Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Concorde......how........it....is...

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
How did the concorde make $$$ in it's final year? I have heard that it is grossly unprofitable. It gulps fuel, is a maintence pain in the ass, and requires specialized training. All of this costs loads of money...

Safety is measured in airframes lost per hour of operation across the whole fleet. Concorde may have only lost one aircraft in it's 30 year history but that's because it didn't fly much.

There is a time to let go and say goodbye. Sadly, the time is now for the Concorde. At least they are giving them to museums and not scrapping them like alot of older aircraft.
 
Last edited:
CONCORDE .......HOW IT IS.....

With regard to profit, from a totally impartial source.

How much profit did Concorde make for British Airways?

On average Concorde made and operating profit of £30-50 Million a year for British Airways in the boom years where many passengers were travelling first class. British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue for Concorde services against an operating cost of around £1 Billion.

Air France made a much smaller profit.


You must remember the intangible and inspirational benefit of operating the only supersonic passenger aircraft in the world.

This cannot be measured in profit ( see below). This is from "MARKETING" a leading UK marketing publisher.

Concorde has become a symbol of aviation, of the BA brand and of what’s great and unique about being British. It has nothing to do with operating profitability and everything to with providing that aspirational uniqueness that BA was singly positioned to do. I’m sure many marketers can remember the short sighted decision taken to give BA a wider appeal by making it less British. In that instance, BA quickly learned that being uniquely British was the appeal of the brand. I wonder if someone has dropped another clanger here ?

Regards


Steve




SAVE CONCORDE
 
Concorde Question

I had a couple of days layover in Seattle last week and I toured the Concorde they have on display at BFI. Beautiful airplane, I can't believe how small those windows are.

Any way, there's a nifty beacon installed on both leading edges that caught my eye, so I started looking around for to see where the nav lights were hidden. I couldn't find any. So I'm wondering does the Concorde have nav lights (red/green lights on the wing tips)? If so where are they hidden?

Thanks
 
CONCORDE.....HOW.........IT....IS

You had me scratching my balding head on that one, I hope the following helps:


They are located in the tips of the leading edge ,just as the delta starts to widen out ,thats the only way I can really explain where they are without a picture to show you,hope this helps a tad.

Regards


Steve
PS: PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION.....MANY THANKS
SAVE CONCORDE
 
Isnt that Russian supersonic transport still flying? I know the US rented it a few years back, i was curious at to whether its still flyin.
 
CONCORDE....HOW........IT..IS.....

The Russian TU144 is certainly no longer in use. The last time I saw a photo of the aircraft grass was growing through it.

America did use a TU144 in the 90's to find ways of creating your own SST. You found the costs were too high so the project was once again scrapped. Tupolev think they can get a TU244 in the air by 2015, but the funding will never come.

I hope that answers your question.

Regards

Steve.......


SAVE CONCORDE
 
avbug said:
Crikey. Drop it already. The concorde was never economically viable. I wouldn't contribute to getting it in the air now; I couldn't afford to fly it the first time around. That only one ever crashed was a miracle, not a tribute to modern aeronautics. With some 30+ losses of the rudder/rudder sections and portions of the tail section in flight, and lord only knows how many tire failures and underside punctures, it's a wonder that only one downing every occur


Give me a break, mate. It's just a flesh wound, right? It's no coincidence that on this side of the pond we consider the British salute to be a sign of surrender. Or didn't ya know that?

Then again, in a supreme sense of denial, the brits still refer to the US as "the colonies." So perhaps defeatist translates to can't face the facts...like the fact that the concorde long outlived it's usefulness.

Bear in mind that most folks you're addressing here are not British. My family is (before you get all wound up about that). I'm not.

The Concorde is a pretty airplane, but who's footing the bill to go show it off after you restore it? Probably not by giving rides or taking donations from folks like me, I'm guessing.

Good luck, but give it a rest, already.
Click to expand...




A miracle only one crashed? That is really not fair to the profesional crews that flew them.
Do you have a basis of fact for all these losses of tail components and tires?
The British Military salute evoled from early combatants to show their opponent that they were unarmed, it is not a sign of surrender.
The referance to the colonies is homour, not a supreme sense of denial as you insinuate, maybe it's a little difficult for you to understand that.
 
