Discussion:
Petition for keeping one Concorde flying
(too old to reply)
Paul Sengupta
2004-02-02 11:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Don't know if you know about this, but the petition to keep Concorde
flying is going to change. The emphasis is now going to be on keeping
one airworthy to be used at airshows, etc.

If you want to sign the petition (anyone that signed the old one will
automatically be carried over to the new one) it's linked from the
website below.

http://www.save-concorde.co.uk

Paul (not involved with it, I would just like to see one kept flying!)
David Wright
2004-02-02 12:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Sengupta
Don't know if you know about this, but the petition to keep Concorde
flying is going to change. The emphasis is now going to be on keeping
one airworthy to be used at airshows, etc.
If you want to sign the petition (anyone that signed the old one will
automatically be carried over to the new one) it's linked from the
website below.
http://www.save-concorde.co.uk
Oh dear, why bother - it's obvious that it's not going to happen. No
petition of any size is going to influence Airbus! There is no cost benefit
from flying a Concorde for airshows is there?

D.
Paul Sengupta
2004-02-02 13:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Wright
Post by Paul Sengupta
Don't know if you know about this, but the petition to keep Concorde
flying is going to change. The emphasis is now going to be on keeping
one airworthy to be used at airshows, etc.
Oh dear, why bother - it's obvious that it's not going to happen. No
petition of any size is going to influence Airbus! There is no cost benefit
from flying a Concorde for airshows is there?
Maybe not. But then there isn't to keep Spirfires or Lancasters or
Hurricanes or Hunters flying, or returning Vulcans, Lightnings or
Buccaneers to the air.

Paul
David Wright
2004-02-02 14:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Sengupta
Maybe not. But then there isn't to keep Spirfires or Lancasters or
Hurricanes or Hunters flying, or returning Vulcans, Lightnings or
Buccaneers to the air.
I am not an aviation buff by any means, but I would say the sheer size and
complexities of Concorde, not least the more specialist parts it needs, are
prohibitive for Airbus to keep it flying for such un-occasional use.

I expect all the others listed fly, or are being fixed to re-fly, with
donations of hundreds or thousands of pounds. Surely Concorde would cost
millions to keep flying - and nobody is going to pay that!

I admit it is a shame - I was there at Heathrow to watch the last landings.

And, isn't it a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted?
All the Concorde's have gone, or are going, to their new static homes -
there isn't a Concorde left to fly is there??

D.
Paul Sengupta
2004-02-02 15:33:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Wright
I expect all the others listed fly, or are being fixed to re-fly, with
donations of hundreds or thousands of pounds. Surely Concorde would cost
millions to keep flying - and nobody is going to pay that!
Millions, probably. Millions here too. Still hope it happens!

http://www.tvoc.co.uk/index2.htm
Paul Sengupta
2004-02-02 15:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Wright
And, isn't it a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted?
All the Concorde's have gone, or are going, to their new static homes -
there isn't a Concorde left to fly is there??
Well, they've (mostly) flown there and been put in a hangar. They haven't
been taken apart or anything like that as far as I know. Ignoring the
legalities, I would guess you could, for example, bring AF out of the
hangar at Filton, fuel it up and fly it tomorrow. Or today even... :-)
Maybe they've drained the oil, don't know...

One of them (AB?) is still at Heathrow, standing out on the tarmac.
This one hasn't had the kevlar liners put in the fuel tanks.

By the way, we (at Brooklands museum) hope to get BBDG in March
or maybe April.

http://www.concordesst.com/

Paul
Paul Sengupta
2004-02-02 15:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Sengupta
One of them (AB?) is still at Heathrow, standing out on the tarmac.
This one hasn't had the kevlar liners put in the fuel tanks.
AA is at Heathrow too apparently. Guess it's inside.
a
2004-02-02 16:47:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Wright
Post by David Wright
And, isn't it a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has
bolted?
Post by David Wright
All the Concorde's have gone, or are going, to their new static homes -
there isn't a Concorde left to fly is there??
Well, they've (mostly) flown there and been put in a hangar. They haven't
been taken apart or anything like that as far as I know. Ignoring the
legalities, I would guess you could, for example, bring AF out of the
hangar at Filton, fuel it up and fly it tomorrow. Or today even... :-)
Maybe they've drained the oil, don't know...
I seem to remember hearing that engineers were standing by at Manchester to
make it unflyable the day it arrived?
Sla#s
2004-02-02 16:58:31 UTC
Permalink
"Paul Sengupta" <***@killspam.etl.ericsson.se> wrote in message news:bvlqt4$g0o$***@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
<SNIP>
Post by Paul Sengupta
Well, they've (mostly) flown there and been put in a hangar. They haven't
been taken apart or anything like that as far as I know. Ignoring the
legalities, I would guess you could, for example, bring AF out of the
hangar at Filton, fuel it up and fly it tomorrow. Or today even... :-)
At a very minimum it would need a 100hr check - Cost?
Then are the C of A, compass swing, C of R, weigh schedule, Radio licence
etc. still valid ?

Slatts
Stephen Cook
2004-02-02 17:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Sengupta
legalities, I would guess you could, for example, bring AF out of the
hangar at Filton, fuel it up and fly it tomorrow. Or today even... :-)
I've been past Filton several times since it arrived and each time I've seen
it standing outside. I assume it was taken out of the hangar as soon as the
crowds had gone home and has been there ever since. I don't suppose that
standing outside will do it much harm in the short term, but I did get the
impression, at the time it arrived, that it was going to be looked after
rather better than that.

Stephen
John Bishop
2004-02-02 22:41:21 UTC
Permalink
The planes airworthiness certificate relies upon the manufacturer to support
it. They have stated their refusal to do that. The many spitfires etc,
flying around use very basic (1930's) technology and are no more difficult
to keep in the air logistically than a cessna or piper - more expensive
though!

Concorde is a huge leap in technology and the cost of maintaining just one
would far outweigh the income it could derive from shows. Without it's
certificate, it can never carry passengers. Besides, many of the museums are
building special halls to accomodate concorde, do you think they'll let it
go out for a run whenever it wants?

I would love to see one flying, but be realistic, it's not going to happen.
:-(

John
Post by David Wright
Post by David Wright
And, isn't it a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has
bolted?
Post by David Wright
All the Concorde's have gone, or are going, to their new static homes -
there isn't a Concorde left to fly is there??
Well, they've (mostly) flown there and been put in a hangar. They haven't
been taken apart or anything like that as far as I know. Ignoring the
legalities, I would guess you could, for example, bring AF out of the
hangar at Filton, fuel it up and fly it tomorrow. Or today even... :-)
Maybe they've drained the oil, don't know...
One of them (AB?) is still at Heathrow, standing out on the tarmac.
This one hasn't had the kevlar liners put in the fuel tanks.
By the way, we (at Brooklands museum) hope to get BBDG in March
or maybe April.
http://www.concordesst.com/
Paul
Dave Stadt
2004-02-02 22:42:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bishop
The planes airworthiness certificate relies upon the manufacturer to support
it. They have stated their refusal to do that. The many spitfires etc,
flying around use very basic (1930's) technology and are no more difficult
to keep in the air logistically than a cessna or piper - more expensive
though!
Concorde is a huge leap in technology and the cost of maintaining just one
would far outweigh the income it could derive from shows. Without it's
certificate, it can never carry passengers. Besides, many of the museums are
building special halls to accomodate concorde, do you think they'll let it
go out for a run whenever it wants?
I would love to see one flying, but be realistic, it's not going to happen.
:-(
John
I would rather see the money spent on the flyable restoration of a fleet of
historic planes than to keep one Concorde in the air. In the overall scheme
of things the Concorde does not hold a significant spot in aviation history.
John Bishop
2004-02-03 06:27:56 UTC
Permalink
I agree with your first point, but you couldn't be more wrong on the second.
concorde was a fantastic achievement, and if you compare the cost of modern
fighter jets, not that expensive.

It's like F1 racing cars, they might cost a fortune, but many new ideas are
developed on these cars that are later in everyday use by the rest of us.
Concorde was no different.

John
Post by Paul Sengupta
Post by John Bishop
The planes airworthiness certificate relies upon the manufacturer to
support
Post by John Bishop
it. They have stated their refusal to do that. The many spitfires etc,
flying around use very basic (1930's) technology and are no more difficult
to keep in the air logistically than a cessna or piper - more expensive
though!
Concorde is a huge leap in technology and the cost of maintaining just one
would far outweigh the income it could derive from shows. Without it's
certificate, it can never carry passengers. Besides, many of the museums
are
Post by John Bishop
building special halls to accomodate concorde, do you think they'll let it
go out for a run whenever it wants?
I would love to see one flying, but be realistic, it's not going to
happen.
Post by John Bishop
:-(
John
I would rather see the money spent on the flyable restoration of a fleet of
historic planes than to keep one Concorde in the air. In the overall scheme
of things the Concorde does not hold a significant spot in aviation history.
Dennis O'Connor
2004-02-03 15:36:51 UTC
Permalink
One of the interesting facts is that the chief pilot for BA has more
supersonic stick time than all of the fighter pilots of all of the airforces
of the world added together... The speed birds are indeed a magnificant
technological triumph... Unfortunately, they are not economic to keep flying
and cash strapped socialist governments lack the will to build the next
generation of birds...
And it appears that the USA is not going to build an SST in the forseeable
future... So, like the moon program, we in the USA are back to pondering
past glory <hum Springsteen's Glory Days > as we slowly slide into the
socialist quagmire of ever increasing entitlement programs that suck the
country dry and leave no money, or will, to advance into the future... A
whimper not a bang...
denny
Ali Hopkins
2004-02-05 18:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis O'Connor
One of the interesting facts is that the chief pilot for BA has more
supersonic stick time than all of the fighter pilots of all of the airforces
of the world added together... The speed birds are indeed a magnificant
technological triumph... Unfortunately, they are not economic to keep flying
and cash strapped socialist governments lack the will to build the next
generation of birds...
If the UK had a socialist government, then I could see your point.

