Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

concorde

  • 13-07-2010 06:35PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 688 ✭✭✭


    question, ever since that french plane crash concorde basically shut down entirely, was there a rediculous flaw that meant they pulled the whole thing, or just not enough customers or high cost to run or something?

    regular planes crash too and it seems strange that a clearly superior technology fell into decline


«1

Comments

  • Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,948 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    Moved from AH. Might get a better answer in here OP.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 134 ✭✭Sigi


    As far as I recall,with the negative pr surrounding the crash along with the low passenger capacity of 100 passengers and high fuel consumption it just wasn't economically viable anymore.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 688 ✭✭✭Roomic Cube


    just noticed theres already a thread in here about a show about concorde all my questions would probably be answered there!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Sigi wrote: »
    As far as I recall,with the negative pr surrounding the crash along with the low passenger capacity of 100 passengers and high fuel consumption it just wasn't economically viable anymore.


    Well then why didn't they make a bigger version or say make the a380 like that so that they wouldn't be wasting money.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,814 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    My understanding is that it was pretty much down to economics. 2 airlines operated concorde, British airways & airfrance. BA made better use of the aircraft & carried much healthier passenger loads. Air france were making huge losses on concorde while BA were happy to continue in my opinion.
    The problem was that concorde required technical support from airbus in order to fly. This support was very expensive & the cost was split between BA & air france. Air france then decided they didnt want concorde as it was a blight on the companies accounts so the whole support cost was to fall onto BA if they continued to operate. The increase in costs would make it uneconomical for BA so they were left with little choice but to finish flying. THe French were responsible for the grounding.
    Interestingly, one of the french concordes is being inspected with a view to getting the engines running again & taxiing the aircraft. Some believe this can lead to a return to flight in a heritage capacity. It is a possibility but will require huge funding & support of airfrance & also airbus.
    BA also have a concorde in reasonable condition & is on display in bristol. This could also be a suitable for return to flight again with support & funding. In the last week, it has been reported that this uk concorde is being removed from display & hidden away by airbus in a hanger at bristol. Some believe it is to be dismantled out of the public eye. BA would be foolish to allow this, thereby giving the french the only really intact concorde. How silly would BA lok if the french ended up with a flying concorde after being allowed butcher the best uk aircraft & after them being responsible for the grounding of the fleet originally.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Not


    According to that programme on TV the other night, Concorde lost 40 of its most regular flyers in the 9/11 terrorism attacks, which didn't help it.

    I dont know what Air France were charging for flights, but I see one website claiming BA were at one stage charging a standard return fare of over £6000, so obviously means it was far too expensive for the majority of Joe Public to fly on the thing (although the programme did mention that some Concordes were made available for charter at much lower rates than the scheduled flight rates)

    Then I think they said Air France decided they could not afford to maintain it any more (and were flying only 4 passengers on some flights !) Also Air France had another near disaster with it when an engine blew up in flight causing a massive fuel leak and the aircraft only just made it into Halifax Nova Scotia before running out of fuel. It appears these two things undermined Air Frances confidence in it so they effectively pulled the plug, and BA didn't want to go it alone (didn't catch why - edit : mickdws post explains -) so followed suit.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,259 ✭✭✭✭Melion


    Not wrote: »
    According to that programme on TV the other night, Concorde lost 40 of its most regular flyers in the 9/11 terrorism attacks, which didn't help it.

    What? Concorde's last flight was August 2000


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Not


    Melion wrote: »
    What? Concorde's last flight was August 2000

    2003. It returned to service in late 2001 after refitting, but it only flew for 17 months until it was retired permanently for the reasons explained above. Coincidently, it's proving flight before returning to service was on the day of the 9/11 attacks.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,259 ✭✭✭✭Melion


    Not wrote: »
    2003. It returned to service in late 2001 after refitting, but it only flew for 17 months until it was retired permanently for the reasons explained above. Coincidently, it's proving flight before returning to service was on the day of the 9/11 attacks.

    My apologies.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,497 ✭✭✭Tea 1000


    mickdw wrote: »
    My understanding is that it was pretty much down to economics. 2 airlines operated concorde, British airways & airfrance. BA made better use of the aircraft & carried much healthier passenger loads. Air france were making huge losses on concorde while BA were happy to continue in my opinion.
    The problem was that concorde required technical support from airbus in order to fly. This support was very expensive & the cost was split between BA & air france. Air france then decided they didnt want concorde as it was a blight on the companies accounts so the whole support cost was to fall onto BA if they continued to operate. The increase in costs would make it uneconomical for BA so they were left with little choice but to finish flying. THe French were responsible for the grounding.
    Interestingly, one of the french concordes is being inspected with a view to getting the engines running again & taxiing the aircraft. Some believe this can lead to a return to flight in a heritage capacity. It is a possibility but will require huge funding & support of airfrance & also airbus.
    BA also have a concorde in reasonable condition & is on display in bristol. This could also be a suitable for return to flight again with support & funding. In the last week, it has been reported that this uk concorde is being removed from display & hidden away by airbus in a hanger at bristol. Some believe it is to be dismantled out of the public eye. BA would be foolish to allow this, thereby giving the french the only really intact concorde. How silly would BA lok if the french ended up with a flying concorde after being allowed butcher the best uk aircraft & after them being responsible for the grounding of the fleet originally.
    BA also have an intact Concorde in Barbados, I was on it. It was flown in there and the guide informed us that BA engineers come over every year to run a few tests on it.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Tea 1000 wrote: »
    BA also have an intact Concorde in Barbados, I was on it. It was flown in there and the guide informed us that BA engineers come over every year to run a few tests on it.

    it's a **** job, but someone has to do it i suppose :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,814 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    Tea 1000 wrote: »
    BA also have an intact Concorde in Barbados, I was on it. It was flown in there and the guide informed us that BA engineers come over every year to run a few tests on it.


