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

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..

"John Bishop" wrote in message
...
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.