Ali
Corky Scott
2004-02-03 18:00:43 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 06:27:56 -0000, "John Bishop"
Post by John Bishop
It's like F1 racing cars, they might cost a fortune, but many new ideas are
developed on these cars that are later in everyday use by the rest of us.
Concorde was no different.
John
Like what? Really, I'm curious, what now common technologies from
formula one are in constant use in street cars?

Thanks, Corky Scott
John Bishop
2004-02-03 20:08:43 UTC
Permalink
I'm not going to tax my brain to work out how many, but try modern day
braking systems with anti-lock and traction control, advances in gearbox
design, including paddle controls (waste of time), fuel injection systems
that cut off supply whilst coasting to economise, active suspension system
design, turbo charged engines. Need any more for getting on with?
Post by Corky Scott
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 06:27:56 -0000, "John Bishop"
Post by John Bishop
It's like F1 racing cars, they might cost a fortune, but many new ideas are
developed on these cars that are later in everyday use by the rest of us.
Concorde was no different.
John
Like what? Really, I'm curious, what now common technologies from
formula one are in constant use in street cars?
Thanks, Corky Scott
K
2004-02-02 18:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Wright
Post by David Wright
Post by Paul Sengupta
Don't know if you know about this, but the petition to keep Concorde
flying is going to change. The emphasis is now going to be on keeping
one airworthy to be used at airshows, etc.
Oh dear, why bother - it's obvious that it's not going to happen. No
petition of any size is going to influence Airbus! There is no cost
benefit
Post by David Wright
from flying a Concorde for airshows is there?
Maybe not. But then there isn't to keep Spirfires or Lancasters or
Hurricanes or Hunters flying, or returning Vulcans, Lightnings or
Buccaneers to the air.
What about fast taxi runs? The Cold War jets at Bruntingthorpe are
regularly wheeled out to be bombed down the runway to the delight of the
thousands who turn up for every open day there. No COA or anything
required. So why not the same with Concorde?

Of course the biggest obstacle to keeping classic jets flying in this
country is the CAA. That's why if you want to see Buccs and Lightnings
flying you have to travel to South Africa. A national disgrace if ever
there was one.

K
TTA Cherokee Driver
2004-02-05 18:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Wright
Post by David Wright
Post by Paul Sengupta
Don't know if you know about this, but the petition to keep Concorde
flying is going to change. The emphasis is now going to be on keeping
one airworthy to be used at airshows, etc.
Oh dear, why bother - it's obvious that it's not going to happen. No
petition of any size is going to influence Airbus! There is no cost
benefit
Post by David Wright
from flying a Concorde for airshows is there?
Maybe not. But then there isn't to keep Spirfires or Lancasters or
Hurricanes or Hunters flying, or returning Vulcans, Lightnings or
Buccaneers to the air.
The difference is that what Concorde does that's so impressive -- fly
supersonic in the high flight levels -- doesn't really provide good
theater at air shows, the way restored warbirds do.
Paul Sengupta
2004-02-06 15:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by TTA Cherokee Driver
The difference is that what Concorde does that's so impressive -- fly
supersonic in the high flight levels -- doesn't really provide good
theater at air shows, the way restored warbirds do.
True, but it does provide a great airshow performance too!

Paul - Fairford '92.
Robert Briggs
2004-02-06 17:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Sengupta
Post by TTA Cherokee Driver
The difference is that what Concorde does that's so impressive -- fly
supersonic in the high flight levels -- doesn't really provide good
theater at air shows, the way restored warbirds do.
True, but it does provide a great airshow performance too!
s/does/did/

:-(
Jay Honeck
2004-02-02 13:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Sengupta
http://www.save-concorde.co.uk
Sounds like tilting at wind-mills, Paul... :-(

We'd all love to see one fly again, but it isn't going to happen by
petition.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
Paul Sengupta
2004-02-02 13:49:08 UTC
Permalink
No, maybe not. But someone somewhere may see how much
support there is, so it may help. It's not a "hey, we demand you
keep it flying" sort of petition, it's more a "we'd support any
person or organisation that has a plan", or a "come on guys, look
how people love this machine" sort of thing.

Paul
Post by Jay Honeck
Post by Paul Sengupta
http://www.save-concorde.co.uk
Sounds like tilting at wind-mills, Paul... :-(
We'd all love to see one fly again, but it isn't going to happen by
petition.
Ali Hopkins
2004-02-02 17:15:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Sengupta
No, maybe not. But someone somewhere may see how much
support there is, so it may help. It's not a "hey, we demand you
keep it flying" sort of petition, it's more a "we'd support any
person or organisation that has a plan", or a "come on guys, look
how people love this machine" sort of thing.
Good for you, I'll sign it. OK, it may not get anywhere, but for Ghu's sake,
it's no effort to sign a petition; and at least it keeps the issue alive.
Not a dig at any one person, but I do get irritated when people simply
dismiss efforts in an Eyeore-ish manner.

Ali
Dave Stadt
2004-02-02 13:49:42 UTC
Permalink
It takes $$$$$$$ to keep airplanes flying not petitions.
Post by Paul Sengupta
Don't know if you know about this, but the petition to keep Concorde
flying is going to change. The emphasis is now going to be on keeping
one airworthy to be used at airshows, etc.
If you want to sign the petition (anyone that signed the old one will
automatically be carried over to the new one) it's linked from the
website below.
http://www.save-concorde.co.uk
Paul (not involved with it, I would just like to see one kept flying!)
Jeff Franks
2004-02-02 15:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Stadt
It takes $$$$$$$ to keep airplanes flying not petitions.
...and complacency to keep one grounded.
Ali Hopkins
2004-02-02 17:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Franks
Post by Dave Stadt
It takes $$$$$$$ to keep airplanes flying not petitions.
...and complacency to keep one grounded.
SFX: Loud applause to that man.

Ali
Paul Sengupta
2004-02-02 15:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Indeed!

http://www.tvoc.co.uk/index2.htm
Post by Dave Stadt
It takes $$$$$$$ to keep airplanes flying not petitions.
Eric Miller
2004-02-02 22:40:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Stadt
It takes $$$$$$$ to keep airplanes flying not petitions.
Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines offered to keep them flying and was
turned down.
Even if he couldn't keep them in service, he was willing to keep one or two
flying with a £1 million trust fund... and was still turned down.
This was over 6 months ago.

Eric
K
2004-02-03 00:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Miller
Post by Dave Stadt
It takes $$$$$$$ to keep airplanes flying not petitions.
Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines offered to keep them flying and was
turned down.
Even if he couldn't keep them in service, he was willing to keep one or
two flying with a £1 million trust fund... and was still turned down.
This was over 6 months ago.
Eric
Not really. Richard Branson used the Concorde retirement for his own ends
in another one of his publicity seeking exercises and to score points over
his old enemy BA. He knew that it was not feasible to keep them flying and
he knew that hell would freeze over before BA handed over those planes to
him. But still he stole the opportunity to appear on TV and proclaim
himself as the savior of Concorde.

And anyway, £1M isn't a lot when it comes to keeping something as complex
as that in the air, even for a few airshow appearances.

K
Sla#s
2004-02-02 16:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Sengupta
Don't know if you know about this, but the petition to keep Concorde
flying is going to change. The emphasis is now going to be on keeping
one airworthy to be used at airshows, etc.
It would be just too expensive and from past experience it would crash.
I think when we are down to the last serviceable machine of historic type it
should be grounded!
If some one then wants to see it flying - make them build a replica
airframe! (As the engines are not usually the problem.)

Slatts
Ali Hopkins
2004-02-02 17:16:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sla#s
I think when we are down to the last serviceable machine of historic type it
should be grounded!
You'd not restore the Vulcan, then?

Ali
Sla#s
2004-02-03 17:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by Sla#s
I think when we are down to the last serviceable machine of historic
type
Post by Ali Hopkins
it
Post by Sla#s
should be grounded!
You'd not restore the Vulcan, then?
Restore - Yes - Fly - only if one other stays grounded.
But mind you the museum could always catch fire - nothing is totally safe

Slatts
G.R. Patterson III
2004-02-03 20:31:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sla#s
Restore - Yes - Fly - only if one other stays grounded.
This implies that you think it's ok to fly one as long as there are other examples
which are grounded. That makes sense, and I agree with it, but that's not what you
originally said.

If that's really what you mean, then you won't argue against keeping a Concorde
flying, since there are several intact planes safely on the ground.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.
G.R. Patterson III
2004-02-03 03:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sla#s
I think when we are down to the last serviceable machine of historic type it
should be grounded!
Fine, then let's keep two of them flying.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.
Jeb
2004-02-03 18:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by G.R. Patterson III
Post by Sla#s
I think when we are down to the last serviceable machine of historic type it
should be grounded!
Fine, then let's keep two of them flying.
Someone would have to pay and I suspect it would take all the airshow
income in the world to keep a couple of Concordes flying and that
would to the great disadvantage of many other interesting aircraft who
depend on airshows etc to help keep them in the air.

Concorde should rest peacefully in the museums safe in the knowledge
that as museum peices they are unique.

They are in terms of airframe, engines etc more techically advanced
than much else flying and will be for quite some time. Its not often
the case where museums are in that position.

Concorde RIP
Sla#s
2004-02-03 17:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by G.R. Patterson III
Post by Sla#s
I think when we are down to the last serviceable machine of historic type it
should be grounded!
Fine, then let's keep two of them flying.
Cost of keeping two Concordes flying - millions per annum.

Or - OK and when one crashes ground the other!

Slatts
David Cartwright
2004-02-03 09:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Sengupta
Don't know if you know about this, but the petition to keep Concorde
flying is going to change. The emphasis is now going to be on keeping
one airworthy to be used at airshows, etc.
It's a valiant attempt, and just in case a miracle should happen I've signed
the petition, but I fear that it's simply not realistic to try to keep a
Concorde flying.