    All the old airframes are around. Some had the wings cut off for transport & stuck on again for display purposes, others had the fuel tanks filled with concrete to weigh them down for display. Some also had random holes cut in the airframe to allow cabling into the aircrft for display reasons. The bristol one is, as far as Im aware the most intact. It is also the newest or the one with the least useage & is the best one for any future works.
    Im not aware of what the barbados one has had done to it but in terms of condition, it would be somewhat behind the bristol one.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 688 ✭✭✭Roomic Cube


    how many were there?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,576 ✭✭✭lord lucan


    how many were there?

    There were 14 Concordes flying out of 20 built(that includes prototypes).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 834 ✭✭✭Blue Punto


    lord lucan wrote: »
    There were 14 Concordes flying out of 20 built(that includes prototypes).


    1 x W/O @ paris

    1 x scrapped(center section survives at the back of paris mueseum)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,497 ✭✭✭Tea 1000


    mickdw wrote: »
    All the old airframes are around. Some had the wings cut off for transport & stuck on again for display purposes, others had the fuel tanks filled with concrete to weigh them down for display. Some also had random holes cut in the airframe to allow cabling into the aircrft for display reasons. The bristol one is, as far as Im aware the most intact. It is also the newest or the one with the least useage & is the best one for any future works.
    Im not aware of what the barbados one has had done to it but in terms of condition, it would be somewhat behind the bristol one.
    Apparently it's not behind the Bristol one at all. It was literally flown in, rolled into the hangar and had all it's fluids drained, hydraulic and fuel. That's all. It's literally as ready to go as an aircraft can be after 6 years idle. So if anything it's on par with the Bristol one.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,814 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    Tea 1000 wrote: »
    Apparently it's not behind the Bristol one at all. It was literally flown in, rolled into the hangar and had all it's fluids drained, hydraulic and fuel. That's all. It's literally as ready to go as an aircraft can be after 6 years idle. So if anything it's on par with the Bristol one.

    I hope it is but I dont hear it mentioned generally as being as suitable an aircraft for return to flight.
    Certainly the bristol one has the least flight cycles on it but the Barbados plane may well be next.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    I drive past one every day here in Seattle at the Museum of Flight at Boeing Field.

    I dont think they have any plans to fly it, although I expect they'd have a huge turnout if they did.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,054 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    The Save Concorde Group have launched a campaign to get it flying for the London Olympics. Apparently BA are the major obstacle. There will be massive public support for this & it has just been on Sky News.

    http://www.save-concorde.co.uk


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,814 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    THat campaign is underway for a number of years but certainly getting on sky news is a big help.

    It needs airbus & one of the airlines who operated it to come on board in order to get it in the air. It will also need 100s of millions in my opinion. However I feel it is very possible. The power of the people is very much needed & if the uk governent got behind the bid it would happen. I also believe there would be adequate private funding out there from big business to get this done specially if it was obvious that large numbers of the public wanted this to happen - Im sure there is a good advertising campaign in this for the right businesses.
    It is reported that the biggest problems apart from airbus & BA are the lack of certified parts, tooling for making parts & special fluids that are no longer produced. much of the parts that were available on retirement were sold off around the world to ensure it would never fly again. Once the parts are removed from certified storage, they are no longer fit for use.
    I believe if airbus really wished, they could easily overcome all this.
    Many of the concorde technicians are still with BA & airbus as are the pilots which would help.

    Airbus have refused any future technical backup for the aircraft but I feel if BA did have a change of heart, they would be able to change airbus mind with possibility of large orders for new aircraft into the future etc


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,054 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    Big problem. Airbus are seen as being very French & they never had the same enthusiasm for Concorde. The French have no interest in promoting the UK Olympics. Not long after the "retirement" I was introduced to a senior designer who was based at Filton. He echoed the view of many on the English side that the only thing wrong with Concorde was the French. They never forgave Tony Benn for allowing the "e" !.

    There is also a view that Willie's BA will be far less "patriotic" than previously. The obvious target could be a Middle Eastern Airline that might like to see a Concorde in the air bearing their colours.

    I can remember when "Vulcan to the Skies" started & we all thought that they were mad. I wonder if Concorde might get airborne on a strictly subsonic basis.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 887 ✭✭✭Podman


    It seems that economics was one of the real reasons for shutting down Concorde, as stated before.

