Home › Forums › Chat Forum › Anyone flown on Concorde?
- This topic has 280 replies, 87 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by bigrich.
-
Anyone flown on Concorde?
-
PeterPoddyFree Member
Also miss seeing and hearing it every day as it crossed over South Oxfordshire on it’s way out at about 11:05 in the morning
Ohhh yeah.
I used to work on the construction of the A331 on the Hants/Surrey boarder. I remember every day, everyone outside stopping and looking up as the distant rumble became that b-e-a-utifil shape in the sky, shading our eyes from the sun.
Whatever you think of it, my god that was a wonderful bit of kit….. No doubt about it.TuckerUKFree MemberI haven’t read the whole four pages, but how can anyone British argue Concorde was anything other than a huge success? The only supersonic airliner ever in regular service, still making revenue right to the end (for BA at any rate). The retirement of the fleet was French led and very political, which is why another operator can’t buy and run the aircraft, would be shameful to France.
ac282Full MemberIt was a great technical achievment but it never made its money back and only a few were ever made.
Concorde vs 747
It’s pretty clear that the 747 was more successful (if less impressive)
TrekEX8Free MemberI think the offer to buy Concordes for £1 was perhaps a little disingenuous.
As I understand it, the aircraft were no longer going to be supported by the manufacturer regardless of the wishes of the operators. Parts and technical support would have been unavailable and the aircraft inoperable.molgripsFree MemberI don’t think zokes understands physics or economics very well.
zokesFree MemberI think the offer to buy Concordes for £1 was perhaps a little disingenuous.
You also have to bear in mind that BA bought them for a fiver in the first place
I don’t think zokes understands physics or economics very well.
Better than you understand overtaking, molly, which is ultimately a more useful subject in real life.
No doubt Branson could’ve made an operating profit from £1 aircraft.
He was happy to splash considerably more – I think his last offer was 5m. Not bad appreciation for something that hand only cost BA 5 quid in the first place.
As TuckerUK says, the only reason Virgin didn’t get the fleet was sour grapes on the part of BA and AF.
and the rarity of the aircraft meant they could charge high prices.
There aren’t many A380s about, yet surprisingly, there’s no price premium (at least with SIA) over other services. Was there something else about Concorde that meant that BA could charge this premium? I wonder what it was…
nickcFull MemberYou also have to bear in mind that BA bought them for a fiver in the first place
It was about £20m I think, and some profit deal as well.
As TuckerUK says, the only reason Virgin didn’t get the fleet was sour grapes on the part of BA and AF.
Airbus had stopped supporting the aircraft, it was all a bit of a non starter really, which Branson probably knew, but still, it made BA look like party poopers….
NorthwindFull Memberzokes – Member
There aren’t many A380s about, yet surprisingly, there’s no price premium (at least with SIA) over other services. Was there something else about Concorde that meant that BA could charge this premium? I wonder what it was…
Mmm. Really think it’s comparable? Concorde flew through the excesses of the 80s and 90s, the A380 came into service right at the start of the banking crisis… Would they still be charging the same prices in 2013? Seems incredibly unlikely, they couldn’t in 2003 even before the crash.
zokesFree MemberWould they still be charging the same prices in 2013? Seems incredibly unlikely, they couldn’t in 2003 even before the crash.
Funny, because after the crash when they regained airworthiness, prices rose considerably. Famously because BA rang all their executive customers and asked them how much they thought the service was worth, and they all guessed about double what their PAs had actually been paying for them all those years.
Airbus had stopped supporting the aircraft, it was all a bit of a non starter really,
Under considerable pressure from Air France. I highly doubt Airbus would turn down one of their biggest customers (Virgin), and indeed, they were in talks with Branson until BA categorically said they wouldn’t sell.
scottyjohnFree MemberWhen I used to fly to health row a lot on business, I remember seeing it take off whilst I was in the BA terraces lounge, the one with the floor to ceiling glass overlooking the runway. Everyone in there got up and stared out of the glass as it was something to see. The fact that most of the people in the lounge were hardened business travellers, and they stood and stared like school kids shows how special it was.