In its favour, Concorde is a very low-hours aircraft. Although it's been
flying for 30-odd years, it's so fast that it never actually flew for very
long on any one trip, and so when compared to a B747 of similar age, the
fatigue hour count is low. It's also a collection of some of the most
inspired engineering to be found anywhere in the world, by which I mean
things like the engine technology and the aerodynamics. Oh, and it's the
most inspiring passenger airliner to watch - even experienced airline
captains admit to getting a thrill seeing it take off as they sit in the
queue for the runway at Heathrow, JFK, etc.

Unfortunately, this is about all that it has going for it. It's expensive to
run, it's as noisy as hell, and in the current climate of dwindling ticket
sales, I don't think BA really had a lot of choice but to withdraw it.

I was as cynical as the next person when the announcement to withdraw
Concorde was made - the machine is part of Britain's heritage and I agree
that's a crying shame that nobody will see one fly again. It would appear,
though, that the reasons were perfectly logical, it's just that none of the
mainstream media actually bothered to report the facts as they stood.

For instance, I wondered why Air France withdrew its aircraft last spring,
while BA hung on until the autumn. It would appear, in fact, that the
contract between Air France and BA by which each airline paid half of the
maintenance contract with the manufacturer expired at the end of the
autumn - so while Air France decided to stop immediately and save cash on a
money-losing enterprise, BA at least knew that AF would be contributing to
their maintenance costs. They also knew darned well that they could
capitalise on the "book now for the last few flights" market, and hence they
kept it going until the maintenance contract ran out.

I was also cynical about whether BA's reason for withdrawing really was
because they couldn't make money on it any more, but having seen people like
Mike Bannister (senior Concorde captain) state that this really was the
case, I'm willing to accept that this may be the case.

The Richard Branson thing was also a red herring, I reckon. I have a great
deal of respect for Sir Richard (he may act like a muppet, but he's happy,
he's loaded and he's a knight of the realm, so he must be doing something
right), but one of the ways he's made the Virgin name so widely known is his
innate ability to get into the public eye with schemes that aren't
necessarily realistic. I do wish he'd been able to put together a decent
case for taking over the Concorde fleet, but I really don't think that as a
hard-nosed businessman it would be possible to do so - remember, even if the
costs remained the same as they had within BA, the maintenance fees would
have doubled because he wouldn't have been sharing the bill with Air France.
To make a profitable Concorde operation would probably have taken tens
(maybe even hundreds) of millions of pounds, and no sensible finance
director would ever sign up to it.

All this said, though, there are two questions that do remain unanswered.

1. C of A
I read reports that the reason the aircraft was being withdrawn was because
the manufacturers were withdrawing its Certificate of Airworthiness. This
struck me as odd, (a) because it's the CAA/JAA that issues the C of A, not
the manufacturer, and (b) one would assume that even though it's an
expensive aircraft to maintain, the manufacturer would have been more than
happy to maintain it for any airline willing to pay the bills.

2. BA's right to decommission
Exactly what was the agreement between the British government and BA when
the latter was privatised? From what I understand, the aircraft were sold to
BA for a nominal sum (£1 each or thereabouts) - but what were the conditions
of this sale? Were BA obliged to keep flying the thing for a given time, for
instance, or could they have decommissioned them the day after privatisation
if they'd deemed them too expensive to fly? And was there any clause in
there that stated that if they stopped flying them, they were to revert to
public ownership? Because if not, there should have been.

D.
Peter
2004-02-03 11:31:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Cartwright
For instance, I wondered why Air France withdrew its aircraft last spring,
while BA hung on until the autumn.
I heard the reason was that after Gulf War 2 the Air France Concordes
were mostly empty, due to the American boycott.
Post by David Cartwright
remember, even if the
costs remained the same as they had within BA, the maintenance fees would
have doubled because he wouldn't have been sharing the bill with Air France.
If Branson took over *all* the planes, the maintenance bill per plane
would not have been any higher than it was previously. Whether Virgin
would have been able to operate some (G-reg) Concordes entirely
outside the UK is another matter - I don't think this is normally
possible to get approved.
Post by David Cartwright
To make a profitable Concorde operation would probably have taken tens
(maybe even hundreds) of millions of pounds, and no sensible finance
director would ever sign up to it.
Not if people buy the tickets :)
Post by David Cartwright
All this said, though, there are two questions that do remain unanswered.
1. C of A
I read reports that the reason the aircraft was being withdrawn was because
the manufacturers were withdrawing its Certificate of Airworthiness. This
struck me as odd, (a) because it's the CAA/JAA that issues the C of A, not
the manufacturer, and (b) one would assume that even though it's an
expensive aircraft to maintain, the manufacturer would have been more than
happy to maintain it for any airline willing to pay the bills.
I heard exactly that from a BA insider: Airbus were more than happy to
maintain it; they certainly make money out of it. But they were told
to say what they said by the French Govt. It is just plain aircraft
engineering, after all. And yes, the CAA would issue a CofA if it was
maintained adequately.
Post by David Cartwright
2. BA's right to decommission
Exactly what was the agreement between the British government and BA when
the latter was privatised? From what I understand, the aircraft were sold to
BA for a nominal sum (£1 each or thereabouts) - but what were the conditions
of this sale? Were BA obliged to keep flying the thing for a given time, for
instance, or could they have decommissioned them the day after privatisation
if they'd deemed them too expensive to fly? And was there any clause in
there that stated that if they stopped flying them, they were to revert to
public ownership? Because if not, there should have been.
BA owned them, and were free to scrap them, which they did.

The best reason I have heard so far was the major overhaul coming up
soon. But they have known about that from day 1, haven't they?


Peter.
--
Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail.
E-mail replies to ***@peter2000XY.co.uk but remove the X and the Y.
Please do NOT copy usenet posts to email - it is NOT necessary.
B S D Chapman
2004-02-03 13:21:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Cartwright
1. C of A
I read reports that the reason the aircraft was being withdrawn was because
the manufacturers were withdrawing its Certificate of Airworthiness. This
struck me as odd, (a) because it's the CAA/JAA that issues the C of A, not
the manufacturer, and (b) one would assume that even though it's an
expensive aircraft to maintain, the manufacturer would have been more than
happy to maintain it for any airline willing to pay the bills.
Airbus wanted to withdraw the Type Certificate (in other words, their
support for the aircraft), without which the PTCoA could not be maintained.
Peter
2004-02-03 15:59:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by B S D Chapman
Airbus wanted to withdraw the Type Certificate (in other words, their
support for the aircraft), without which the PTCoA could not be maintained.
Ok, but that leads to the question as to WHY they wanted to withdraw
it.

I've got a customer who wants to buy an old obsolete product which I
discontinued years ago and which is a pig to make, so I quoted him a
high price. I didn't tell him to go away. So there is more to this
story.


Peter.
--
Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail.
E-mail replies to ***@peter2000XY.co.uk but remove the X and the Y.
Please do NOT copy usenet posts to email - it is NOT necessary.
B S D Chapman
2004-02-04 10:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by B S D Chapman
Airbus wanted to withdraw the Type Certificate (in other words, their
support for the aircraft), without which the PTCoA could not be maintained.
Ok, but that leads to the question as to WHY they wanted to withdraw
it.
I've got a customer who wants to buy an old obsolete product which I
discontinued years ago and which is a pig to make, so I quoted him a
high price. I didn't tell him to go away. So there is more to this
story.
That's exactly what Airbus did.
They said that they would tripple their costs from October 2003. If that
wasn't acceptable to the airlines, then they would drop their support for
the Type Certificate.

Airbus didn't want concorde on their conscience anymore. It was simply
bad press. Since the Paris accident, every engine surge and maintenance
related delay has been headline news, as if another concorde was about to
drop out of the sky. Add to that the real problem of rudder failures, and
you have Bad Press every month.

What if?

Airbus wanted to drop concorde because it was too hot to handle for them.
Sad thing is of course, that in the public eye, airbus had f**k all to do
with the project!!!

So they priced themselves out of the market.
--
...And so as the little andrex puppy of time scampers onto the busy
dual-carriage way of destiny, and the extra-strong meat vindaloo of fate
confronts the toilet Out Of Order sign of eternity... I see it is time to
end this post.
pacplyer
2004-02-05 07:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Every French airplane I ever flew had one thing in common. They would
sell or lease the airframes to you for a bargain only to later gouge
you on the parts. The Falcon 20 standby hydo pump we discovered, was
made of gold and cost as much as some second hand loaner engines we
had used. We had to resort to a very iffy shade-tree overhaul just to
stay in business. The Airbus A310 reverser AD was so expensive
(millions of dollars) that instead, my outfit sought and recieved
relief to operate for over a year with *both* reversers inop! This
contributed to a over-run accident in the tropics ten months later.
After being refused permission to fly over French airspace durring
Desert Storm, I say I can't imagine having to depend on the French for
any kind of support at all!

IMHO, best to retire that fine old girl before she starts falling out
of the sky like the Commet.

Cheers,

pacplyer
Post by B S D Chapman
Post by Peter
Post by B S D Chapman
Airbus wanted to withdraw the Type Certificate (in other words, their
support for the aircraft), without which the PTCoA could not be maintained.
Ok, but that leads to the question as to WHY they wanted to withdraw
it.
I've got a customer who wants to buy an old obsolete product which I
discontinued years ago and which is a pig to make, so I quoted him a
high price. I didn't tell him to go away. So there is more to this
story.
That's exactly what Airbus did.
They said that they would tripple their costs from October 2003. If that
wasn't acceptable to the airlines, then they would drop their support for
the Type Certificate.
Airbus didn't want concorde on their conscience anymore. It was simply
bad press. Since the Paris accident, every engine surge and maintenance
related delay has been headline news, as if another concorde was about to
drop out of the sky. Add to that the real problem of rudder failures, and
you have Bad Press every month.
What if?
Airbus wanted to drop concorde because it was too hot to handle for them.
Sad thing is of course, that in the public eye, airbus had f**k all to do
with the project!!!
So they priced themselves out of the market.
B S D Chapman
2004-02-05 09:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by pacplyer
IMHO, best to retire that fine old girl before she starts falling out
of the sky like the Commet.
Hmmm.
The comparison with the commet is most unfair - to both aircraft.
Commet fell out of the sky because of the lack of understanding about
metal fatigue. Pressurisation was a new thing for the airliner industry.
It was a tragic design flaw (which may or may not have been covered up)
that everyone in the world learnt from - not least Boeing. The second
generation of Commet lasted many years... and 19 of those airframes will
be arround for another 20 years (with just a minor overhaul costing
billions of pounds of course!!!)

