Petition for keeping one Concorde flying

Paul Sengupta wrote:
TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:

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/

:-(

"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message
...
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.

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


"ShawnD2112" wrote in message
...
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
"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message
...

"pacplyer" wrote in message
m...
B S D Chapman mail-at-benchapman-dot-co-dot-uk wrote in message
...


The second
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.


Flyable? I didn't know that. Are you sure?


Nimrod.

Ali

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..

"Ali Hopkins" wrote in message
...
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

Dave Stadt wrote:

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" wrote in message
.. .
Dave Stadt wrote:

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.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
pacplyer wrote:

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 **** (sic) poor design feature as well. Your
point being?


737 fuel tanks and vapour come to mind, too.....

Ali

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
...

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Dave Stadt wrote:

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" wrote in message
...
Dave Stadt wrote:

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.

--
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" wrote in message ...
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
pacplyer wrote:

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 **** (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 ****ing 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 ****. Welcome to aviation you
boneheads. :^D LOL!

pacplyer – out

If it's not Boeing, I'm not Going!

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
.. .


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)

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