Help Save Concorde!

[Blackstealth]

Well, this week, I'm ashamed to be British. After 27 years of passenger service, British Airways has finally retired the magnificent Concorde (http://www.concordesst.com) - an aircraft that helped shape the modern world. It was technologically ahead of it's time in the sixties, it's still ahead of its time today. Don't believe the stories of it being too costly to operate and unsafe to use - it's FUD.

There can't a single person out there that doesn't dream of flying on her, just once. Hell, I'd empty my savings account tomorrow for the chance of one flight at twice the speed of sound.

But now the evil empire of British Airways (http://www.britishairways.com) has taken away those dreams. They're planning to decommission their entire fleet of 7 aircraft and tuck them away in museums where they can be seen but never experienced. And it's unlikely that we'll ever again have the ability to travel at speeds in excess of Mach 2 within our lifetimes (short of joining the airforce).

When the Conservative government gave British Airways Concorde for £1 they said that if another British company ever wanted to operate it they could - and yet British Airways have refused to sell the planes to Richard Branson (owner of Virgin (http://www.virgin.com)) who'd keep them flying for the 25 years of life they have left in them.

So I'm asking just two things:

1. Sign the petition to save Concorde (http://www.ethical-business.com/?sect=detail&pet=720), it's not only the British public that should be making their voices heard - but the whole world, anyone with a passion for technology, aviation, luxury, or just believes in not letting a good thing go to waste - and
2. Boycott British Airways until they reinstate this majestic airplane.

I'll step down from my soapbox now...

[edesignuk]

Here, here! Signed :)

[Sun Baked]

Yes I can see the next big book by Richard Branson...

"Losing My Virginity at Mach 2"

[britboy]

Signed.

Personally I think that Virgin should be allowed to buy and operate the concorde. I suspect Branson would be happy to run it at a loss, just to have the Virgin logo on the side of the fastest passenger plane in the world. If BA don't want that to happen, perhaps they should continue operating it themselves.

Not that it's personal, but I blame the french for concorde being grounded. BA never had a problem with their planes. It's only Air France who had hiccups.

[edesignuk]

Originally posted by britboy
Not that it's personal, but I blame the french for concorde being grounded. BA never had a problem with their planes. It's only Air France who had hiccups.
Yeah, me to :D

[evoluzione]

British Airways, bloody typical, i hate flying with them, so stuck up. I always fly Virgin if i can and now I am definitely not flying BA. Surely if that was the case that they should be selling them Dicky could file a suit against them?

and yeah, Air France are to blame, they didn't look after them as they should have.

right, time to sign that petition.....

[Phil Of Mac]

Well, I signed it!

[pivo6]

I signed it as well, although the chances of me ever flying on the Concorde are practically nil. Unless they decided to land one of them in Minneapolis.

[wdlove]

I signed it also. It would be great to have Richard Branson to continue flying the Concorde.

[Giaguara]

Originally posted by Blackstealth
There can't a single person out there that doesn't dream of flying on her, just once. Hell, I'd empty my savings account tomorrow for the chance of one flight at twice the speed of sound.
[...]

i am the single person out here who has never dreamed of flying in concorde.

i have flied some (not a lot maybe), but i have always had to pay for my own fligths.
i would NEVER want to fly on a concorde if the price would be what it was. i'd rather take a "slow" airplane (airbus, boeing) and fly 5 or 10 times more.

if you wanted to save concorde, you should just have used all your savings to make that kind of transportation viable. as not even all the companies are able to pay you the tickets of intercontinental flights at ANY price, ... is it so amazing it died? maybe if that one concorde loaded with german (and other rich world) pensionists did not fall down a few years ago the things would have been different? don't take it i have personally anything against them, i don't. it just is or was a REALLY expensive and un-ecological way of travelling. and it did not have enough request to survive.

[G5orbust]

Well, they decommissioned the Concordes because the things were breaking down constantly and BA wasnt making any money off of flying them, even with those outrageous ticket prices.

Im not going to sign the petition because, even if BA looks at this, they wont put a 30+ year old plane back into service, no matter how cool it is.

Its time to face reality, folks. The Concorde is dead.

[MrMacMan]

I signed it but also did

Winston Churchill
George Bush
Saddam Hussein
Osama Bin Laden
Tony Blair


:confused: :rolleyes:

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by MrMacman
I signed it but also did



:confused: :rolleyes:

Well, Bill Gates signed my petition...

Anyway, we need a new supersonic transport. The Concorde is old; certainly we can do better now.

[shadowfax]

i'd like to know who had the bright idea to decide his name was

'C**T OF MARGARET THATCHER WHO IS TIGHT'

that made me laugh so hard. had to be a brit, i guess.

G5orbust: did you notice that not only did they refuse to operate them, but they refused to let someone else try to operate them and make a profit with them? that's what bugs me.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by shadowfax
G5orbust: did you notice that not only did they refuse to operate them, but they refused to let someone else try to operate them and make a profit with them? that's what bugs me.