Concorde on the other hand has been amazingly successful considering the
boundries the designers had to cross. More amazing that the one fatal
accident it has had was nothing to do with the design around those
boundries.
Post by pacplyer
Cheers,
pacplyer
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:59:20 +0000, Peter
Post by Peter
Post by B S D Chapman
Airbus wanted to withdraw the Type Certificate (in other words, their
support for the aircraft), without which the PTCoA could not be maintained.
Ok, but that leads to the question as to WHY they wanted to withdraw
it.
I've got a customer who wants to buy an old obsolete product which I
discontinued years ago and which is a pig to make, so I quoted him a
high price. I didn't tell him to go away. So there is more to this
story.
That's exactly what Airbus did.
They said that they would tripple their costs from October 2003. If that
wasn't acceptable to the airlines, then they would drop their support for
the Type Certificate.
Airbus didn't want concorde on their conscience anymore. It was simply
bad press. Since the Paris accident, every engine surge and maintenance
related delay has been headline news, as if another concorde was about to
drop out of the sky. Add to that the real problem of rudder failures, and
you have Bad Press every month.
What if?
Airbus wanted to drop concorde because it was too hot to handle for them.
Sad thing is of course, that in the public eye, airbus had f**k all to do
with the project!!!
So they priced themselves out of the market.
--
...And so as the little andrex puppy of time scampers onto the busy
dual-carriage way of destiny, and the extra-strong meat vindaloo of fate
confronts the toilet Out Of Order sign of eternity... I see it is time to
end this post.
pacplyer
2004-02-05 18:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by B S D Chapman
Post by pacplyer
IMHO, best to retire that fine old girl before she starts falling out
of the sky like the Commet.
Hmmm.
The comparison with the commet is most unfair - to both aircraft.
Commet fell out of the sky because of the lack of understanding about
metal fatigue.
I thought the rudder tear-aways that happened several times on the
Concord were design/operator metal fatique problems. I would say that
there are only a few supersonic airframes the size of the concord that
have ever flown. Just like Commet's square windows with repeated
pressure vessel expansion and contraction, the behavior of large
vertical stab structural members over thirty years at mach numbers is
unknown except on Concord and Blackbird. Wouldn't you say?

As well, the lack of a robust wheel-well area that could not allow for
tire fragments at 200mph seems like another pioneering shortfall just
like square windows on a pressurized fuselage. My comments were not
meant to denigrate either spectacular flying machine, just to point
out that these were the first of their kind out of the gate, and that
without good factory/national support the continued operation of a
sole example seems risky at best. (but I too would like to see it fly
again.)
Post by B S D Chapman
Pressurisation was a new thing for the airliner industry.
It was a tragic design flaw (which may or may not have been covered up)
that everyone in the world learnt from - not least Boeing.
I can't argue with that. Those falling Commets probably led to boeing
overdesigning the 707. My dad flew those tanks and was shocked later
at how the DC10 fuselage "flexes me all over the place." I too flew
the "deathcruiser" as we called it for one year, and I agree: I've
never heard so much cracking and snapping as that thing did especially
in descent or in turns on the ground.


The second
Post by B S D Chapman
generation of Commet lasted many years... and 19 of those airframes will
be arround for another 20 years
Flyable? I didn't know that. Are you sure?


(with just a minor overhaul costing
Post by B S D Chapman
billions of pounds of course!!!)
Concorde on the other hand has been amazingly successful considering the
boundries the designers had to cross. More amazing that the one fatal
accident it has had was nothing to do with the design around those
boundries.
I agree. The fact that it grows six inches in flight boggles the
mind. Something about the pax rolling along on rollers!

Best Regards,

pacplyer - out
Post by B S D Chapman
Post by pacplyer
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:59:20 +0000, Peter
Post by Peter
Post by B S D Chapman
Airbus wanted to withdraw the Type Certificate (in other words, their
support for the aircraft), without which the PTCoA could not be maintained.
Ok, but that leads to the question as to WHY they wanted to withdraw
it.
I've got a customer who wants to buy an old obsolete product which I
discontinued years ago and which is a pig to make, so I quoted him a
high price. I didn't tell him to go away. So there is more to this
story.
That's exactly what Airbus did.
They said that they would tripple their costs from October 2003. If that
wasn't acceptable to the airlines, then they would drop their support for
the Type Certificate.
Airbus didn't want concorde on their conscience anymore. It was simply
bad press. Since the Paris accident, every engine surge and maintenance
related delay has been headline news, as if another concorde was about to
drop out of the sky. Add to that the real problem of rudder failures, and
you have Bad Press every month.
What if?
Airbus wanted to drop concorde because it was too hot to handle for them.
Sad thing is of course, that in the public eye, airbus had f**k all to do
with the project!!!
So they priced themselves out of the market.
Ali Hopkins
2004-02-05 20:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by B S D Chapman
The second
Post by B S D Chapman
generation of Commet lasted many years... and 19 of those airframes will
be arround for another 20 years
Pardon my pickyness, but it's Comet. :) :) :)
Post by B S D Chapman
Flyable? I didn't know that. Are you sure?
Nimrod.

Ali
ShawnD2112
2004-02-06 06:15:28 UTC
Permalink
I have to say I find it interesting to hear people talk about petitions to
keep Concorde flying. Where do people expect the money would come from?
It's interesting that people are willing to put their name on a petition,
which requires no personal commitment or sacrifice, when all it would have
taken to keep her flying would have been for even half of those people to
buy tickets on her. It always amazes me how ready people are to spend
others' money.

Shawn
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by B S D Chapman
The second
Post by B S D Chapman
generation of Commet lasted many years... and 19 of those airframes will
be arround for another 20 years
Pardon my pickyness, but it's Comet. :) :) :)
Post by B S D Chapman
Flyable? I didn't know that. Are you sure?
Nimrod.
Ali
Ali Hopkins
2004-02-06 08:14:13 UTC
Permalink
Before you make assumptive statements like this, you might like to ask a
polite question, and avoid looking daft by making snide remarks about
people you've no knowledge of. .

I been lucky enough to make four Concorde flights.All paid for, not
business, and out of my hard earned salary.

Is that enough of a contribution for you?

And I'd happily stump up for a preservation fund, I've done it for other
things; when they ask, I'll be there.

Ali
Post by ShawnD2112
I have to say I find it interesting to hear people talk about petitions to
keep Concorde flying. Where do people expect the money would come from?
It's interesting that people are willing to put their name on a petition,
which requires no personal commitment or sacrifice, when all it would have
taken to keep her flying would have been for even half of those people to
buy tickets on her. It always amazes me how ready people are to spend
others' money.
Shawn
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by B S D Chapman
The second
Post by B S D Chapman
generation of Commet lasted many years... and 19 of those airframes
will
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by B S D Chapman
Post by B S D Chapman
be arround for another 20 years
Pardon my pickyness, but it's Comet. :) :) :)
Post by B S D Chapman
Flyable? I didn't know that. Are you sure?
Nimrod.
Ali
ShawnD2112
2004-02-06 17:24:04 UTC
Permalink
I appreciate that, Ali, but you have to admit you are in the minority.
Most of the discussions I've heard or read on the topic over the last 9
months or so have been along the lines of "I wish someone else would pay to
keep it flying so I can go see it for the entrance fee to an airshow". The
economics, which you, as a fare paying pax, are familiar with, are pretty
far away from that.

Shawn
Post by Ali Hopkins
Before you make assumptive statements like this, you might like to ask a
polite question, and avoid looking daft by making snide remarks about
people you've no knowledge of. .
I been lucky enough to make four Concorde flights.All paid for, not
business, and out of my hard earned salary.
Is that enough of a contribution for you?
And I'd happily stump up for a preservation fund, I've done it for
other
Post by Ali Hopkins
things; when they ask, I'll be there.
Ali
Post by ShawnD2112
I have to say I find it interesting to hear people talk about petitions to
keep Concorde flying. Where do people expect the money would come from?
It's interesting that people are willing to put their name on a petition,
which requires no personal commitment or sacrifice, when all it would have
taken to keep her flying would have been for even half of those people to
buy tickets on her. It always amazes me how ready people are to spend
others' money.
Shawn
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by B S D Chapman
The second
Post by B S D Chapman
generation of Commet lasted many years... and 19 of those airframes
will
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by B S D Chapman
Post by B S D Chapman
be arround for another 20 years
Pardon my pickyness, but it's Comet. :) :) :)
Post by B S D Chapman
Flyable? I didn't know that. Are you sure?
Nimrod.
Ali
Dave Stadt
2004-02-06 19:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Hopkins
Before you make assumptive statements like this, you might like to ask a
polite question, and avoid looking daft by making snide remarks about
people you've no knowledge of. .
I been lucky enough to make four Concorde flights.All paid for, not
business, and out of my hard earned salary.
Is that enough of a contribution for you?
The tickets you bought did not cover the cost of the flight. AFAIK Concorde
never turned a profit. With the condition the airlines are in nowdays it
would have been pretty hard to sell the stock holders on keeping them
flying.
Post by Ali Hopkins
And I'd happily stump up for a preservation fund, I've done it for
other
Post by Ali Hopkins
things; when they ask, I'll be there.
Ali
Post by ShawnD2112
I have to say I find it interesting to hear people talk about petitions to
keep Concorde flying. Where do people expect the money would come from?
It's interesting that people are willing to put their name on a petition,
which requires no personal commitment or sacrifice, when all it would have
taken to keep her flying would have been for even half of those people to
buy tickets on her. It always amazes me how ready people are to spend
others' money.
Shawn
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by B S D Chapman
The second
Post by B S D Chapman
generation of Commet lasted many years... and 19 of those airframes
will
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by B S D Chapman
Post by B S D Chapman
be arround for another 20 years
Pardon my pickyness, but it's Comet. :) :) :)
Post by B S D Chapman
Flyable? I didn't know that. Are you sure?
Nimrod.
Ali
Ali Hopkins
2004-02-06 19:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Stadt
Post by Ali Hopkins
Before you make assumptive statements like this, you might like to ask a
polite question, and avoid looking daft by making snide remarks about
people you've no knowledge of. .
I been lucky enough to make four Concorde flights.All paid for, not
business, and out of my hard earned salary.
Is that enough of a contribution for you?
The tickets you bought did not cover the cost of the flight. AFAIK Concorde
never turned a profit. With the condition the airlines are in nowdays it
would have been pretty hard to sell the stock holders on keeping them
flying.
You aren't in the UK, are you. If you'd seen the public outcry in this
country and the folks who turned out to see her land for the last time - and
all the subsequent departures - I think you might consider the weight of
public opinion as an influence on what we here call share holders. And Air
France, of course, is a whole other ball game from BA in terms of
ownership. BA never gave either the share holders or anyone else any say in
the matter; it would have been rather interesting to hear what the real BA
stakeholders had to say about it, given that the Big Bird was the BA
corporate symbol. Indeed, the entrance to LHR is guarded by a rather large
and obvious Concorde replica. And then, there's the wider "ownership";
Concorde was paid for by *us*, the British people, unlike your average civil
airliner. She is viewed in a unique way.

