Sorry Chris, seems I'm sort-of repeating you...

Why are folks petitioning the government?  That seems quite strange to me, unless a governmental agency deemed the aircraft not airworthy.  If so, petitions will have no bearing on Concorde's future.  If that's not the case, British Airways would be flying Concorde IF it deems the aircraft is economically viable.  Therein lies the rub.  If Concorde is economically viable, there would be no need for a petition campaign.  ....which leads us back to Jake's previous statement.     .....

Talk about self-incrimination!    From the link:

"The British and French people paid for the development of Concorde. Those same people have a right to be allowed to see this great icon of the 20th century grace the skies once more."

LOL!  Even though Airbus is a seperate legal entity, this is fodder for the ongoing Airbus vs Boeing litigation wars!

Quote:

It's never been a secret that the development of Concorde was funded by the British & French taxpayers. I have no doubt that an American SST programme would have been at least partly funded by the US taxpayers.

PS. Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707

Quote:

One could also say the same thing about Apollo 14, the last moon flight.

But I guess I'd question what "forward" evolution means.  If it means achieving audacous goals at all costs then sure, the 7 hour trans-atlantic flight is a step back, but if it means delivering a higher quality of living to the species then the Concorde isn't even an evolutionary point.  It didn't effect enough people to make an impact, and those that it did effect simply found it, in the end, not worth their money.  They found other ways to improve their quality of living at the expense of 4 hours of across the pond travel.  I'm sure if some zillionaire wanted to pay a couple million for a personal 3 hour transatlatic flight then the Concorde would be back in the air tomorrow.

So, killing the Concorde is actually a step forward.  It makes that money available for other quality-of-life advancing investments.  Ditto the moon missions.  All that tax money gets put to other, more valuable uses (one can dream that it ideally gets returned to the tax payer, but who are we kidding...)

We could pool our money to build a giant sculpture made of gold and claim it as an evolutionary advance, but ultimately it would be nothing of the sort.  So we pass on these superficial "evolutionary" steps in favor of things that acutally matter.  And supersonic flight just isn't one of those things that matters today.

Clarkson misses the boat.  If telecommunications make the Concorde obsolete then the evolutionary step forward is the telecom technology.

LOL......

I want Concorde back. Signed it.

If there is the demand (money) there is a market. That was what I was taught. If there is sufficient funds to easily cover the cost of one Concorde, then I don't see why not. It is possible to get her back up and while that possibility remains it can be explored.

Quote:



According to wikipedia, BAC and Air France announced in 2003 they were retiring Concorde because of low passenger numbers and rising maintanence costs.  After that, Richard Branson offered to buy the planes but later changed his mind stating Airbus wouldn't provide airframe parts.

The article also said BAC operated at a loss in the 1980's then raised their price and it's stated they ultimately operated at a profit, even though they later announced they would stop flying Concorde because of low passender numbers.  Seems a contradiction to me.  The article also suggested Air France never operated Concorde at a profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Withdrawal_from_service

Quote:

Woody was correct in his reasons.
Richard Bransons offers were a joke, nothing more. He could have offered a legitimate amount if he was serious.
Airbus stopping supply was down to air france and their ability to pull strings with the airbus management. Air France didn't want to operate the plane, bad income low numbers embarressment for the crash still being around. and told this to airbus, despite BA supplying air france with parts and personelle to keep it flying air france still pulled it from service and airbus said it wouldn't be cost effective to only supply BA. Thus the aircraft was dead.