Seems like Concorde won't fly again..ever

Angus · Post by **Angus** » 02 Jun 2006, 18:01

I would love to see Concorde fly just one more time, but sadly the authorities don't. I very much doubt that the CAA, or the people who run Airbus or BA understand sentiment or nostalgia - they only see the costs involved so it'd never happen. Just think of all the paperwork that is involved before a single airworthy aircraft can leave the ground, let alone to allow a grounded type to fly. I have often wondered what the pioneers of aviation would think if they could see all that we have to contend with today!

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 02 Jun 2006, 19:44

Actually, you're speaking only of a British- or European-registered aircraft. If Boeing (or any other group) was able to convince BA to relinquish ownership of an aircraft and then they register that aircraft in the US or Canada, what the design authority thinks would have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the plane could fly again, which is why I think is part of the reason that AA is not in any hurry to try and get WL790 back from the US. They can still fly it here.

Post by **Garry Russell** » 02 Jun 2006, 20:14

One think you must remember Chris is the USA did all they could to destroy Concorde in the beggining when it could of been more sucessful.

So why you should talk about the USA as some sort of saviour is beyond me.

Garry

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 03 Jun 2006, 00:32

Gary, the policies and views of the politicians doesn't matter in this case. The FAA (and CAB that preceeded it) didn't care whether or not Concorde succeeded. Hell, it was the agencies that helped BA and Air France setup their initial operations out of JFK and Dulles after noise complaints from citizens who lived around the airport instead of preventing them from operating.

The major US Airlines had ordered the airplane and supported the program wholeheartedly, but it was a small number of politicians who really didn't have any true power and citizen activist groups that hated aviation anyway and have even less power that tried to torpedo it. Most people in the US and most of the industry had no problem with the airplane even though many wished we'd completed development of our own aircraft and created competition that would have probably ended up in better aircraft out of both sides of the Atlantic.

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 03 Jun 2006, 00:42

Oh yeah, and I never said anything about the government in my first post. The US Government as a whole could care less. The FAA would do their airworthiness inspection and that'd be the end of it as far as direct government involvment in any project to return a Concorde to flight in the US. I'm not saying that the Government is a savior in any way, only that the regulations here and in Canada are setup where the government and manufacturer don't have such a direct say in whether or not an airplane flies as the respective parties in Europe do. If you (the operator) prove you can operate the aircraft safely and maintain it to the regulations provided for its operation, you can operate the airplane and the government can't prevent you from doing so just because certain parties or the manufacturer don't want you to.

Post by **Garry Russell** » 03 Jun 2006, 00:52

Blimey Chris you even spell my name the incorrect American way........

There was a anti Concorde brigade in the US and they did the type no good. I remember it happening, do you? ..demo's at the airport... .or are you reading from one of those re-written history books.

The Americans did not support the Concorde in the beginning...yes the airlines booked places but they didn't actually buy it.

There seemed to be a lot of resentment because Britain and France managed to achieve something the USA didn't.

That and the noise and hot air from the anti Concorde lobby made it difficult to place it on it's prime route

None of this helped the programme.

GARRY (The correct British spelling)......means firm spear :shock: :redface:

Post by **Garry Russell** » 03 Jun 2006, 00:56

Oh yeah I haven't mentioned the US governement either.

Garry

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 03 Jun 2006, 02:05

No, I haven't read revisionist history. The American public by-and-large wanted Concorde *AND* the American SST. It was a small minority of Americans who didn't like Concorde. Everyone else wanted to be the first to fly on it until they saw the price tag for a ticket and then they wanted to be one a few years late when the prices would "inevitably" go down after the American SST was introduced and/or Concorde got it's growing pains worked out and prices went down as it became more economical to operate the aircraft. Unfortunately, things didn't go that way. Braniff had a lot of interest in its flights from DFW to Dulles and on to London and Paris, but not enough people had the money to fly it and thus it was a failure.

Just as there is a small minority who still oppose air travel expansion (especially vocal here in the DFW area over the Wright Ammendment), one would think that they're the majority by the news media reports, but in fact they're not. It's just that most who support it aren't vocal about it. They'd rather the opposition just shut up and go away than stand up and oppose them. But that's the way it's been for decades.

cstorey · Post by **cstorey** » 03 Jun 2006, 08:05

Since I was about 30 at the time , and actively involved in aviation, I remember the situation well. Furthermore, an old school friend of mine was Christopher Orlebar who was actively involved in the promotion of Concorde from an early stage in its career . There was an enormous US lobby to ban Concorde from US airspace etc. Those such as Chris Trott who now quote ( rather than having lived through it ) publications to the contrary are, I'm afraid, just plain wrong. That the lobby ultimately failed is a fact, but it does not mean that it did not exist

Chris

britishtourer · Post by **britishtourer** » 03 Jun 2006, 13:35

Garry and Chris are right!

Mr Trott, the Americans detested concorde because she was (And still is) the most advanced airliner ever. And the Americans just couldn't take it that they couldn't make it.

It's the same with everything. For example, the SAS are the world's greatest CT force, NOT delta force. It was the british at Bletchley park who broke the enigma code but America goes and makes a movie called U 571 which re writes history, having the Americans capturing a machine. De Havilland made the world's first Jet airliner, and Sir Frank Whittle made the Jet engine itself, contrary to what many Americans think.

I think individual Americans are great and certain things like the 747 and the space programme are great too. But I hate the all powerful "Yeah haa!" America did everything attitude of the nation.

Give us Brits a break, will you?