And yes, I am well aware that my tickets did not cover the cost of the
flight; mind you, the same can be said for many other flights of the
several hundreds I've made. I was replying to the inane point made by some
other bloke about people whinging but not being prepared to fly on her. Your
point is not a logical inference to be drawn from either the OP or my
response to the OP, it seems to be answering some other issue.

Ali
Robert Briggs
2004-02-06 21:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Stadt
The tickets you bought did not cover the cost of the flight. AFAIK
Concorde never turned a profit. With the condition the airlines are
in nowdays it would have been pretty hard to sell the stock holders
on keeping them flying.
BA's Concorde fleet made an *operating* profit.

Although this operating profit never covered the full development costs,
the taxpayer (the British one, at least) is better off than if the
aeroplanes had simply been scrapped when the oil "crisis" hit in the
early 70s.
Steve Firth
2004-02-06 22:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Stadt
AFAIK Concorde
never turned a profit.
You don't know Jack then. BA returned an operating profit on Concorde
for at least the last seven years of operation.

You can list all the profitable US built SSTs here I guess?
--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
Dave Stadt
2004-02-06 22:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Dave Stadt
AFAIK Concorde
never turned a profit.
You don't know Jack then. BA returned an operating profit on Concorde
for at least the last seven years of operation.
You can list all the profitable US built SSTs here I guess?
If you add up all the costs involved with Concorde and all the revenues the
costs exceed revenue. If you wish, you can ignore certain costs and claim a
profit.
Ali Hopkins
2004-02-06 22:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Stadt
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Dave Stadt
AFAIK Concorde
never turned a profit.
You don't know Jack then. BA returned an operating profit on Concorde
for at least the last seven years of operation.
You can list all the profitable US built SSTs here I guess?
If you add up all the costs involved with Concorde and all the revenues the
costs exceed revenue. If you wish, you can ignore certain costs and claim a
profit.
Costs to whom? You cited share holders, as I recall, none of whom
contributed a penny to Concorde's development costs. BA, who are a
commercial company, made *profits* and paid dividends. We, the British
taxpayer, paid for the Big Bird, and therefore deserved a say. But it's
nonsense to conflate the two areas; you might as well then say that all the
underpinning given by the US gumnint to Boeing over the years should be
charged against the operating margin for a 747.

It's a bit like Nasa and the shuttle, if you'd like something that is closer
to home.

Ali
Steve Firth
2004-02-07 00:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Stadt
If you add up all the costs involved with Concorde and all the revenues the
costs exceed revenue.
I notice you avoid answerign the question.

Here's a simpler one for you, since you appear to be suffering from an
inability to remember the identification of the last or even current
American commercial SST; has Boeing ever been profitable if costs were
to be calculated as the you indicate for Concorde? Remember Boeing gets
enormous, and largely unaccounted subsidies from the US government. The
costs for Concorde included the costs of building and operating the wind
tunnels used for testing. Boeing OTOH has those costs 100% underwritten
by the US taxpayer.

Not to mention never having to pay royalties on those jet engines.
--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
Dave Stadt
2004-02-07 04:46:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Dave Stadt
If you add up all the costs involved with Concorde and all the revenues the
costs exceed revenue.
I notice you avoid answerign the question.
Here's a simpler one for you, since you appear to be suffering from an
inability to remember the identification of the last or even current
American commercial SST; has Boeing ever been profitable if costs were
to be calculated as the you indicate for Concorde? Remember Boeing gets
enormous, and largely unaccounted subsidies from the US government. The
costs for Concorde included the costs of building and operating the wind
tunnels used for testing. Boeing OTOH has those costs 100% underwritten
by the US taxpayer.
Not to mention never having to pay royalties on those jet engines.
The SST was dumped because it was realized it could not be a commercial
success. Darn smart business decision. You brought up Boeing not me. I
seriously doubt your claims about subsidies regarding Boeing's commercial
operation can be supported.
Post by Steve Firth
--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
Ali Hopkins
2004-02-07 10:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Stadt
The SST was dumped because it was realized it could not be a commercial
success.
Right. Of course. That would be why you lot built the shuttle then, whcih
was such a stunning commeercial success.

( I am, btw, wholly in favour of the shuttle but that's not the point at
hand)
Post by Dave Stadt
Darn smart business decision. You brought up Boeing not me. I
seriously doubt your claims about subsidies regarding Boeing's commercial
operation can be supported.
Well, the folks at Wichita I met back in the late 90's were pretty open
about US gummint support.

Ali
Steve Firth
2004-02-07 12:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Hopkins
Well, the folks at Wichita I met back in the late 90's were pretty open
about US gummint support.
And when I provided consultancy services to NASA about the
implementation of ISO9000 at their wind tunnel facilities (1998-99),
they were fairly open about the free support they gave to Boeing.
--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
Tarver Engineering
2004-02-07 16:41:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Ali Hopkins
Well, the folks at Wichita I met back in the late 90's were pretty open
about US gummint support.
And when I provided consultancy services to NASA about the
implementation of ISO9000 at their wind tunnel facilities (1998-99),
they were fairly open about the free support they gave to Boeing.
NASA wants to be boeing's friend very badly, but the aero mafia at NASA will
have to be broken first.
Steve Firth
2004-02-07 11:44:24 UTC
Permalink
I seriously doubt your claims about subsidies regarding Boeing's
commercial operation can be supported.
NASA provided all wind tunnel test facilities free of charge to Boeing.
It's a matter of record. That's a massive (hidden) public subsidy.
--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
Dennis O'Connor
2004-02-07 15:11:36 UTC
Permalink
nuttin hidden about it... NASA, ex NACA, is charged with promoting and
developing flight technology for the good of the country... Ever look at
the Theory of Wing Sections <Abbot and Doenhoff>? The taxpayers funded the
major portion of the development and tunnel testing of the wing sections
contained... Is that some sort of conspiracy?... If we ever do have an SST,
regardless of the company brand on the side, <it will have to be a
consortium of companies to spread the cost> the basic technology and tunnel
testing will be heavily funded by the taxpayers and NASA will be in it up to
it's ears, or we won't have one...
Same thing happened with the Concorde, and the Airbus, and MIG's in Russia,
etc., etc....Guess I don't follow your reasoning...
cheers ... denny

"Steve Firth" <usenet-***@malloc.co.uk> wrote in > NASA provided all wind
tunnel test facilities free of charge to Boeing.
Post by Steve Firth
It's a matter of record. That's a massive (hidden) public subsidy.
Steve Firth
2004-02-07 20:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis O'Connor
nuttin hidden about it... NASA, ex NACA, is charged with promoting and
developing flight technology for the good of the country... Ever look at
the Theory of Wing Sections <Abbot and Doenhoff>? The taxpayers funded the
major portion of the development and tunnel testing of the wing sections
contained... Is that some sort of conspiracy?... If we ever do have an SST,
regardless of the company brand on the side, <it will have to be a
consortium of companies to spread the cost> the basic technology and tunnel
testing will be heavily funded by the taxpayers and NASA will be in it up to
it's ears, or we won't have one...
Same thing happened with the Concorde, and the Airbus, and MIG's in Russia,
etc., etc....Guess I don't follow your reasoning...
<sigh> The development at the taxpayers expense in the UK and France was
factored into the cost of Concorde. The development at the taxpayers
expense of Boeing aircraft is a hidden subsidy.

Rather like the US keeps whining about free trade wile subsidising
farming and steel to the hilt and putting in place illegal barriers to
trade. It's one rule for the USA, another rule for everyone else.
--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
Bryan Martin
2004-02-07 22:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Firth
<sigh> The development at the taxpayers expense in the UK and France was
factored into the cost of Concorde. The development at the taxpayers
expense of Boeing aircraft is a hidden subsidy.
The main reason the U. S. SST project was cancelled is because the
government wouldn't subsidize it and Boeing couldn't see any profit in
building it on their own. This kind of blows a hole in your hidden subsidy
argument.

It's my understanding that Boeing developed and built the 747 with their own
money because of strong airline interest in such an airplane. Of course some
of the money came from profits from military contracts, but that's not quite
the same as a "hidden subsidy". The 747 has been a very profitable airplane
for both Boeing and the airlines that operate them.