NorthwindFull Memberzokes – Member
Funny, because after the crash when they regained airworthiness
prices rose considerably.Wrong crash! “2003 before the crash”- ie economy crash. Concorde stopped flying even before the bottom fell out of the economy, A380 never flew before that, so you can’t compare the two. But Concorde was already falling in popularity before then.
I think you’re mistaken re the price increases, that was pre-2000 (maybe someone else can put a year on it, but that move is credited with moving BA concorde operations into profit, whereas BA say it never made a profit after 2000) They were reducing flights, running price promotions and upgrading passsengers from subsonic flights for much of the last period of operation because of low passenger numbers.
NorthwindFull MemberAh- idle google suggests that this:
zokes – Member
Famously because BA rang all their executive customers and asked them how much they thought the service was worth, and they all guessed about double what their PAs had actually been paying for them all those years.
occurred in the mid 80s after BA bought out the planes, rather than in the 2000s as you suggested.
CletusFull MemberI flew on Concorde in about 1994. It was a reward for selling lots of Novell software!
The flight took off from Heathrow, headed out over the Atlantic, cracked Mach 2 then slowed down and hung a left over the Bay of Biscay and returned.
The cabin had a mechanical “mach-o-meter” that was very 1960s.
Take off was awesome – like being strapped to a rocket but the rest of the flight was relatively normal. Con spidering the noise the thing made it was pretty quiet inside.
It was a pretty memorable trip but the girl I sat next to was unimpressed – she slept through most of the trip!
molgripsFree MemberBetter than you understand overtaking, molly, which is ultimately a more useful subject in real life.
Well, I’d better give up now then when I’m up against formidable debating skills like that!
Anyway, of course it’s true that A380 flights are cheap. That’s the whole point of the 380.
Speed is les important than you seem to think. If you shave three hours off my travel time to Chicago it’s still going to take me most of a day to get from door to door. Doesn’t make much difference really.
ransosFree MemberYou also have to bear in mind that BA bought them for a fiver in the first place
No they didn’t. They did however get them for a fraction of their true worth, representing a significant public subsidy. This proves my point that they were uneconomic.
He was happy to splash considerably more – I think his last offer was 5m. Not bad appreciation for something that hand only cost BA 5 quid in the first place.
No, £5 million represents a considerable loss. BA paid £16.5 million in 1983, according to Wiki.
There aren’t many A380s about, yet surprisingly, there’s no price premium (at least with SIA) over other services. Was there something else about Concorde that meant that BA could charge this premium? I wonder what it was…
Number of Airbus A380s built to date: 106
Number of Concordes ever built: 20.CaptainFlashheartFree Member“Another example would be like the Concorde being retired and the fact there is no supersonic passenger transport. I think that is sad. You want the future to be better than the past, or at least I do.”
njee20Free MemberI did it, BA001 LHR-JFK, in about 2001.
IMO, it felt like a plane!
The windows were small, the cabin is more train sized than plane sized. The acceleration and (even more so) the deceleration were absolutely ferocious. The sky was very dark when you look up out of the windows. It flexed a ridiculous amount when taxiing – looking along the aisle towards the flight deck the front was bouncing all over the place. The visibility out of the windscreen was crap too.
That’s about it, didn’t feel faster or anything.
Was absolutely awesome though.
njee20Free MemberNot sure I agree, in pure engineering terms Concorde was awesome! Anything now is just incremental improvements.
DaveRamboFull MemberGreat thread.
I lived in central London and we used to look forward to seeing it come over at 5 every day. Never ever got fed up and was always amazed.
BA are now just another airline. They had an aspirational aircraft that they may have not made any money from but now they have nothing that sets them apart.
LHSFree MemberAnything now is just incremental improvements
You could not be more wrong.
The Aerospace industry has made massive advances, far in advance to anything seen in Concorde.
GTF engines – 25% less fuel burn
Composite fueselage and wings
Health Monitoring Systems
Significantly improved reliability, significantly reduced maintainance costs.
Electrics brakes, Eletric TRAS, Electric steering, Electric Primary and Secondary Flight controls
Lighter and stronger cabins leading to better air cabin pressure and quality.That is all the visible stuff, if you looked in detail in the advances in material technology then it goes much further.
