LU
What was the flight like for you then?
and if you have to ask that you will NEVER understand.
Yeah, you're right
Hymagumba posted:
CPFC posted:
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.
If you have to ask, you'll never understand.
What was the flight like for you then?
and if you have to ask that you will NEVER understand.
Yeah, you're right
IT
Yes - I know I am.
Anyways - what did World do for this?
World took the BBC News Special with Jon Sopel at 1530 - they had a shortened news bulletin at 1500, and then a shortened Asia Today at 1515 (should have been at 1530). The BBC News Special finished later than it was supposed to, so they had 15mins to fill - they played out Reporters.
itsrobert
Founding member
Hymagumba posted:
CPFC posted:
Yeah, you're right
Yes - I know I am.
Anyways - what did World do for this?
World took the BBC News Special with Jon Sopel at 1530 - they had a shortened news bulletin at 1500, and then a shortened Asia Today at 1515 (should have been at 1530). The BBC News Special finished later than it was supposed to, so they had 15mins to fill - they played out Reporters.
CW
Nevertheless, this wasn't just a flash in the pan 'I want to buy Concorde' thought from Richard Branson. Virgin actually approached BA with a serious offer. Branson didn't build Virgin into the empire it is by making rash decisions; he must have put serious thought into how he was going to do it. And presumably he would also need the backing of Virgin's board in order to make that kind of purchase - they must have been convinced that it was a good idea too.
We don't know what Virgin had in the pipeline - maybe they had hoped to find a partner (maybe more than one) to operate the service jointly. Maybe they were even in talks with other operaters about it.
However unlikely it is, companies do not make transactions worth hundreds of millions of pounds without thinking about them long and hard and being reasonably sure that they will work out - I do think there is a lot more to Virgin's bid to buy than is apparant, particularly since BA wouldn't sell even 1 of the planes. Even if Virgin's attempt was a total flop, what do they care? It made no business sense not to sell them to someone who wanted to buy them - does that therefore mean that they were scared that Virgin would actually get a succesful passenger service running and make them look stupid?
cwathen
Founding member
Quote:
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.
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.
Nevertheless, this wasn't just a flash in the pan 'I want to buy Concorde' thought from Richard Branson. Virgin actually approached BA with a serious offer. Branson didn't build Virgin into the empire it is by making rash decisions; he must have put serious thought into how he was going to do it. And presumably he would also need the backing of Virgin's board in order to make that kind of purchase - they must have been convinced that it was a good idea too.
We don't know what Virgin had in the pipeline - maybe they had hoped to find a partner (maybe more than one) to operate the service jointly. Maybe they were even in talks with other operaters about it.
However unlikely it is, companies do not make transactions worth hundreds of millions of pounds without thinking about them long and hard and being reasonably sure that they will work out - I do think there is a lot more to Virgin's bid to buy than is apparant, particularly since BA wouldn't sell even 1 of the planes. Even if Virgin's attempt was a total flop, what do they care? It made no business sense not to sell them to someone who wanted to buy them - does that therefore mean that they were scared that Virgin would actually get a succesful passenger service running and make them look stupid?
DU
DERA is a government agency, so it wasn't a meaningless statement- as has been pointed out Branson wouldn't make the move unless he was serious.
Why assume that Virgin would just take over BA's Concorde routes and business plan. Why could they not just buy a couple of the planes and run a twice weekly "tourist prestige" service? Why couldn't they just run Concorde over the summer as a supreme "Concorde holiday package"? Think outside the box- Branson, despite his outward appearance, is not a stupid man.
Why assume that Virgin would just take over BA's Concorde routes and business plan. Why could they not just buy a couple of the planes and run a twice weekly "tourist prestige" service? Why couldn't they just run Concorde over the summer as a supreme "Concorde holiday package"? Think outside the box- Branson, despite his outward appearance, is not a stupid man.
:-(
A former member
Virgin actually approached BA with a serious offer
While that may certainly be the impression Branson may wish to project, you have to consider the bad blood between Virgin and BA. It's quite possible that Branson was just doing a bit of grandstanding to publicise Virgin and make BA out to be the bad guy.