You see, if they did, they would lose the prestige they gained from operating the Concorde! :rolleyes:

[strider42]

I believe the concorde probably is a safe plane, but it seems to be one that is too costly to operate efficiently. You say don't believe the stories, but what proof do you have to counter those claims. If the plane was economically viable, You'd expect it would still be flying.

I also question the statement that it helped shape the modern world. perhaps if it was something ordinary people could use, sure. but since no other commercial super sonic jets exist and considering that supersonic technology has been advanced by the military and not the concorde, I don't relaly see what relevent impact the concorde has had at all.

Oh and regarding the statement: "There can't a single person out there that doesn't dream of flying on her, just once. Hell, I'd empty my savings account tomorrow for the chance of one flight at twice the speed of sound. " I think you're really wrong there. I'd rather save a few thousand dollars and spend a couple more hours in the air thanks very much. Donate that money to charity, you'll feel better about yourself. I bet you'd be pretty disappointed in the flight too. Sure its faster, but is it really that much of a better flight. You should probably reexamine your prioties if the idea of going twice the speed of sound is worth that much money to you. I don't mean that to be insulting, I just honestly don't see why thats such a big deal. Supersonic technology is cool stuff and I'd love to see it being widespread and practical, but its not something that means much to me to be able to do personally.


Meanwhile, there is no getting around that it is a plan setup only for the uber rich, uses loads of fuel to fly that fast. I can see definite reasons why BA wouldn't want to sell the planes to an upstart airline. Personally, I just don't see many reasons to save a toy of those who make ungodly sums of money.

[whocares]

The true question is: why did it "fail". One of the possible answers has to be US boycot. Think denying supersonic flight above the US when the Concorde came out. :mad:
Wonder if this would have applied if Boeing manage to build a supersonic commercial aiplane. :confused:

Concorde was not the only commercial supersonic plane. The russians flews a few of their own back in the days, but decommissioned them due to lack of reliabilty. Heck one even crashed at the Bourget air show :eek:

[WinterMute]

Having flown, I've signed.

Concorde used to fly over my house in SE London every day at around 5:20, it was always a welcome sight.

I saw it last week on it's final flight (well, I saw 2 of the 3 that were flying) it was a perfect day, apparently the M25 motorway ground to a halt as it went over.

A sad loss.

[alset]

Count me in. Signed. Most popular petition of the day.

Dan

[Mr. Anderson]

The only way to bring back the concorde is to make new ones. These old airframes are not up to any more flights if they want to keep things safe.

I'd love to see all trans atlantic/pacific flights on Concorde like planes, flying at mach 2 or more. And eventually this will happen. But the days are over for the Concorde and we need to move on to something newer.

D

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
The only way to bring back the concorde is to make new ones. These old airframes are not up to any more flights if they want to keep things safe.

I'd love to see all trans atlantic/pacific flights on Concorde like planes, flying at mach 2 or more. And eventually this will happen. But the days are over for the Concorde and we need to move on to something newer.

D according to the engineers, i believe they have 20 years of life left in them, if properly maintained. consider that there are certainly older commercial planes flying with passengers.

[Mr. Anderson]

That's open to debate - given that they're flying these things at such high speeds.

But the other issue is the cost and noise. One of the main reasons that the Concorde was only doing the Trans Atlantic flights was due to the extremely loud engines. Its 60s technology - newer, faster, quieter, and a more efficient version of the Concorde needs to be developed.

The current one shouldn't be the end of an era, just the beginning of the future of airtravel ;)

That said - lets get a new SuperSonic plane up and flying, one that meets todays requirements.

D

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
That's open to debate - given that they're flying these things at such high speeds.

But the other issue is the cost and noise. One of the main reasons that the Concorde was only doing the Trans Atlantic flights was due to the extremely loud engines. Its 60s technology - newer, faster, quieter, and a more efficient version of the Concorde needs to be developed.

The current one shouldn't be the end of an era, just the beginning of the future of airtravel ;)

That said - lets get a new SuperSonic plane up and flying, one that meets todays requirements.

D i wholeheartedly agree, but still, why have a total hiatus of supersonic flight? we're retiring these birds, with an indefinite halting of commercial supersonic flight. no one, it seems, has seriously suggested or produced new supersonic planes. we're just cutting these off. they're fine, for sure, for another 5 years minimum. and that's better than going 5 years with nothing at all in this area.

the myth of the unreliability of these planes as they get older is, i think, from poor maintenance. the british don't seem to have any safety problems with this jet, as has been said.

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by shadowfax
the myth of the unreliability of these planes as they get older is, i think, from poor maintenance. the british don't seem to have any safety problems with this jet, as has been said.

not quite true - I've done work on NDE (non destructive evaluation) of aircraft for work. Its a huge issue. Every flight adds more and more stress to the airframe. Did you know that the fuselage expands at altitude? And with a cruising altitude of 50k to 60k feet and a cabin pressure ~25% higher than regular aircraft, that makes a huge difference and adds all that more stress to the frame.