Even today I think you'll find that Boeing gets far less government
"subsidy" than Airbus does. We haven't descended quite as far into the
depths of socialism as France has.
Ali Hopkins
2004-02-07 22:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan Martin
Post by Steve Firth
<sigh> The development at the taxpayers expense in the UK and France was
factored into the cost of Concorde. The development at the taxpayers
expense of Boeing aircraft is a hidden subsidy.
The main reason the U. S. SST project was cancelled is because the
government wouldn't subsidize it and Boeing couldn't see any profit in
building it on their own. This kind of blows a hole in your hidden subsidy
argument.
So, as I asked previously, how come the Shuttle got built?
Post by Bryan Martin
It's my understanding that Boeing developed and built the 747 with their own
money because of strong airline interest in such an airplane. Of course some
of the money came from profits from military contracts, but that's not quite
the same as a "hidden subsidy". The 747 has been a very profitable airplane
for both Boeing and the airlines that operate them.
Which is presumably why so many are now moving to Airbus fleets?
Post by Bryan Martin
Even today I think you'll find that Boeing gets far less government
"subsidy" than Airbus does. We haven't descended quite as far into the
depths of socialism as France has.
'Scuse, please, we're talking *Concorde* here, not later Airbus projects -
chunks of which are, of course, British, but let's not spoil an argument
with facts. And why on earth do Merikans think that any gummint that doesn't
support Enron type capitalism must be that demon of socialism? I am always
bemused by that particular US view of Europe.

Ali
Tarver Engineering
2004-02-07 22:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by Bryan Martin
Post by Steve Firth
<sigh> The development at the taxpayers expense in the UK and France was
factored into the cost of Concorde. The development at the taxpayers
expense of Boeing aircraft is a hidden subsidy.
The main reason the U. S. SST project was cancelled is because the
government wouldn't subsidize it and Boeing couldn't see any profit in
building it on their own. This kind of blows a hole in your hidden subsidy
argument.
So, as I asked previously, how come the Shuttle got built?
Post by Bryan Martin
It's my understanding that Boeing developed and built the 747 with their
own
Post by Bryan Martin
money because of strong airline interest in such an airplane. Of course
some
Post by Bryan Martin
of the money came from profits from military contracts, but that's not
quite
Post by Bryan Martin
the same as a "hidden subsidy". The 747 has been a very profitable
airplane
Post by Bryan Martin
for both Boeing and the airlines that operate them.
Which is presumably why so many are now moving to Airbus fleets?
An 80 cent Euro is far more attractive than a $1.20 one, as far as Airbus
airplanes go.
Ali Hopkins
2004-02-07 22:51:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by Bryan Martin
Post by Steve Firth
<sigh> The development at the taxpayers expense in the UK and France
was
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by Bryan Martin
Post by Steve Firth
factored into the cost of Concorde. The development at the taxpayers
expense of Boeing aircraft is a hidden subsidy.
The main reason the U. S. SST project was cancelled is because the
government wouldn't subsidize it and Boeing couldn't see any profit in
building it on their own. This kind of blows a hole in your hidden
subsidy
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by Bryan Martin
argument.
So, as I asked previously, how come the Shuttle got built?
Post by Bryan Martin
It's my understanding that Boeing developed and built the 747 with their
own
Post by Bryan Martin
money because of strong airline interest in such an airplane. Of course
some
Post by Bryan Martin
of the money came from profits from military contracts, but that's not
quite
Post by Bryan Martin
the same as a "hidden subsidy". The 747 has been a very profitable
airplane
Post by Bryan Martin
for both Boeing and the airlines that operate them.
Which is presumably why so many are now moving to Airbus fleets?
An 80 cent Euro is far more attractive than a $1.20 one, as far as Airbus
airplanes go.
Doesn't explain BA buying them. The pound has slipped against the Euro
over the last few years.

Ali
Tarver Engineering
2004-02-07 23:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by K
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by Bryan Martin
Post by Steve Firth
<sigh> The development at the taxpayers expense in the UK and France
was
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by Bryan Martin
Post by Steve Firth
factored into the cost of Concorde. The development at the taxpayers
expense of Boeing aircraft is a hidden subsidy.
The main reason the U. S. SST project was cancelled is because the
government wouldn't subsidize it and Boeing couldn't see any profit in
building it on their own. This kind of blows a hole in your hidden
subsidy
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by Bryan Martin
argument.
So, as I asked previously, how come the Shuttle got built?
Post by Bryan Martin
It's my understanding that Boeing developed and built the 747 with
their
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Ali Hopkins
own
Post by Bryan Martin
money because of strong airline interest in such an airplane. Of
course
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Ali Hopkins
some
Post by Bryan Martin
of the money came from profits from military contracts, but that's not
quite
Post by Bryan Martin
the same as a "hidden subsidy". The 747 has been a very profitable
airplane
Post by Bryan Martin
for both Boeing and the airlines that operate them.
Which is presumably why so many are now moving to Airbus fleets?
An 80 cent Euro is far more attractive than a $1.20 one, as far as Airbus
airplanes go.
Doesn't explain BA buying them. The pound has slipped against the Euro
over the last few years.
No.

The Euro tanked, while the pound held above $1.60. If BA made their
purchase at the two euro to the Pound rate, they did very well on the deal.
AI exists under a complicated interleaved set of money hedges.
Ali Hopkins
2004-02-08 10:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarver Engineering
The Euro tanked, while the pound held above $1.60. If BA made their
purchase at the two euro to the Pound rate, they did very well on the deal.
AI exists under a complicated interleaved set of money hedges.
What on earth are you talking about. The pound started at, what, 1.70 Euros
equivalence - I bought a stack at that level. Even given good forward Forex
buying, there is no way that BA could have hedged at two, especially given
the timing. And it's now at 1.43-ish or thereabouts.

Ali
Tarver Engineering
2004-02-08 16:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by Tarver Engineering
The Euro tanked, while the pound held above $1.60. If BA made their
purchase at the two euro to the Pound rate, they did very well on the
deal.
Post by Tarver Engineering
AI exists under a complicated interleaved set of money hedges.
What on earth are you talking about. The pound started at, what, 1.70 Euros
equivalence - I bought a stack at that level. Even given good forward Forex
buying, there is no way that BA could have hedged at two, especially given
the timing. And it's now at 1.43-ish or thereabouts.
If BA and AI don't have a hedge in place, there will be much less interest
in the airplane deliveries.
Ali Hopkins
2004-02-08 16:14:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by Tarver Engineering
The Euro tanked, while the pound held above $1.60. If BA made their
purchase at the two euro to the Pound rate, they did very well on the
deal.
Post by Tarver Engineering
AI exists under a complicated interleaved set of money hedges.
What on earth are you talking about. The pound started at, what, 1.70
Euros
Post by Ali Hopkins
equivalence - I bought a stack at that level. Even given good forward
Forex
Post by Ali Hopkins
buying, there is no way that BA could have hedged at two, especially given
the timing. And it's now at 1.43-ish or thereabouts.
If BA and AI don't have a hedge in place, there will be much less interest
in the airplane deliveries.
I am quite sure that BA do have hedges in place. I am also quite sure that
they aren't at your imaginary rate of 2 Euros to the pound sterling. I doubt
that any forward spot trader would have offered anything close to even the
start rate of 1.70-ish. And, of course, they have already taken substantial
deliveries.

Ali
Tarver Engineering
2004-02-08 23:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by Tarver Engineering
The Euro tanked, while the pound held above $1.60. If BA made their
purchase at the two euro to the Pound rate, they did very well on the
deal.
Post by Tarver Engineering
AI exists under a complicated interleaved set of money hedges.
What on earth are you talking about. The pound started at, what, 1.70
Euros
Post by Ali Hopkins
equivalence - I bought a stack at that level. Even given good forward
Forex
Post by Ali Hopkins
buying, there is no way that BA could have hedged at two, especially
given
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Ali Hopkins
the timing. And it's now at 1.43-ish or thereabouts.
If BA and AI don't have a hedge in place, there will be much less interest
in the airplane deliveries.
I am quite sure that BA do have hedges in place. I am also quite sure that
they aren't at your imaginary rate of 2 Euros to the pound sterling.
The EU went to 78 cents, while the Pound was $1.58.
Post by Ali Hopkins
I doubt
that any forward spot trader would have offered anything close to even the
start rate of 1.70-ish. And, of course, they have already taken substantial
deliveries.
A one third swing in value palces Boeing products at a substancial discount
to what they were a year ago.
Steve Firth
2004-02-08 00:24:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarver Engineering
An 80 cent Euro is far more attractive than a $1.20 one, as far as Airbus
airplanes go.
Isn't a dollar worth less than 50p and still heading south for the
winter nowadays? Your president seems to have blown your economy while
you were napping.
--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
Tarver Engineering
2004-02-08 02:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Tarver Engineering
An 80 cent Euro is far more attractive than a $1.20 one, as far as Airbus
airplanes go.
Isn't a dollar worth less than 50p and still heading south for the
winter nowadays? Your president seems to have blown your economy while
you were napping.
The adjustment in exchange rates is about to stop.

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/newsfinder/pulseone.asp?guid={7DCD8ADE-CDB4-4B3B-97DC-2E112B1A9ABB}&siteid=mktw&dist=bnb
Steve Firth
2004-02-08 12:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Tarver Engineering
An 80 cent Euro is far more attractive than a $1.20 one, as far as
Airbus airplanes go.
Isn't a dollar worth less than 50p and still heading south for the
winter nowadays? Your president seems to have blown your economy while
you were napping.
The adjustment in exchange rates is about to stop.
Yes, and aeroplanes fly because the wings are held up by little pink
pixies.
--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
PeterD
2004-02-08 13:18:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Tarver Engineering
An 80 cent Euro is far more attractive than a $1.20 one, as far as
Airbus airplanes go.
Isn't a dollar worth less than 50p and still heading south for the
winter nowadays? Your president seems to have blown your economy while
you were napping.
The adjustment in exchange rates is about to stop.
Yes, and aeroplanes fly because the wings are held up by
little pink pixies.
I must say I've never quite understood *exactly* how lift worked,
but it's much clearer now. Thanks Steve.
--
Pd
Ali Hopkins
2004-02-08 13:24:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Tarver Engineering
An 80 cent Euro is far more attractive than a $1.20 one, as far as
Airbus airplanes go.
Isn't a dollar worth less than 50p and still heading south for the
winter nowadays? Your president seems to have blown your economy while
you were napping.
The adjustment in exchange rates is about to stop.
Yes, and aeroplanes fly because the wings are held up by little pink
pixies.
You forgot the glue; made with real harpic.