He had nothing to lose, after all, and he never misses *any* opportunity to put the boot into BA (quite rightly, IMHO - remember BA's "dirty tricks" campaign?)
As you say, he's not stupid - hence he knows that Concorde is a colossal financial burden. It's the most prestigious plane in the world, for sure, but even if BA and Air France were still flying her, her working days would be strictly numbered. How many other major airlines are operating planes that are the best part of 30 years old? Where is the business sense in buying a plane that you know will only be flyable for a few more years and which will require more expenditure than you can realistically expect to make back?
BA and Air France could not make back the money they spent on safety modifications post-Paris - and if Concorde was still in service, it would be needing the equivalent of a major service within the next few years (at a cost of tens of millions), and that's before the hundreds of millions that would need to be poured into any life-extension programmes.
If Sept 11 had never happened, *maybe* Concorde would still be flying. But the premium-first-class market still has not recovered, and it's not likely to in the forseeable future. With no hope of making back the modification costs, less still the enormous further investment necessary to keep the planes in the air for more than just the next few years, it was inevitable that BA and Air France made the decision that they did at the time that they did.
Painful as it may be to admit it, BA and Air France's decision makes good business sense. They're both having to write off enormous sums of money as a result of retiring Concorde, but what's better - writing off £84 million now, or £150 million in three years' time?
does that therefore mean that they were scared that Virgin would actually get a succesful passenger service running and make them look stupid?
I wouldn't have thought so. The best Virgin, or any other airline, could have done would be to wring a few more years out of Concorde, almost certainly as a loss-leader, and then be forced to retire her themselves.
I can well imagine BA's attitude being that Concorde deserved a proper retirement, not to limp on for a few more years under different management before succumbing to the inevitable - if the boot was on the other foot, Branson would never have allowed Concorde to be operated by any other airline than Virgin - and it also ensured that BA could retain the historical prestige of being the only British airline to operate a supersonic passenger jet.
DERA is a government agency, so it wasn't a meaningless statement
Unless they had access to full breakdowns and analyses of the costs of supporting Concorde - and I'm sure they didn't - it's a meaningless statement.
Why could they not just buy a couple of the planes and run a twice weekly "tourist prestige" service? Why couldn't they just run Concorde over the summer as a supreme "Concorde holiday package"?
That's now how the economics of the aviation industry work, I'm afraid.
As the chairman of any airline will tell you, any plane can only make money when it's in the air with enough fare-paying passengers on board. Every minute that a plane is idle on the ground it's costing money - and Concorde costs more than any other passenger plane, in every respect.
The financial viability of Concorde is - or rather, was - predicated on getting enough people to fly it *every day* - remember, BA flew the New York route twice daily and Air France once daily. In point of fact, Concorde only needed to be half-full to break even on a flight, but post-9/11 it was frequently less than half-full.
If it only operated during the summer, the only way to make it profitable would be to ensure that every single flight was full, and to raise the ticket prices significantly as well... and if Concorde's standard prices were scaring off the captains of industry and other rich types who were its mainstay until round about 2001, what hope would there be for encouraging people to pay even *more*?
While that may certainly be the impression Branson may wish to project, you have to consider the bad blood between Virgin and BA. It's quite possible that Branson was just doing a bit of grandstanding to publicise Virgin and make BA out to be the bad guy.
He had nothing to lose, after all, and he never misses *any* opportunity to put the boot into BA (quite rightly, IMHO - remember BA's "dirty tricks" campaign?)
As you say, he's not stupid - hence he knows that Concorde is a colossal financial burden. It's the most prestigious plane in the world, for sure, but even if BA and Air France were still flying her, her working days would be strictly numbered. How many other major airlines are operating planes that are the best part of 30 years old? Where is the business sense in buying a plane that you know will only be flyable for a few more years and which will require more expenditure than you can realistically expect to make back?
BA and Air France could not make back the money they spent on safety modifications post-Paris - and if Concorde was still in service, it would be needing the equivalent of a major service within the next few years (at a cost of tens of millions), and that's before the hundreds of millions that would need to be poured into any life-extension programmes.
