TV Home Forum

The Concorde Final Day Thread

(October 2003)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
AN
andyrew Founding member
Such a sad day Crying or Very sad

I flew to NY on Concorde in June. Looking back it was a great journey, although at times on board, I forgot where I was and it did seem like I was onboard a normal aircraft (except for the continual flow of Pol Roger 1986 Champagne I was p***ed on!). I guess that's a tribute to those who built it; so much power and speed yet so understated. Maybe elegant is the word. It was well worth the money, if nothing else, to buy a piece of history.... and get a pic of me with Capt. Mike Bannister in the cockpit!

I checked out the coverage on both Sky and N24. Looking at the Edinburgh landing, the BBC won hands down. The Beeb got Concorde in its sights for a good ten minutes while Sky hunted empty skies unsuccessfully for a glimpse of the lady. I've not had chance to look at the final landings coverage yet. Saying that, I found in general the Sky coverage far more engaging, and I suppose more emotional than the BBC's, so that's what I stuck to.

I saw BA002 leave NYC on the telly, and was stood at the end of 27R when she arrived at Heathrow (pics below). Call me sad, but I thought it was great.


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andy.rew/concorde02.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andy.rew/concorde01.jpg
WI
william Founding member
I think it was, on an obviously smaller scale, this year's equivalent to the Golden Jubilee coverage - both in terms of the coverage and the number of people descending to watch.

We need events like this to bring people around the UK together from time to time (solar eclipse, anyone?) - even those who didn't like concorde were able to get involved by saying so.

I thought Adrian Chiles (in his piece on BBC Online) got it about right - it may just be a plane, but in a cynical age there are few things these days that will cause most people to stop and stare the way Concorde did.

I watched a variety of channels (and you shouldn't forget the radio coverage, e.g. Five Live) throughout the day, but stuck with BBC2 for the moment itself.

The thought that had gone into the camera angles, and the opportunity to watch some beautifully composed shots in widescreen, graphic free, of the landing was too much to miss.

I only wish that we'd had a little more of the effects noise at certain points and maybe Jon Sopel and guests had kept quiet a little longer at the crucial points.

ITV's coverage shouldn't be ignored either - they really are strong competition for both 24 + Sky now, just a shame ITV1 are reluctant to take any News Channel simulcasts.

William
CW
cwathen Founding member
Quote:
As for coverage... well I flicked to the ITV News Channel and stuck with it, briefly flicking to News 24 and Sky News. Neither particularly grabbed my attention, but Nick and Felicity were excellent on ITV News. Richard Branson as studio guest was brilliant too, the whole presentation was a lot more watchable than the other offerings.

Would this be the same ITV NC that didn't hold off on a commercial break despite the imminant landing in Edinburgh and thus missed most of the landing, and then could have caught the last few seconds of it but instead went into a standard headline sequence and then didn't even lead with Concorde? 'Concorde landed in Edinburgh 5 minutes ago - here's some recorded pictures' wasn't quite as impressive as 'Concorde is landing in Edinburgh right now - here's the live pictures'.

Quote:
I dont see what the big deal is...fancy jet yes, but any jet will do.

It's an as yet unbeaten feat of engineering - and considering how much almost all areas of technology have advanced since the 60's and 70's that's a hell of an achievement. It's also a piece of British built and largely British designed engineering which is recognised the world over - that is also an achievement in an age when British engineering has almost no recognition. And as someone said earlier, it was what made BA a special airline (Air France's Concordes didn't seem to get the same exposure). Indeed, BA still use it themselves in marketing themselves - a scale model of a BA Concorde adorns a roundabout into Heathrow.

Quote:
I thought Adrian Chiles (in his piece on BBC Online) got it about right - it may just be a plane, but in a cynical age there are few things these days that will cause most people to stop and stare the way Concorde did.

A similar thing was said on Sky News; when Concorde was retired (and despite the finality of yesteday, it probably will be seen flying again, and some of them will end up in museums along with the prototypes allready there) everyone watched. Yet when the dome is finally dismantled (and that never will be seen again) I doubt anyone will bother to turn up.

Quote:
Just because you don't use it, doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist.

