Search the archive:
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
 
   
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
concordes fate sealed (Read 793 times)
Reply #15 - Oct 30th, 2003 at 4:21pm

Craig.   Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender: male
Posts: 18590
*****
 
ok final two will be going to scotland, and then the other one will stay at heathrow quite possibly as a gate guard for the new terminal 5. or to somehow replace current mini concorde on the front gate.
no flying for the exact reason i stated before, just way to expensive to keep it for so few flights, especially at sub-sonic speeds
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #16 - Oct 31st, 2003 at 7:28pm
RollerBall   Ex Member

 
Angry

I'm Mr Angry about this. The British taxpayer paid for those aircraft and it's pretty obvious that the majority of British taxpayers want to see them flying if it's at all possible.

Now I'm no special fan of Mr Branson, but if he wasn't just doing a publicity stunt and he genuinely was making an offer to TRY to keep them flying, the British taxpayer should INSIST that he's given the chance no matter what British Airways wants to do with the planes.

Sending them off to a**-hole parts of the world where they will just sit and rot I would have thought was NOT part of the deal broached on behalf of the British taxpayer when they were originally handed over to BA.

I see the first one was flown off to Manchester today where it will be ripped apart by bl**dy engineering students for cripes sake!
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #17 - Nov 1st, 2003 at 5:09am

Craig.   Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender: male
Posts: 18590
*****
 
hi rollerball. as annoying as it is that the british Tax-payer paid for them, at first, once sold it was all BA, who covered twice as much for it after the sale. but because they own them, the government cant step in at all, people knew this wouldbe the case when the planes were sold.as for rotting, Barbados is the only one i am worried about, as thats the only one without a true museum either there or a firm plan for one. the rest will be well looked after in their new homes, even if they are being stripped for parts.
They cant be kept flying, somply because there are no parts. it was no longer a case of costs, it was simply because Airbus wouldnt supply the parts and no one else could. Branson was even told himself by Airbus they wouldnt give him the parts he needed, or the mechanics to fix it.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #18 - Nov 1st, 2003 at 6:10am

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
I'm with RollerBall on this. I'm fed up to the back teeth with hearing about the £billions that sacred cow BA put into the aircraft. These were normal operating costs, no different from those incurred by any airline with any type of aircraft. Running an airline is incredibly expensive. The development was already complete & Concorde was ready for service when BA "purchased" it, paid for by me & millions of other British & French taxpayers. This was something special, not only the most beautiful thing in the air & a marvel of technology but also belonging to each one of us & something to be proud of.

Now BA & Air France have no further use for Concorde I think our wishes should have been taken into account. OK, so they have contrived with Airbus to make it impossible to continue flying but at least we should have some say in the disposal of the aircraft. It seems to me that they want to wash their hands of it ASAP before anyone has the chance to throw a spanner in the works. Angry Roll Eyes
 

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #19 - Nov 1st, 2003 at 6:25am
RollerBall   Ex Member

 
Hear hear. Absolutely spot on. There are dozens of aero engineering works throughout Europe and further afield who would have jumped at the chance of supplying parts and spares for Concorde - probably much cheaper than bl**dy Airbus could have done as well.

Low overheads = low costs = cheaper prices = lower running costs.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #20 - Nov 1st, 2003 at 6:39am

Craig.   Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender: male
Posts: 18590
*****
 
no offense hagar, but BA didnt  ever say they had no more use for it, they never worked with airbus to make it impossible to fly. Hell they even gave AirFrance the spare parts they needed to keep concorde flying as long as they did. now ok what they are doing with it is wrong. but lets face it, it is their aircraft in the end(no looking into the past or bringing up costs or anything) it basically is their aircraft and can do whatever they want with it. Be thankfull they didnt just dump it in some desert to rot.
As for another company supplying parts, airbus looked into it at some point but they then said that they would end up being called into help so much it wasnt worth it. Remember Concorde isnt like any other plane flying in commercial service today. So no its costs involved are not like any other airline its repairs arnt like any other airline would have to deal with, hell concordes cost alone are prob higher than the entire ryan air or Easyjet costs per year, before BA add into the rest of their fleet.
Would i like to see it fly still, Of course i would, but hands up here who could ever afford to fly on it and pay out £5000 for something that would last 3 hours, £8000 for a return. and hands up those of us who are directly affected by this plane day in and day out? Not trying to be an ass about it, but on a whole very few people gave a damn about this plane untill it was announced it would be retired. and i can gaurentee you the majority of this country would be seriously PO'd if they had to take a tax rise to pay to keep it in the air.
Not trying to cause problems but just trying to look at the realistic side of it. sometimes life isnt fair, but be thankful you can at least go see it in a museum.

as for the low cost things, right now thats the only way most airlines can stay in business, BA united delta american airlines, heck even virgin are all going through a rough patch and are fighting to losses to an absolut minimum.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #21 - Nov 1st, 2003 at 6:45am

Craig.   Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender: male
Posts: 18590
*****
 
Quote:
A technical feasibility study, headed by Captain Mike Bannister, Concorde chief pilot, as to whether a single Concorde can be maintained for non-commercial flying at public events, has been concluded.