If Sept 11 had never happened, *maybe* Concorde would still be flying. But the premium-first-class market still has not recovered, and it's not likely to in the forseeable future. With no hope of making back the modification costs, less still the enormous further investment necessary to keep the planes in the air for more than just the next few years, it was inevitable that BA and Air France made the decision that they did at the time that they did.
Painful as it may be to admit it, BA and Air France's decision makes good business sense. They're both having to write off enormous sums of money as a result of retiring Concorde, but what's better - writing off £84 million now, or £150 million in three years' time?
does that therefore mean that they were scared that Virgin would actually get a succesful passenger service running and make them look stupid?
I wouldn't have thought so. The best Virgin, or any other airline, could have done would be to wring a few more years out of Concorde, almost certainly as a loss-leader, and then be forced to retire her themselves.
I can well imagine BA's attitude being that Concorde deserved a proper retirement, not to limp on for a few more years under different management before succumbing to the inevitable - if the boot was on the other foot, Branson would never have allowed Concorde to be operated by any other airline than Virgin - and it also ensured that BA could retain the historical prestige of being the only British airline to operate a supersonic passenger jet.
DERA is a government agency, so it wasn't a meaningless statement
Unless they had access to full breakdowns and analyses of the costs of supporting Concorde - and I'm sure they didn't - it's a meaningless statement.
Why could they not just buy a couple of the planes and run a twice weekly "tourist prestige" service? Why couldn't they just run Concorde over the summer as a supreme "Concorde holiday package"?
That's now how the economics of the aviation industry work, I'm afraid.
As the chairman of any airline will tell you, any plane can only make money when it's in the air with enough fare-paying passengers on board. Every minute that a plane is idle on the ground it's costing money - and Concorde costs more than any other passenger plane, in every respect.
The financial viability of Concorde is - or rather, was - predicated on getting enough people to fly it *every day* - remember, BA flew the New York route twice daily and Air France once daily. In point of fact, Concorde only needed to be half-full to break even on a flight, but post-9/11 it was frequently less than half-full.
If it only operated during the summer, the only way to make it profitable would be to ensure that every single flight was full, and to raise the ticket prices significantly as well... and if Concorde's standard prices were scaring off the captains of industry and other rich types who were its mainstay until round about 2001, what hope would there be for encouraging people to pay even *more*?
RE
Although one of the pilots commented that the break even output level for Concorde is a 40% load, usually they were taking 60% loads. It does seem that the fixed costs of maintenance and engineering far outweighed any funds regained from that 20%. After Sept 11 there were reports of flights with just 1 passenger. It's not surprising that it has been retired for financial reasons if thats the case.
OH
ohwhatanight
Founding member
Concorde coverage on ITV News Channel
I tuned into the news channels pretty late and missed the alledged important flight from Edinburgh so cannot really comment on whether each channel was right in whatever decisions they made. BUT I flicked around all three news channels once coverage began in ernest.
I looked at Sky News and thought the onscreen graphics were a bit big and detracted from their coverage but otherwise was good. BBC News 24 seemed okay aswell but I always find the presenters and guests a bit stuffy for my liking.
So I stayed with ITV News Channel for the next two hours breifly flicking around to see if anyone else was offering anything different. Of course no-one was as the main event was three Concordes landing at Heathrow and all channels had the actual event fully covered from numerous angles and also a pooled feed.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/ohwhatanight/conc1.JPG
ITV News Channel was my choice because Nicholas Owen was presenting along with studio guest Richard Branson whom were both VERY entertaining and totally held my attention throughout.
ITV News Channel had two correspondants at Heathrow - Catherine Jacobs mingling with the huge amounts of crowds that had gathered and Felicity Barr 'on the media balcony' with all the other press and media.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/ohwhatanight/conc2.JPG
It appeared that both correspondants had two cameras each and offered a feed of live interviews, general shots and banter with Nicholas Owen.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/ohwhatanight/conc3.JPG
Coverage doesnt have to be complicated but to the point and precise.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/ohwhatanight/conc4.JPG
The thing that had me hooked for nearly two hours was the banter between Owen, Branson, Barr and to some extent Jacobs.