Ali
%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
2004-02-08 14:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Hopkins
You forgot the glue; made with real harpic.
That would be really useful in time of war. Instant kamikaze aircraft
that explode on impact, also save all that tedious business of
identifying remains at crash sites. I wonder if there are any other
great advances that can be made in aviation? Replace the flight recorder
with peril-sensitive explosives? You're going to die anyway so you may
as well get it over quick.
--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
Tarver Engineering
2004-02-08 16:10:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Tarver Engineering
An 80 cent Euro is far more attractive than a $1.20 one, as far as
Airbus airplanes go.
Isn't a dollar worth less than 50p and still heading south for the
winter nowadays? Your president seems to have blown your economy while
you were napping.
The adjustment in exchange rates is about to stop.
Yes, and aeroplanes fly because the wings are held up by little pink
pixies.
Do you work in Chirac's Government?
Ali Hopkins
2004-02-08 16:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Steve Firth
Post by Tarver Engineering
An 80 cent Euro is far more attractive than a $1.20 one, as far as
Airbus airplanes go.
Isn't a dollar worth less than 50p and still heading south for the
winter nowadays? Your president seems to have blown your economy while
you were napping.
The adjustment in exchange rates is about to stop.
Yes, and aeroplanes fly because the wings are held up by little pink
pixies.
Do you work in Chirac's Government?
Ackserley, the UK dimwit is Bliar, not Chirac. You know, that "socialist"
that supports Shrub.

Ali
Mark Hickey
2004-02-08 20:28:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by Tarver Engineering
Do you work in Chirac's Government?
Ackserley, the UK dimwit is Bliar, not Chirac. You know, that "socialist"
that supports Shrub.
Yeah, Blair was too "dumb" to get deeply financially involved with
Sadaam. That meant Blair wasn't "smart enough" to want to keep Sadaam
in power to keep the money flowing.

OTOH, which one of the two lost a piece of their financial shorts when
the Baath government was sent packing? Heh.

Mark Hickey
Tarver Engineering
2004-02-08 23:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by Tarver Engineering
Do you work in Chirac's Government?
Ackserley, the UK dimwit is Bliar, not Chirac. You know, that "socialist"
that supports Shrub.
Yeah, Blair was too "dumb" to get deeply financially involved with
Sadaam. That meant Blair wasn't "smart enough" to want to keep Sadaam
in power to keep the money flowing.
OTOH, which one of the two lost a piece of their financial shorts when
the Baath government was sent packing? Heh.
It looks like a 9000 charge code to me. :)
G.R. Patterson III
2004-02-07 22:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Hopkins
So, as I asked previously, how come the Shuttle got built?
You're arguing that the space shuttle is a commercial airliner?

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.
Ali Hopkins
2004-02-07 22:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by G.R. Patterson III
Post by Ali Hopkins
So, as I asked previously, how come the Shuttle got built?
You're arguing that the space shuttle is a commercial airliner?
No.

Ali
Dave Stadt
2004-02-07 23:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by G.R. Patterson III
Post by Ali Hopkins
So, as I asked previously, how come the Shuttle got built?
You're arguing that the space shuttle is a commercial airliner?
No.
Ali
The answer to your question is it got built with monies the government
budgeted for the space program.
Jeb
2004-02-08 09:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Stadt
Post by G.R. Patterson III
Post by Ali Hopkins
So, as I asked previously, how come the Shuttle got built?
You're arguing that the space shuttle is a commercial airliner?
No.
Ali
The answer to your question is it got built with monies the government
budgeted for the space program.
and paid to contractors at over inflated prices like much of the US
governments spending in these areas. The $400 wrench is as much a subsidy as
anything else is. With the politicians funded out of these compnay profits,
you would have to either naive or stupid to believe that the government does
not reward the people who fund their election with fat juicy contracts.

Boeings civil business for example is being subsidised by the military
contracts. Lose the contracts you lose the jobs. You lose the jobs, you lose
the votes. You lose the votes you lose office. You lose office, you lose
the power. You lose the power then you are a regular citizen being shafted
by those it power. And its a bum deal.

Fat deals $500 wrenches (aint inflation a bitch) and whey, let the good
times roll.
Bryan Martin
2004-02-07 23:05:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by Bryan Martin
Post by Steve Firth
<sigh> The development at the taxpayers expense in the UK and France was
factored into the cost of Concorde. The development at the taxpayers
expense of Boeing aircraft is a hidden subsidy.
The main reason the U. S. SST project was cancelled is because the
government wouldn't subsidize it and Boeing couldn't see any profit in
building it on their own. This kind of blows a hole in your hidden subsidy
argument.
So, as I asked previously, how come the Shuttle got built?
The shuttle is a whole 'nother can of worms, and it wasn't built by Boeing.
The prime contractor on that one was Rockwell. In any case, it was a
government project right from the start. Ordered by the government, designed
to government specifications and built by government contract for government
use. No one ever had any serious belief that it would be commercially
successful. It's a wonder the damn thing flys at all. NASA is not supposed
to be in the commercial space launch business and they've been the biggest
obstacle to the commercial development of space right from the start.
Post by Ali Hopkins
And why on earth do Merikans think that any gummint that doesn't
support Enron type capitalism must be that demon of socialism? I am always
bemused by that particular US view of Europe.
Ali
We don't support "Enron type Capitalism" here either, those guys are going
to jail. The vast majority of companies here are not as blatantly corrupt as
Enron. Then again, many governments (and government departments) around the
world have been just as corrupt and have done far more damage. As far as
socialism is concerned, get out a dictionary and look it up, I didn't make
up the definition. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks
like a duck... Socialism has taken a pretty firm hold even here in the U.
S., It's just not quite as bad here yet as it is in some other places. No
good will ever come of it.
Paul Sengupta
2004-02-09 13:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan Martin
It's my understanding that Boeing developed and built the 747 with their own
money because of strong airline interest in such an airplane.
It designed the 747 to be a military transport. It lost the contract to
the C5, so decided not to waste the design effort and to see if they
could use it as a commerical airliner.
Post by Bryan Martin
Even today I think you'll find that Boeing gets far less government
"subsidy" than Airbus does. We haven't descended quite as far into the
depths of socialism as France has.
It's called "corporate welfare". Basically all the military contracts
that Boeing gets. Do a google search on "boeing corporate welfare".
Not saying subsidies are right or wrong, but they do exist in both places.
eg http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/1220-02.htm
(first one that I clicked on, I have no idea about the political
connotations of the various websites)

Paul
Bryan Martin
2004-02-09 14:02:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Sengupta
Post by Bryan Martin
It's my understanding that Boeing developed and built the 747 with their
own
Post by Bryan Martin
money because of strong airline interest in such an airplane.
It designed the 747 to be a military transport. It lost the contract to
the C5, so decided not to waste the design effort and to see if they
could use it as a commerical airliner.
Actually It was designed as a commercial transport with a cargo version in
mind and a hope for a military contract. The military version was never the
primary driving force of the design.

Paul Sengupta
2004-02-09 13:43:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Stadt
If you add up all the costs involved with Concorde and all the revenues the
costs exceed revenue. If you wish, you can ignore certain costs and claim a
profit.
Yes, but that goes for a lot of the aerospace industry. In fact,
something I saw recently, if you take the whole airline industry
over the years, the costs exceed the revenue. Air travel as a
whole has been non-profitable (if taken as an entity) since it
began. Of course profits have been made, but so have losses.
Doesn't mean air travel should be scrapped.

On an operating basis, Concorde was profitable until the decline
brought upon by 11th of September.

Paul
B S D Chapman
2004-02-06 11:56:14 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 06:15:28 -0000, ShawnD2112
Post by ShawnD2112
I have to say I find it interesting to hear people talk about petitions to
keep Concorde flying. Where do people expect the money would come from?
It's interesting that people are willing to put their name on a petition,
which requires no personal commitment or sacrifice, when all it would have
taken to keep her flying would have been for even half of those people to
buy tickets on her. It always amazes me how ready people are to spend
others' money.
I was one of the folk that phoned up for discounted tickets, but couldn't
afford the full price fare.
Let there be no doubt, I expect that nearly everyone in the country would
have had "fly on Concorde" in their list of things to do before you die,
but most people couldn't afford to do so. I would have done so -
eventually. It might have been another two or three years down the
road... it could have been ten. But I was most upset that I have had the
chance to do so refused.

The sad fact is that Concorde was viable had the Americans not shunned Air
France (the reason they stopped flying straight away), and if the fear of
flying following 9/11 haddn't dissuaded the new "replacement" executives
from becomming the replacement regulars.