Rod Eddington said: “A detailed study with Airbus has regrettably led us both to conclude that it would not be possible.

“The technical and financial challenges of keeping a Concorde airworthy are absolutely prohibitive. Airbus has told us that they are unable to support such a project, whether it be for British Airways or anyone else.

“While there is no prospect of operating an aircraft for flypasts and airshows, in the future Concorde will be accessible to the public with the majority of aircraft located in the UK.”

thats a quote from the boss of BA during the announcement of the homes of concorde
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #22 - Nov 1st, 2003 at 6:52am

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
Craig. As you probably realise by now I'm no fan of BA. From over 35 years experience in support & maintainance of the airline industry I know exactly what the operating costs are. Until recently BA were operating Concorde at a profit, that's after the taxpayer paid for its development & handed it to them on a plate. They have never done the British people any favours believe me. Roll Eyes

This whole sad episode reminds me of the unscrupulous property developers who bulldoze listed buildings or hack down protected trees to make way for their blocks of concrete. Once something rare & precious is destroyed you can never replace it no matter how much you punish or fine the culprits. Roll Eyes
 

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #23 - Nov 1st, 2003 at 6:57am

Craig.   Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender: male
Posts: 18590
*****
 
well i cant really argue with that one:)
like you and everyone else i am upset about the fact concorde is going, thats not in despute.
And i cant argue BA are like every other airline, guilty of many bad business practises or ethics. and i am sure one day concorde will fly again, maybe a new management or future technology will be able make it a viable option.

and please dont think i dont understand where your coming from with this. I know your one of the people who no-doubt had to pay for this plane out of your taxes, where as i wasnt so it isnt as much of an issue in that department. I honestly do understand your hatred for them:)
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #24 - Nov 1st, 2003 at 7:10am

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
Well I suppose it was an impossible dream but I had hoped for a little more support from our government. They washed their hands of it as usual. I'm disappointed but knowing how much notice they take of public opinion I'm not surprised. Roll Eyes
 

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #25 - Nov 1st, 2003 at 11:59am

Craig.   Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender: male
Posts: 18590
*****
 
but like i said, concorde was none of the governments business, once sold that was it. they looked into it when branson first started his rampage for the plane. but they realised there was nothing they could do. its like buying a car, once you have bought it, and everything is signed theres nothing the previous owner can do about it. no matter how much the public wanted it. lets face in a few months the average person will be back to not caring, and the aviation enthusiasts make up prob 10% of the population:)
it may suck, but then again sometimes life does suck, i am cheesed off personally because A: my grandads  major involvement in designing it, and B: because i will never get to fly it if BA ever opens up their sponsorship program again.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #26 - Nov 1st, 2003 at 12:05pm

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
Quote:
but like i said, concorde was none of the governments business, once sold that was it

Touche......! Hoist by my own petard. I think it was me who pointed that out to you - not so long ago either.  LOL
Despite this being true I'm sure the government could have leaned on BA a little if they so wished. My point is that they couldn't care less what happens to it.
 

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #27 - Nov 1st, 2003 at 12:21pm

Craig.   Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender: male
Posts: 18590
*****
 
LOL, without getting too political about this one, as i am loving this discussion/argument:) really.
But i think right now the government have their heads too far up their ass to know whats going on.
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #28 - Nov 1st, 2003 at 12:33pm

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
*****
 
Quote:
LOL, without getting to political about this one, as i am loving this discussion/argument:) really.
But i think right now the government have their heads to far up their ass to know whats going on.

I'm enjoying it too. I really can't comment - except to point out that there's 2 examples in your last post where the word "too" is appropriate. Tongue Grin

Cheers Craig. LOL Grin
 

...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
IP Logged
 
Reply #29 - Nov 1st, 2003 at 12:41pm

Craig.   Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender: male
Posts: 18590
*****
 
hahahah:) sorry, i keep forgetting about the too and to differance. i really shoudl pay more attention though
Cheers Doug Smiley
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print