Felicity Barr has gone right up in my estimation on her presenting skills and the way she conducted herself throughout - the only thing that annoyed me was everytime Nicholas Owen asked her a question or handed over to her she replied 'ABSOLUTELY' everytime which really annoyed me to begin with but eventually made me laugh as she gave that answer EVERYTIME and kept me entertained!
http://members.lycos.co.uk/ohwhatanight/conc5.JPG
Nicholas Owen is a very underated news presenter and handled the whole afternoon with a wit and presence that most broadcasters would be jealous of. He was funny, quick, entertaining but most importantly was asking questions that the viewer at home would also be asking! He even 'allowed' Richard Branson to talk about Virgin and have some 'free' sponsorship due to Richard staying for quite a long time in the studio and a joke was made at the close-up shots of Virgin aeroplanes at Heathrow.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/ohwhatanight/conc6.JPG
So all in all from what I saw all three stations coverage was very similar as they all featured numerous angles of the Concordes arrinving and ITV News Channel was most watchable due to interesting guests and entertaining chat which totally held my attention!
http://members.lycos.co.uk/ohwhatanight/conc7.JPG
Well done ITV News Channel - it mightve been a bit rough around the edges at times but was still a great programme which IMHO should have been dual cast instead of CITV on ITV1!
http://members.lycos.co.uk/ohwhatanight/conc8.JPG
http://members.lycos.co.uk/ohwhatanight/conc9.JPG
I tuned into the news channels pretty late and missed the alledged important flight from Edinburgh so cannot really comment on whether each channel was right in whatever decisions they made. BUT I flicked around all three news channels once coverage began in ernest.
I looked at Sky News and thought the onscreen graphics were a bit big and detracted from their coverage but otherwise was good. BBC News 24 seemed okay aswell but I always find the presenters and guests a bit stuffy for my liking.
So I stayed with ITV News Channel for the next two hours breifly flicking around to see if anyone else was offering anything different. Of course no-one was as the main event was three Concordes landing at Heathrow and all channels had the actual event fully covered from numerous angles and also a pooled feed.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/ohwhatanight/conc1.JPG
ITV News Channel was my choice because Nicholas Owen was presenting along with studio guest Richard Branson whom were both VERY entertaining and totally held my attention throughout.
ITV News Channel had two correspondants at Heathrow - Catherine Jacobs mingling with the huge amounts of crowds that had gathered and Felicity Barr 'on the media balcony' with all the other press and media.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/ohwhatanight/conc2.JPG
It appeared that both correspondants had two cameras each and offered a feed of live interviews, general shots and banter with Nicholas Owen.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/ohwhatanight/conc3.JPG
Coverage doesnt have to be complicated but to the point and precise.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/ohwhatanight/conc4.JPG
The thing that had me hooked for nearly two hours was the banter between Owen, Branson, Barr and to some extent Jacobs.
Felicity Barr has gone right up in my estimation on her presenting skills and the way she conducted herself throughout - the only thing that annoyed me was everytime Nicholas Owen asked her a question or handed over to her she replied 'ABSOLUTELY' everytime which really annoyed me to begin with but eventually made me laugh as she gave that answer EVERYTIME and kept me entertained!
http://members.lycos.co.uk/ohwhatanight/conc5.JPG
Nicholas Owen is a very underated news presenter and handled the whole afternoon with a wit and presence that most broadcasters would be jealous of. He was funny, quick, entertaining but most importantly was asking questions that the viewer at home would also be asking! He even 'allowed' Richard Branson to talk about Virgin and have some 'free' sponsorship due to Richard staying for quite a long time in the studio and a joke was made at the close-up shots of Virgin aeroplanes at Heathrow.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/ohwhatanight/conc6.JPG
So all in all from what I saw all three stations coverage was very similar as they all featured numerous angles of the Concordes arrinving and ITV News Channel was most watchable due to interesting guests and entertaining chat which totally held my attention!
http://members.lycos.co.uk/ohwhatanight/conc7.JPG
Well done ITV News Channel - it mightve been a bit rough around the edges at times but was still a great programme which IMHO should have been dual cast instead of CITV on ITV1!
http://members.lycos.co.uk/ohwhatanight/conc8.JPG
http://members.lycos.co.uk/ohwhatanight/conc9.JPG