Quite
:-(
A former member
intheknow posted:
Altowers posted:
Please, Jon Sopel is dire. He just stands there, has a very annoying manor and bores you to hell. Always forces me away from the BBC, Matthew Am<outhfullofwords> is much better.

I didn't see any of Sky's Coverage, but I can confidently say that ITV's coverage was far more entertaining, and although it didn't have a helicopter it was still better.


My god, what an idiotic hypocrit you are. How can you honestly say that ITV's coverage was better than Sky's when you admit you didn't watch one bit of Sky News.


Sorry, I meant I thought it was better than the BBC's coverage. I have no opinion whatsoever on ITV's coverage related to Sky's coverage.
:-(
A former member
Glorfindel posted:
All of this SO sucks - Concorde shouldn't be grounded at all!! they should have given the planes to Richard Branson !

Much as I'd love to see Concorde given a new lease of life with Virgin Airlines, the real issue is the fact that Airbus - who are the sole provider of all the spare parts, servicing and maintenance schedules that keep Concorde airworthy - have decided to cease supporting the plane permanently.

In other words, even if BA gave all its airworthy Concordes to Virgin for nothing, Virgin would be unable to service or repair them... and just like all old machines, Concorde needs more and more skilled and expensive technical support every year to keep it running properly.

Remember, the youngest Concorde in BA's fleet is 24 years old. It's expensive enough to keep a 5-year-old subsonic passenger jet fully serviced and airworthy, let alone a 24-year-old supersonic plane! I'm not even sure if there are any 24-year-old military supersonic planes that are still airworthy, and money's no object for the military.

I watched all three Concordes fly over London from my office window today - I could see them from their turn over Tower Bridge until about 30 seconds before touchdown - and I felt a real wrench... quite apart from the fact that I never got to travel on her, Concorde was one of the few really "Great" things left about Great Britain. Sure, it was an Anglo-French collaboration that made her possible, but the Air France Concordes never seemed to have the global profile of the BA planes, and as far as most of the world was concerned she was a uniquely British product.

As someone else here has already said, Concorde was something to aspire to. There isn't much that's British that it's possible to say that about!

And I remember seeing Lesley Judd arriving at Washington Dulles airport on the first transatlantic passenger-carrying Concorde flight live on Blue Peter in 1977...


However, from my understanding and from what richard Branson has said, the decision to ground Concorde was made jointly by BA, Air France and Airbus. I find it unlikely that Airbus would have suddenly said 'sorry- were just going to stop supplying your planes'. I think there was alot of talking and it was very well planned.

Did anyone see on Question Time- David Dimbleby said to Richard Branson 'BA say they are going to auction off bits of concorde. Couldn't you just buy every piece and put it back together!'
CW
cwathen Founding member
Quote:
However, from my understanding and from what richard Branson has said, the decision to ground Concorde was made jointly by BA, Air France and Airbus. I find it unlikely that Airbus would have suddenly said 'sorry- were just going to stop supplying your planes'. I think there was alot of talking and it was very well planned.

Indeed, Airbus would not withdraw support as long as there was money in it for them. It's more likely that they needed to increase their costs and BA wouldn't meet them that led to them announcing their decision to stop supporting Concorde.

From what it sounds like Richard Branson's wish to buy it was as much a personal wish as a business decision. Even if he had to pay a bit over the top to run Concorde, he probably would have done - Virgin is more than strong enough to absorb the costs. As I said yesterday, whilst BA don't want to run Concorde any more, they should not have stood in the way of someone else taking it on. For a decision that was apparantly entirely business oriented, refusing a viable offer for something they have no intention of running again seems to be everything but good business sense.

Quote:
Did anyone see on Question Time- David Dimbleby said to Richard Branson 'BA say they are going to auction off bits of concorde. Couldn't you just buy every piece and put it back together!'

I know this was a joke, but ironically most of the bits from BA's Concordes are spare parts or parts developed but never used - very few of them have ever actually been fitted to Concorde. AFAIK, only Air France is going to canibalise a Concorde to auction the parts of.
:-(
A former member
whilst BA don't want to run Concorde any more, they should not have stood in the way of someone else taking it on

Even assuming that Airbus would agree to continue providing the maintenance resource, Virgin could never have afforded to keep Concorde flying by itself. The only reason that BA was able to afford to keep the planes flying until yesterday was that even though Air France retired its fleet in May, it was contractually obliged to keep paying its share of the Airbus costs until the end of October.