    I remember that the actual crash was due to runway debris being sucked into Concorde's engine, causing the fire.
    Apparently, components from a DC10 that used the runway before had broken off the plane and not been removed from the runway.

    For me, Concorde was an aviation icon, mostly representing progress.
    Even in those days I knew you had to be very wealthy to ever go on one, but at least supersonic flight was available to people other than military.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,054 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    chompy wrote: »
    It seems that economics was one of the real reasons for shutting down Concorde, as stated before.

    I remember that the actual crash was due to runway debris being sucked into Concorde's engine, causing the fire.
    Apparently, components from a DC10 that used the runway before had broken off the plane and not been removed from the runway.

    For me, Concorde was an aviation icon, mostly representing progress.
    Even in those days I knew you had to be very wealthy to ever go on one, but at least supersonic flight was available to people other than military.

    You need to watch the documentary - nothing went into the engines.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 887 ✭✭✭Podman


    Discodog wrote: »
    You need to watch the documentary - nothing went into the engines.

    I never mentioned the documentary, I said "I remember".

    The news from around the time it happened mentioned DC10 debris on the runway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,814 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    Discodog wrote: »
    Big problem. Airbus are seen as being very French & they never had the same enthusiasm for Concorde. The French have no interest in promoting the UK Olympics. Not long after the "retirement" I was introduced to a senior designer who was based at Filton. He echoed the view of many on the English side that the only thing wrong with Concorde was the French. They never forgave Tony Benn for allowing the "e" !.

    There is also a view that Willie's BA will be far less "patriotic" than previously. The obvious target could be a Middle Eastern Airline that might like to see a Concorde in the air bearing their colours.

    I can remember when "Vulcan to the Skies" started & we all thought that they were mad. I wonder if Concorde might get airborne on a strictly subsonic basis.

    To be honest, Its hard to see concorde flying commercially due to age of the airframes & the costs involved.
    Subsonic flight is I think what everyone is aiming at & in a heritage capacity.
    I also read how one of the most unreliable systems on the aircraft were the controllers for the variable engine intakes and that they were very old technology. Interestingly it seems the prototype concordes in the 70s flew with fixed intakes to a speed of 1.5 mach so posibly that is not an issue at all for heritage flight below mach 1.
    Having siad all that, some of the middle eastern people are rich enough & powerful enough to do whatever they wish & getting concorde flying commercially is not beyond the bounds of what they would consider doing. Could they get there hands on an aircraft though? A few A380 orders (or the lack of) should soften airbus cough so to speak to get them on board.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,853 ✭✭✭Andrew33


    I was in the one in Duxford a couple of weeks back, I'd known they were not the roomiest of planes but I couldn't get over just how small the interior was! Do we really need the ability to get across the pond in 3 hours? With modern communications I don't really think so. It was status symbol for Fat Cats and nothing more.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,054 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    I would suspect that keeping flights below Mach 1 & for display flights would be much easier. There would be no problems with heating, fuel transfer etc & with no passengers she wouldn't even need reheat !.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,853 ✭✭✭Andrew33


    chompy wrote: »
    I never mentioned the documentary, I said "I remember".

    The news from around the time it happened mentioned DC10 debris on the runway.

    Debris from the runway burst one of Concordes tyres, it was a piece of tyre that punctured a fuel tank which then ignited once it had streamed back to the engine. It was a typical "Swiss cheese" accident with all the holes lining up:(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,497 ✭✭✭Tea 1000


    Andrew33 wrote: »
    I was in the one in Duxford a couple of weeks back, I'd known they were not the roomiest of planes but I couldn't get over just how small the interior was! Do we really need the ability to get across the pond in 3 hours? With modern communications I don't really think so. It was status symbol for Fat Cats and nothing more.
    I didn't find it all that cramped, the seats were nice and comfortable. The one thing I'd like to improve with flying is making trips shorter. I think there is a certain need for one, of course you can't justify everything, in reality there's no need for me to ever go to the USA, but if it comes to that you're splitting hairs.
    The big need for it was a symbol of technical achievement, not as a status for fat cats.
    Also, there probably was some business needs for a meeting in London at 11am and a meeting in New York at mid-day were possible with it. Some meetings are not suitable for video conferencing.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,853 ✭✭✭Andrew33


    Tea 1000 wrote: »
    I didn't find it all that cramped, the seats were nice and comfortable. The one thing I'd like to improve with flying is making trips shorter. I think there is a certain need for one, of course you can't justify everything, in reality there's no need for me to ever go to the USA, but if it comes to that you're splitting hairs.
    The big need for it was a symbol of technical achievement, not as a status for fat cats.
    Also, there probably was some business needs for a meeting in London at 11am and a meeting in New York at mid-day were possible with it. Some meetings are not suitable for video conferencing.

    I'll agree, it was a symbol of technical achievement (in the '60s and '70s!)
    There is nothing that special about it now, the only reason it flew at all was because it's flights were massively subsidised by the British and French taxpayers (the vast majority of whom could never afford to fly on Concorde) so I stand by my original remark that it had become a Fat Cats symbol and toy. We will see supersonic passenger flights in the (not too distant) future but with greatly improved technology and reduced costs.


Advertisement