Concorde (British Airways and Air France)?

Question

Is there anyone out there who worked on British Airways or Air France Concorde?

I am seeking a comment about the demise of Concorde in 2003 for inclusion in a presentation about Concorde to classes of elementary school students.

[e-mail]

Thank you.

Answer 1

I agree with Caretaker.

Answer 2

Try a look at this

http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manwe...

Answer 3

Hi, I can tell you a little about Concorde as the firm I worked for supplied the hydraulic pump that drove the Dynamo that provided the power for the instruments and alike. I actually packed the unit for the very first Concorde and there were four units to each aircraft one fitted to aircraft, one in store, one in transit and one construction or refurbish. and I think there were five or six. Now your wondering why the demise, Because of the USA basically. The aircraft was far, far before it's time, it was the most sophisticated aircraft ever built at that time. and the American government were jealous of the achievement as they did not do it first. if they had it would have been a very different story and probably still be flying today. I personally think it was because the French and Germans were involved in the production of it and not the USA., and the controversy there was about it landing as it was a NOISY air Craft of course it was noise it had four ruddy great Rolls Royce engines in the bugger and it travelled twice the speed of sound it was bound to be noisy. But other problems came into play unfortunately as I said far before it's time.

Answer 4

That's a tough subject for elementary students.  While Coofooman was correct in US policy having a detrimental effect on the Concorde's demise he make two glaring mistakes.  For one it was an English and French effort, hence BA and Air France, not French German.

Second major mistake was underestimating the US Aircraft Industry.  Boeing in fact, began there SST R&D in 1953.  By 1959 Boeing and General Dynamics designs were far enough along that their SST designs became the F 111 and B1 respectively.  The SR 71 proved America's capability beyond a doubt.

However along this same time, with 109 Airline commitments for the 300 seat, 733, Boeing realized environmentalists and sonic booms did not mix.  The aircraft could not survive without transcontinental and trans Atlantic flights so with the obvious bans of Supersonic flight over Continental USA they pulled the plug on the project.  

Aérospatiale-BAC, either did not do their homework or ignored the obvious.  Later restrictions over India and Malaysia killed the London - Singapore route shared by BA and SIA.  With only 100 seats only slightly larger than 747 economy, they could not offer 'Creature Comfort' or even decent carry-on storage, on the few routes available.

The Demise

My personal feeling is, the crash investigation, run and controlled solely by the French, contributed in that it drug on to long and implied a bit of debris on the runway disabled the Aircraft.  

'Single Cause' loss of an aircraft, is unacceptable and  forced the CAA to pull the airworthiness certificate and caused the airlines to comply with expensive modifications.  When in fact it was a series of bad decisions aggravated by a maintenance error in the left under-carriage.

Had the problem been quickly admitted it could have returned to flight earlier and possibly had greater customer confidence.  But did you really want to pay twice to three times as much to fly in a cramped seat when you can recline in a spacious seat with personal entertainment and flawless service.

One of the many sites describing the horrible truth of events leading to the crash, which came close to killing the French President Jacques Chirac, can be found at, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/may...

This site, from an aircrew bulletin board, reprints an article from the Observer, Sunday May 13 2001.  It's lengthy but factual. http://www.airlinecrew.net/vbulletin/sho...

Answer 5

FWIW, Concorde's routes were VERY restricted by the late 1990's.  Essentially it was flying London NY/Paris NY only.  Due to noise and pollution restrictions it could only achieve it's advertised 2.0Mach speeds over the Atlantic, and only for a relatively short time.

Prices were not cheap:  one paid the full-fare 1st Class ticket, plus a "Concorde surcharge" which was basically ANOTHER full-fare ticket.  This automatically restricted the passengers that were going to fly it.  It continually lost money and was subsidized by the French and British govt's.

It was a flying white elephant, by the time of its demise.  This is just my opinion but I am convinced that

a:  the declining passenger list (it was routinely flying with less than 1/2 of its passenger load)

b:   loss of gov't subsidies

c:  rising fuel prices

the crash was a convenient time to review the WHOLE program; and just end it.

When you look closely at the whole program, not just the shiny white jet-you'll see there was nothing to be "jealous of"....