CONCORDE....HOW.....IT....IS.....

I think someone mentioned this in an earlier message:

QUESTIONS2A CONCORDE PILOT

Colin Tulleth, UK:

Much has been said to the effect that the Concorde's have flown less "air hours" than most conventional jets. Surely there remains a question over comparing supersonic hours with subsonic ones.

John Hutchinson(Former Concorde pilot)

No I don't think so. Curiously almost the reverse is true. As when the plane flies supersonic the structure gets up - up to about 125 degrees Celsius on the nose - and the result of this heating process is that any moisture or condensation in the air frame gets baked out of the air frame and there is absolutely no corrosion in the main aircraft structure at all. Which has led to a complete re-evaluation and extension in to the predicted life of Concorde.

Regards

Steve

SAVE CONCORDE
 
CONCORDE.....HOW....IT.....IS....

The www.save-concorde.co.uk group are determined to return a single Concorde to flight, purely in a heritage role, nothing more.

This is certainly an uphill fight but we cannot give in, to do so would be to rob future generations of the opportunity to see the " FIRST" supersonic passenger aircraft in flight.

......FROM A BA MANAGER............

......" the real reason why Concorde could not fly - and also why the CAA nor any other certified flying body will endorse it to fly again in any role - is because the French Authorities have recinded the Type Certificate for the aircraft. Without the Type Certificate, an aircraft cannot obtain a Certificate Of Airworthines (C of A) to enable it to fly.

This was done by the French in response to the situation they found themselves in after the dreadful accident in France that year when all 113 lives were lost on the Air France aircraft. It was a difficult year for the French as they were trying to privatise Air France and this accident was the last thing they needed! The resulting investigation by the French Authorities was scandalous to say the least! A huge cover up and also no access to the wreckage was permitted to the British Authorities (who had lawful access by the way!) and much of the real evidence such as that given by the Airport Fire Service who were litterally yards away from the accident, was not admitted to the enquiry.

Essentially, the French wanted Concorde binned! It was a real problem for them, so much so that they withdrew their aircraft from service way ahead of the expiration of the aircrafts' C of A in France and of course way ahead of the British!

Airbus, who held the Type Certificate for the aircraft - part of the agreement under which Concorde was built - then expired that Certificate, effectively shutting the door on Concorde's future for any purpose that involved flying!

It is a international scandal that the French could get away with this and that the UK Government made no representation to the European Union over the issue"............


We are hopeful of opening discussions with Airbus shortly, we need your names on the petition, please visit the site and sign the petition.

Thank you for your assistance......"GOD BLESS AMERICA".....

Regards


Steve


SAVE CONCORDE
 
Re: CONCORDE....HOW........IT..IS.....

ashtonvillageuk said:

America did use a TU144 in the 90's to find ways of creating your own SST. You found the costs were too high so the project was once again scrapped.
Click to expand...

NASA flew a TU-144 for a few months several years back, collecting data for the National Aerospace Plane project. The plane was returned to the Russians, and the NASP project is now on the back burner. NASP was to have been a Mach 15 airliner that could reach halfway around the world.

The Russians plagiarized nearly all of the TU-144 from Concorde, but they did add one innovation that improved the aircraft. They added the retractable canards, which added pitch authority during takeoff and landing. This also prevented the flaperons from levering the main gear into the ground during rotation, which magnified the load on them during the point of greatest stress. This was the primary cause of the numerous tire problems the plane suffered throughout its service.

Boeing was developing an SST at the same time Concorde was being developed.
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/sst.html
It was cancelled mostly due to the fact that it wouldn't be allowed to fly supersonic over the continental US, and even over the ocean, it wouldn't be profitable. It was much bigger and a little faster than Concorde, and was to seat 300 passengers.
Boeing tried to solve the problems associated with a delta wing by trying a variable-geometry design. That would have allowed supersonic flight, while reducing deck angle as well as takeoff and landing speeds to normal. The design was too heavy, as the weight of the wing hinge assembly would mean the plane couldn't carry a profitable payload.