Technological improvements are far more than just throwing a load of fuel and power at something and shouting look how fast i can go (in a Jeremy Clarkson style).
zokesFree MemberThe future is better than the past, in air travel.
Why, are they making a bigger, faster, more fuel efficient Concorde?
LHSFree MemberFaster does not equal better.
Based on this rational an aircraft could be
Less fuel efficient
Noisier
Carry less people
Be more unreliable
Cost more to operate
Cost more to travel on
Have worse air qualitybut if it is faster, it is superior.
rocketmanFree MemberWalked on and off Concorde at the Farnborough Air Show. Was amazed at how small it was inside, like a single-decker bus with wings.
Also watched it take off it was just incredible
MrWoppitFree MemberConcorde. A small, uncomfortable aircraft affordable by only a few that flew very fast. Hmm.
Personally, I’m much more impressed by the A380. Something that big looks like it just shouldn’t be able to get off the ground. Like a skyscraper laid sideways.
I’ve been up in a 747 but I’d REALLY like to travel in one these impressive monsters.
MrWoppitFree MemberThe New Fast: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23677205
CaptainFlashheartFree MemberWoppster, see Musk’s quote at the top of the page…..
MrWoppitFree MemberI’m more impressed with the floatation of something that big, than the speed of something not much bigger than a pencil.
Sorry. 😉
maxtorqueFull MemberConcorde, was i think primarily “of its time”, and over the years came to symbolise the best in engineering and technical achievement.
I’m sure the youth of today, brought up with every conceivable electronic gadget and practically hooked to the web 24/7 wouldn’t see the attraction, but to me, growing up in South Oxfordshire, the 11 o’clock mid morning rumble served as a sort of informal reality check. It’s hard to believe these days, but back then we were probably quite isolated as children, with just a small group of local friends and the TV (somewhat rationed by parents worried we would get “googly” eyes!) to remind us of the rest of the world passing by outside.
So, we would often run outside, and watch, hands shading our eyes to try to spot the plane first, seeing it slice into view and carve overhead in a shallow north turning arc. We’d wonder who was on board? are the famous? would we recognize them? what were they going to do in the US that was so important they could afford to be transported by this amazing machine? (when we flew we just chugged around on tiny slow propeller planes!). The noise was incredible, visceral even. How could such a tiny thing, by that point often climbing up through and way above the cloud layer, make such a noise? Even when it was gone from sight the noise remained, echoing off and around us from all directions.
As a symbol it was unmatched, as an object it took on a personality all of its own, and for me, transcended its mere collection of mechanical and electrical parts. I suspect that this childhood wonder was at least partially responsible for my interest and subsequent career in Engineering.
When F-BTSC crashed at Gonesse in the summer of 2000, i was by then 26, but to this day remember feeling incredibly moved by the loss of the actual plane, and not just the 113 people killed. Wondering how a plane feels is, of course, completely illogical, but that is the feeling i had, such had been the draw of Concorde to us youngsters.
Like the Spitfire before it, Concorde stood for all that was new, high tech and futuristic and it eponymously demonstrated that two very different nations could work together to a common goal.
Sat here in 2013, its pure technical achievements have been surpassed, and commercial air transport has necessarily become a game of economics rather than just the application of technology. But back in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s Concorde WAS the future, a sum of far more than just its parts, an embodiment of the dedication put into the project by the men and women who developed it.
I never flew on it, but somehow i don’t regret that. We never called it “a Concorde”, to us it was simply “Concorde”, and our world would have been a poorer place without it.
ransosFree MemberLike the Spitfire before it, Concorde stood for all that was new, high tech and futuristic and it eponymously demonstrated that two very different nations could work together to a common goal.
Unlike Concorde, the Spitfire was actually useful.
zokesFree MemberUnlike Concorde, the Spitfire was actually useful.
If you measure usefulness by numbers of people killed
MrWoppitFree MemberIf you measure usefulness by numbers of
peopleenemy pilots/bomber crews killedFixed. That.
zokesFree MemberFixed. That.
Not really. The spitfire was successful because it was good at killing people.
The topic ‘Anyone flown on Concorde?’ is closed to new replies.