The regulars had kept her ticking over while the dreamers could have their
once-in-a-lifetime chance.
Post by ShawnD2112
Shawn
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by B S D Chapman
The second
Post by B S D Chapman
generation of Commet lasted many years... and 19 of those airframes
will
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by B S D Chapman
Post by B S D Chapman
be arround for another 20 years
Pardon my pickyness, but it's Comet. :) :) :)
Post by B S D Chapman
Flyable? I didn't know that. Are you sure?
Nimrod.
Ali
--
...And so as the little andrex puppy of time scampers onto the busy
dual-carriage way of destiny, and the extra-strong meat vindaloo of fate
confronts the toilet Out Of Order sign of eternity... I see it is time to
end this post.
Paul Sengupta
2004-02-06 15:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by B S D Chapman
I was one of the folk that phoned up for discounted tickets, but couldn't
afford the full price fare.
It's not the done thing to say "me too" on here, is it? :-)
Post by B S D Chapman
I would have done so -
eventually. It might have been another two or three years down the
road... it could have been ten. But I was most upset that I have had the
chance to do so refused.
Yup...
Post by B S D Chapman
The sad fact is that Concorde was viable had the Americans not shunned Air
France (the reason they stopped flying straight away), and if the fear of
flying following 9/11 haddn't dissuaded the new "replacement" executives
from becomming the replacement regulars.
The regulars had kept her ticking over while the dreamers could have their
once-in-a-lifetime chance.
There was a programme on TV about this. 40 of Concorde's regular
passengers were killed in the WTC. Not only were these the regular
passengers, they were also the people (along with others) who had the
authority to sign off travel for lesser executives on Concorde. With them
gone, Concorde's passenger load was around 50%. They needed about
70% to break even. It was also in a period of recession in the economy in
general and in air travel particularly. Keep them another couple of years
and passenger numbers would probably have gone up again.

Paul
Steve Firth
2004-02-06 22:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Sengupta
There was a programme on TV about this. 40 of Concorde's regular
passengers were killed in the WTC. Not only were these the regular
passengers, they were also the people (along with others) who had the
authority to sign off travel for lesser executives on Concorde. With them
gone, Concorde's passenger load was around 50%. They needed about
70% to break even. It was also in a period of recession in the economy in
general and in air travel particularly. Keep them another couple of years
and passenger numbers would probably have gone up again.
I used Concorde a couple of times and it worked out more cost effective
than a 747. Each time I could fly to JFK, have a meeting at JFK with my
colleagues from NYNY and Boston then fly back again arriving home at a
sensible time of day. If I had flown on a 747 it would have taken at
least three days to do the same amount of work. At the time IIRC flying
Concorde was actually cheaper than a video conference.
--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
B S D Chapman
2004-02-06 11:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Hopkins
Post by B S D Chapman
The second
Post by B S D Chapman
generation of Commet lasted many years... and 19 of those airframes
will
Post by B S D Chapman
be arround for another 20 years
Pardon my pickyness, but it's Comet. :) :) :)
Post by B S D Chapman
Flyable? I didn't know that. Are you sure?
Nimrod.
Still the greatest maritime patrol aircraft in the world.
And that goes for the MR1, let alone the MRA4!!
--
...And so as the little andrex puppy of time scampers onto the busy
dual-carriage way of destiny, and the extra-strong meat vindaloo of fate
confronts the toilet Out Of Order sign of eternity... I see it is time to
end this post.
Steve Firth
2004-02-06 22:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by pacplyer
As well, the lack of a robust wheel-well area that could not allow for
tire fragments at 200mph seems like another pioneering shortfall just
like square windows on a pressurized fuselage. My comments were not
meant to denigrate either spectacular flying machine, just to point
out that these were the first of their kind out of the gate, and that
without good factory/national support the continued operation of a
sole example seems risky at best. (but I too would like to see it fly
again.)
Err yes, and building lavatories that leak and cause structural
corrosion is 747s is a piss (sic) poor design feature as well. Your
point being?
--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
Ali Hopkins
2004-02-06 22:43:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Firth
Post by pacplyer
As well, the lack of a robust wheel-well area that could not allow for
tire fragments at 200mph seems like another pioneering shortfall just
like square windows on a pressurized fuselage. My comments were not
meant to denigrate either spectacular flying machine, just to point
out that these were the first of their kind out of the gate, and that
without good factory/national support the continued operation of a
sole example seems risky at best. (but I too would like to see it fly
again.)
Err yes, and building lavatories that leak and cause structural
corrosion is 747s is a piss (sic) poor design feature as well. Your
point being?
737 fuel tanks and vapour come to mind, too.....

Ali
pacplyer
2004-02-07 09:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Firth
Post by pacplyer
As well, the lack of a robust wheel-well area that could not allow for
tire fragments at 200mph seems like another pioneering shortfall just
like square windows on a pressurized fuselage. My comments were not
meant to denigrate either spectacular flying machine, just to point
out that these were the first of their kind out of the gate, and that
without good factory/national support the continued operation of a
sole example seems risky at best. (but I too would like to see it fly
again.)
Err yes, and building lavatories that leak and cause structural
corrosion is 747s is a piss (sic) poor design feature as well. Your
point being?
Who cares? The 747 is so tough and has so much redundancy losing a
couple of stringers around the lavatory area is probably not going to
be catastrophic. Losing large portions of the rudder on the SST OTOH,
is potentially fatal (ever heard of Dutch roll?) Obviously, airlines
don't have to buy or operate 747's if they feel the quality control is
unacceptable. But if you knew anything about the airline world you
would know that these kind of things are common. Livestock charters
on 74 freighters cause thousands of times the corrosion you experience
from leaking lavs on pax birds. And none of them has ever fatally
crashed due to corrosion (or due to tires exploding under poorly
shielded fuel tanks for that matter.) You turd merchants like Ali who
ride around in the back and see everything from a pax perspective
don't have a clue what makes a good airliner. The truth is that in
many ways the 74 fuselage and wing plan form has not changed much
since 69'. The 74 was a timeless design. Unlike European airliners,
the Jumbo had four of everything. Losing generators or packs was a
non-event. On the other side of the showroom floor Airbus cut a lot
of that out and hence, were sold extremely cheap; they gave us our
simulators for free… and that's why airbus now owns half the world
wide market. Boeing under Condit, decided to just try and stretch
this outdated design and this is why the A380 managed enough orders to
go for it. (I won't even comment about the sorry Sonic Cruiser
fiasco.) My point, is that you can't fly an airframe forever and be
profitable without cooking the books. Many 100 series 747's are well
on their way to 100,000 hours. At 50,000 hours the electrical and
avionics harnesses were so bad in some of those things we went
straight to the bar because so many things failed on descent and
approach. We'd enter a dozen detailed write-ups in the log, and in
the morning the sign-off was "Chaffed wiring in inaccessible bulkhead,
OK to continue." We would memorize those junkers and the first thing
out of our mouth when the ramp agent made the alert call to the hotel
was: "What tail number is it?" If it was the "Cocaine Queen," which
was an Avionca bird seized by customs in Panama that sat with the tail
pointed out over the ocean for a year, which we later acquired, we'd
cringe. It had so much corrosion, the FAA wouldn't let us fly it in
our polished aluminum livery. They forced us to paint it just to hold
it together (that's what they told us!) But I'd rather be in that
thing than a ETOPs "Scarebus" A310 over the water with its dicked-up
ECAM and FMS computers and crummy man vs. machine autopilot issues and
psycho auto-throttle rollback to idle at 300 feet. Were the French
drinking wine when they programmed that code? LOL! What a bunch of
junk. (The power to weight was impressive, but the human interface
was a hazard to navigation.) Hell every time you fly in the rain the
roll spoiler computers quit. To save money there's no outboard
ailerons! It was tough to get out of a 45 degree bank at 330 kts!
Junk I say! It should have never been certified.

The 69' Concord is impractical and everybody knows it. If fuel spikes
way up the jumbo can just throttle back to LRC and still (in some
markets) break even on the belly freight alone, while the SST needs
to reduce service frequency until fuel gets cheap again (or
alternatively bilk the taxpayers.) But it's miserable and unhealthy
to fly in coach in 10 abreast seating for over five hours at high load
factors. The original 74 design only had 8 seats across. I hate
traveling in the back. I'm tired of breathing migrant worker airborne
TB particulates, and I'm tired of not having a fucking armrest!

Maybe that petition should address the need to develop a new
generation SST. Put lots of lightweight airbus unobtainium in it,
cook the books, claim it will make a profit in ten orders, and then
have the gov pay for all the overruns again. What? Boeing did the
same thing with military contracts? No shit. Welcome to aviation you
boneheads. :^D LOL!

pacplyer – out

If it's not Boeing, I'm not Going!
Ali Hopkins
2004-02-07 10:18:53 UTC
Permalink
<none of the quoted stuff> Would you mind trimming so that you attribute
properly?

Ali
pacplyer
2004-02-09 05:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Hopkins
<none of the quoted stuff> Would you mind trimming so that you attribute
properly?
Ali
Yeah, sorry about that Ali, guess I cut off your 737 remark. Also
sorry about the turd merchant comment, I thought you guys had labeled
me a "nimrod" for not knowing about Brittish Comet evolution :-( (or
that it's descendant was still flying.) The search I later did on
Google images added much to my Chagrin. Would you mind not responding
in one-word sentences? :-) (It leads to confusion.) I had read about
*the Nimrod* as a kid in Aviation Leak & ST but didn't know it was the
same machine as the ill-fated Comet.

BTW, many of us "Merikans" don't like Bush but the alternative is
always some bleeding heart who is destined to jack our taxes way up
for more big-brother social programs like the "animal cops" that I now
have to pay for. My dog has now got more rights than I do in this
state.

Cheers,

pacplyer
Robert Briggs
2004-02-05 18:39:42 UTC
Permalink
It's expensive to run, it's as noisy as hell, ...
And the feeling of a tight turn-out with the burners on at the end of a
"clean" pass down the display line at Duxford in Alpha Fox is not
something one forgets in a hurry - it's the thick end of twenty years
ago now.
... and in the current climate of dwindling ticket sales, I don't
think BA really had a lot of choice but to withdraw it.
Unfortunately, I dare say you are right.

That said, the timing of the final flights could, IMNSHO, barely have
been worse:
why, oh why, didn't they keep two (or four, to allow for backups)
airworthy for another three or four weeks?

Surely it would have been fitting to bow out with final flypasts at
Kitty Hawk and Runnymede (the latter preferably in the company of the
BBMF and the Red Arrows in "Concorde" formation) on December 17th.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...