Had Branson been able to buy her, he'd have been buying a money pit - an ageing plane that offered world-beating prestige, but which would have cost more to keep flying than she would have made in fare-paying passengers. No airline can afford that kind of monkey on its back for long.

And of course, as a number of commentators have pointed out, even if the Paris crash, Sept 11 and the global economic downturn hadn't happened in quick succession, Concorde didn't have very many years left in her anyway. Her retirement was always going to come sooner rather than later.

Yes, I wish it had been later, so that I might have had a chance to fly on her... but the brutal truth is that Concorde was mortally wounded by the 2000-2001 period. There's an irony in the fact that her last few months saw a brief return to profitability as people made the effort to fly her before the end, but it was too little, too late.
DU
Dunedin
Glorfindel posted:
All of this SO sucks - Concorde shouldn't be grounded at all!! they should have given the planes to Richard Branson !

Much as I'd love to see Concorde given a new lease of life with Virgin Airlines, the real issue is the fact that Airbus - who are the sole provider of all the spare parts, servicing and maintenance schedules that keep Concorde airworthy - have decided to cease supporting the plane permanently.

In other words, even if BA gave all its airworthy Concordes to Virgin for nothing, Virgin would be unable to service or repair them... and just like all old machines, Concorde needs more and more skilled and expensive technical support every year to keep it running properly.

Remember, the youngest Concorde in BA's fleet is 24 years old. It's expensive enough to keep a 5-year-old subsonic passenger jet fully serviced and airworthy, let alone a 24-year-old supersonic plane! I'm not even sure if there are any 24-year-old military supersonic planes that are still airworthy, and money's no object for the military.


Actually DERA said they would be prepared to take over servicing of Concorde if Virgin had got them.

Really of course, concorde doesn't belong to BA- they were developed with government money and then sold to BA for £1 each...it should be the government who decides the fate of the planes.

For those saying "it's only a plane" think about this....the only remaining way to travel faster than the speed of sound is in a jet fighter plane- wearing a special G-suit, hooked up to an oxygen tank after months of training in a G-force withstanding machine. Concorde allowed you do it all wearing jeans and a t-shirt whilst sipping champagne. Simply remarkable- the world has just taken a huge technological step back.
:-(
A former member
Actually DERA said they would be prepared to take over servicing of Concorde if Virgin had got them

Utterly meaningless statement, almost certainly made in the full knowledge that there was no chance of that happening.

Whoever DERA may be, they have no idea of what the real costs are - nobody does, except BA, Airbus and Air France, and they're not telling. It's one thing to state an intent on the basis of vague details, it's another entirely to agree to follow it up once you fully understand what you're getting into.

Really of course, concorde doesn't belong to BA- they were developed with government money and then sold to BA for £1 each

No, that's something of an urban myth.

Concorde was indeed developed with public money - £1.134 billion of it - but in 1977, BA and Air France bought their initial complement of 9 Concordes for £23 million each. That left five unsold planes, that were eventually (in around 1979-80) sold to Air France for 1 franc and BA for £1.

At the same time, however, the airlines took on the full cost of running the Concorde fleet - about £50 million back then.

The British government has had absolutely no financial or business interest in Concorde or BA since 1987, when it sold them off for £900 million.
LU
Luke
Why is everyone getting themselves into such a tizz over an elitist form of transport that - and I said this earlier - not many have flown? The fact that Joan Collins and Jeremy Clarkson were on the last flight moaning about how they were now unable to New York in double the time just sums it up for me.
:-(
A former member
Why is everyone getting themselves into such a tizz over an elitist form of transport...

If you have to ask, you'll never understand.
RT
rts Founding member
Glorfindel posted:
Why is everyone getting themselves into such a tizz over an elitist form of transport...

If you have to ask, you'll never understand.

Of course it's elitist, and few of us could've afforded to travel on it. But i go back to the points myself and others have made about this beautiful super-sonic plane being an iconic piece of Anglo/French heritage.

Newer posts