagement because the troops would just say” uh, yeah, sorry man, i was, like, under pressure you know”

Originally posted by Saab 2000
Yes, I heard those rumours as well. Actually there was another factor as to why Ryanair are not flying to Poland. Ryanair are Irish therefore they are Irish registered, this means they cannot operate out of the EU until now. Since their acquisition of Buzz they gained a UK Air Operators Certificate and so it is now a possibility that these countries will be opened up to Ryanair.

How so? The UK and Ireland are both in the EU.