I don't think Concorde was ever profitable, despite $10,000 ticket prices. The planes originally had several dozen airlines interested, but the 11 planes built were eventually sold to British Airways and Air France for £1 each. The Concordes probably attracted extra business to those carriers due to their prestige, but they weren't profitable, since they burned twice the fuel of a 747 but only carried a third as many passengers.
It would be nice to see one returned to the air, since it was such an aviation milestone, but I don't think it will happen unless the UK or French governments sponsor it.
 
The Concorde is the prettiest airplane ever built and her accomplishment will always stand as second to none.

Just sad, that I missed my chance of riding on her, so close. Seeing her back in the air, Rolls Royce Olympus in reheat screaming, would be a joy indeed!
 
CONCORDE.....HOW......IT...IS....

She certainly is a most beautiful plane, definitely worth the fight to return one to flight:

With regard to profit:

For me, Concorde is all about people’s emotional aspirations and its association with the BA brand. How can you value the iconic and aspirational presence of such a product solely via operating profit or loss?

Perhaps BA should have should be adding the marketing value of Concorde to the profit and loss calculation.

Having said that, Concorde was most certainly profitable for BA. I have no information on the profitablity of the AF Concordes.

BA....." DID NOT" want to take Concorde out of service, it was forced upon them by a French conspiracy.

I hope you will sign the Petition....
SAVE CONCORDE
 
Re: CONCORDE.....HOW......IT...IS....

ashtonvillageuk said:
With regard to profit:

For me, Concorde is all about people’s emotional aspirations and its association with the BA brand. How can you value the iconic and aspirational presence of such a product solely via operating profit or loss?

Perhaps BA should have should be adding the marketing value of Concorde to the profit and loss calculation.
Click to expand...

Using the same logic, the US airlines should restore some Lockheed Constellations and return them to domestic service, replacing MD-80 and A-320 routes. Would using such a beautiful and iconic aircraft not offset the lack of operating economy, reliability, and passenger comfort?

It's all about profitability! Concorde wound up as an icon and symbol of national achievement and pride for England and France, but it was not profitable. It wound up as an aircraft no one wanted to buy, so the French and UK national carriers were given the plane.


BA....." DID NOT" want to take Concorde out of service, it was forced upon them by a French conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Come on! I know you guys don't get along with the French, but that's ridiculous!

Do you have any data on Concorde's load factors in the last few years of its service? They weren't very impressive!
 
CONCORDE WAS PROFITABLE FOR BA.....

CAN.......I SAY AGAIN......CONCORDE......WAS PROFITABLE FOR BA.....AGAIN.....CONCORDE WAS PROFITABLE FOR BA........CAN YOU PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND........

THE FRENCH TOOK THE DECISION TO GROUND CONCORDE.....THIS WAS THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT, AIR FRANCE......AND AIRBUS.....BA WERE POWERELESS TO STOP THE FRENCH........FOR GOODNESS SAKE WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM......

FROM A BA MAMAGER........

It was a difficult year for the French as they were trying to privatise Air France and this accident was the last thing they needed! The resulting investigation by the French Authorities was scandalous to say the least! A huge cover up and also no access to the wreckage was permitted to the British Authorities (who had lawful access by the way!) and much of the real evidence such as that given by the Airport Fire Service who were litterally yards away from the accident, was not admitted to the enquiry.

Essentially, the French wanted Concorde binned! It was a real problem for them, so much so that they withdrew their aircraft from service way ahead of the expiration of the aircrafts' C of A in France and of course way ahead of the British!

Airbus, who held the Type Certificate for the aircraft - part of the agreement under which Concorde was built - then expired that Certificate, effectively shutting the door on Concorde's future for any purpose that involved flying!

It is a international scandal that the French could get away with this and that the UK Government made no representation to the European Union over the issue!


DON'T BOTHER ME WITH YOUR IGNORANCE....GOODBYE !
 
CONCORDE......HOW...IT....IS....

BA would have still been flying Concorde if the French had not decided to trash her.........the British and French position on Concorde is totally different......

BA desperately wanted to keep Concorde flying, that is common knowledge in the UK aviation fraternity....

Regards


SteveNEW SITE IS LIVE....GO FOR IT !!!
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top