Mongu…Its interesting that you should bring automobiles into this argument. The other week a friend of mine tried trading in a Ford Focus with a local franchised dealer….The dealer did’nt want to know! As the friend in question negotiated the price right down barely 2 yrs ago the dealership was totally disinterested as basically according to them there was “precious little in it for us”. Now I presume that the dealer is practicing an authorised policy of the motor co. involved?. Anyway I digress, I hardly think that the fact that Airbus inherited the Concorde support programme is “irrelevant”, Who else was going to do it, especially as at the time the support was set up, both Aerospatiale BAe and the two carriers involved were state owned, this is quite central to the case, both carriers covered by the support have voiced total satisfaction with it and have both instructed the support provider that it is no longer required. Now I agree that VS should be covered by the same contract should they actually operate the Concorde, but as far as we know has any official move been made in that direction? As far as RR are concerned ref the Olympus support, I’m sure that once Concorde is grounded, that support programme will be as unecessary as the Airbus one and for the same reason. I still await an answer to my previous question ref: Airbus providing support for a soon to be non-operational (as things stand at present) airliner, with great interest. I’m sorry if some find this irrational, but we are having an objective debate……..are’nt we??
Sign In