Could it continue flying - probably. Should it? I'm not sure - but I'd love to see how many hours these aircraft have had in the air and compare that to the average lifespan of Boeing commercial jet.....

D

[Phil Of Mac]

Boeing announced the Sonic Cruiser, which would have been a transonic (not supersonic) transport, but it was cancelled.

[candan9019]

made a mistake.

[true777]

Originally posted by Giaguara
i am the single person out here who has never dreamed of flying in concorde.

it just is or was a REALLY expensive and un-ecological way of travelling. and it did not have enough request to survive.

I completely agree with Giaguara.

What strikes me is that among all the posts mentioning safety issues, noise, and profitability concerns, Giaguara is the only who mentions what I feel is the most problematic and most outdated aspect about this plane: Its terrible environmental (or should I say: anti-environmental) performance.

The Concorde is an extremely polluting airplane. Reason enough to take her out of business, IMHO, since - as stated before - its only main benefit seems to be to be a show-off toy for the ultra-wealthy.

Airplanes used to be very polluting back in the 60s and 70s, but the Concorde was bad even compared to those old-style planes. In the last 20 years, however, other planes have come a long way and made significant progress towards increased fuel efficiency and greatly reduced emissions.

The Concorde now is just not acceptable anymore in those regards.

I mean, we are talking about fuel-efficient cars, Apple is careful to get energy star ratings for its machines, etc, and then there is this completely outdated, self-indulgent smoking colossus for the rich to brag about. If this is the future this plane has shaped, I don't want much of it, thank you very much.

I still think this plane was interesting at its time, but that time is clearly over, and I certainly won't sign a petition to artificially keep alive an aging showstar refusing to step down. This also doesn't cast a great light on Branson about his regard for the environment.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by true777
I completely agree with Giaguara.

What strikes me is that among all the posts mentioning safety issues, noise, and profitability concerns, Giaguara is the only who mentions what I feel is the most problematic and most outdated aspect about this plane: Its terrible environmental (or should I say: anti-environmental) performance.

The Concorde is an extremely polluting airplane. Reason enough to take her out of business, IMHO, since - as stated before - its only main benefit seems to be to be a show-off toy for the ultra-wealthy.

Airplanes used to be very polluting back in the 60s and 70s, but the Concorde was bad even compared to those old-style planes. In the last 20 years, however, other planes have come a long way and made significant progress towards increased fuel efficiency and greatly reduced emissions.

The Concorde now is just not acceptable anymore in those regards.

I mean, we are talking about fuel-efficient cars, Apple is careful to get energy star ratings for its machines, etc, and then there is this completely outdated, self-indulgent smoking colossus for the rich to brag about. If this is the future this plane has shaped, I don't want much of it, thank you very much.

I still think this plane was interesting at its time, but that time is clearly over, and I certainly won't sign a petition to artificially keep alive an aging showstar refusing to step down. This also doesn't cast a great light on Branson about his regard for the environment. ah, c'mon. we're talking about 7 planes or so. they may pollute a lot more than other planes, but we're talking about the rarest plane commercially flying. it's a big issue for say a 747 or 737 to be a heavy polluter because there are hundreds of them flying all over the place. but the concorde does not constitute an environmental risk because we're talking about still a comparatively infinitessimally small amount of pollution.

and as far as looking down your nose at wealthy people, so be it. i believe in the right of people to enjoy their wealth, if they've come by it honestly. if they can afford a concorde flight, i see no reason other than hypocrisy to deny them that. saying "you don't deserve to have anything better than normal people" just sticks in my throat. it's such a ludicrous statement!

[Phil Of Mac]

They're just jealous, shadowfax.

Personally, I plan to become obscenely wealthy :D

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
They're just jealous, shadowfax.

Personally, I plan to become obscenely wealthy :D i'd like to be, but probably won't. still, i don't plan to think i can look down on people for spending their money. rich people spending money is the best thing in the world for the economy. the problem is when they horde it, heh. though i firmly support their right to do that, too.

[wdlove]

Originally posted by shadowfax
i'd like to be, but probably won't. still, i don't plan to think i can look down on people for spending their money. rich people spending money is the best thing in the world for the economy. the problem is when they horde it, heh. though i firmly support their right to do that, too.

I agree with you shadowfax. It is healthy to dream about being wealthy. The problem that we have in this country is class warfare. It could become a cancer to our country. We need those that have the money to spend it for the health of our economy.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by wdlove
I agree with you shadowfax. It is healthy to dream about being wealthy. The problem that we have in this country is class warfare. It could become a cancer to our country. We need those that have the money to spend it for the health of our economy. yeah. there shouldn't be any kind of stigma or penalty associated with wealth. wealth is the american dream. sure, people are irresponsible and selfish with it sometimes, but that's the case with people in every social class, probably more so in the lower ones.