Branson's £1m for Concorde to fly again

[Mike Cawood, HND BIT]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=457881&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source
It would cost a lot more than one million pounds to get Concorde flying
again after the airframes and equipment have rotted for three and a half
years.
Mike.

[Mark Jones Laptop2]

you obviously didn't read the article correctly.

He's willing to donate 1 million towards the project.
--
Mark Jones, Laptop.
Athol Marketing Ltd
www.atholmarketing.com
www.atholmarketing.co.uk

Post by Mike Cawood, HND BIT
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=457881&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source
It would cost a lot more than one million pounds to get Concorde flying
again after the airframes and equipment have rotted for three and a half
years.
Mike.

[Tom Gardner]

Either way, it is yet more proof that Branson knows how to get
the "news" media to keep his name/brand in the public's eye.

I'll leave others to make their own mind up as to whether
Branson will have to spend his money on this "project".

Post by Mark Jones Laptop2
you obviously didn't read the article correctly.
He's willing to donate 1 million towards the project.
--
Mark Jones, Laptop.
Athol Marketing Ltdwww.atholmarketing.comwww.atholmarketing.co.uk

Post by Mike Cawood, HND BIT
It would cost a lot more than one million pounds to get Concorde flying
again after the airframes and equipment have rotted for three and a half
years.
Mike.

[Jim Hawkins]

Post by Mike Cawood, HND BIT
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=457881&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source
It would cost a lot more than one million pounds to get Concorde flying
again after the airframes and equipment have rotted for three and a half
years.
Mike.

ISTR reading that all jigs, access towers and maintenance equipment had
been deliberately destroyed to scupper any such plans.

Jim Hawkins

[Peter]

Post by Jim Hawkins

Post by Mike Cawood, HND BIT
It would cost a lot more than one million pounds to get Concorde flying
again after the airframes and equipment have rotted for three and a half
years.
Mike.

ISTR reading that all jigs, access towers and maintenance equipment had
been deliberately destroyed to scupper any such plans.

British Airways made no secret of their desire to let Richard Branson
get Concorde over their dead body only.

However, the production jigs were dismantled many years ago, when
production stopped. I remember this from the time.

[Flying Rat]

Post by Peter

Post by Jim Hawkins

Post by Mike Cawood, HND BIT
It would cost a lot more than one million pounds to get Concorde flying
again after the airframes and equipment have rotted for three and a half
years.
Mike.

ISTR reading that all jigs, access towers and maintenance equipment had
been deliberately destroyed to scupper any such plans.

British Airways made no secret of their desire to let Richard Branson
get Concorde over their dead body only.
However, the production jigs were dismantled many years ago, when
production stopped. I remember this from the time.

Anyone with even a little knowledge of matters aeronautical would
realise instantly that Branson was merely milking it for free publicity.

Virgin Atlantic doesn't even do its own heavy maintenance. They fly
aircraft to KLM and Aer Lingus bases. The kind of support a Concorde
operation would need is far beyond anything Sir Beard could cobble
together, and Airbus did not want to lose more money supporting the
aircraft. Branscum trumpeted his desires long and loud because he knew
full well (and still does) that any attempt to keep Concorde flying
would either never get started, or would eventually fail at the
engineering estimate stage.

His latest 'offer' has been made in the secure knowledge that said money
will never leave his trousers. The only viable project is the French one
with an aircraft which is still serviceable, and that is by no means
close to a return to flight.

BA did the right thing in placing them into preservation, and nothing
else should have been required of them.

FR

[Peter]

Post by Flying Rat
Anyone with even a little knowledge of matters aeronautical would
realise instantly that Branson was merely milking it for free publicity.

I would agree that he goes after every bit of publicity but I don't
think it's obvious that Concorde could never fly again, or even make
money. BA were certainly making money on it, but any accountant will
tell you that you can allocate costs in lots of different ways
according to what you want to prove.

Post by Flying Rat
Virgin Atlantic doesn't even do its own heavy maintenance.

Do you? (I assume you are an aircraft owner). Why not? Because it
makes economic sense to get somebody else to do it. Virgin obviously
finds it better to keep its business lean. I do the same in my
business. Those that do that can ride the ups and downs of the market
much better than those with heavy fixed costs.

Post by Flying Rat
They fly
aircraft to KLM and Aer Lingus bases. The kind of support a Concorde
operation would need is far beyond anything Sir Beard could cobble
together, and Airbus did not want to lose more money supporting the
aircraft.

Airbus didn't lose money on it. They got paid for everything they did.

Post by Flying Rat
Branscum trumpeted his desires long and loud because he knew
full well (and still does) that any attempt to keep Concorde flying
would either never get started, or would eventually fail at the
engineering estimate stage.
His latest 'offer' has been made in the secure knowledge that said money
will never leave his trousers. The only viable project is the French one
with an aircraft which is still serviceable, and that is by no means
close to a return to flight.
BA did the right thing in placing them into preservation, and nothing
else should have been required of them.

Do you work for BA? I see no logic in doing something deliberately
that scuppers the possibility of future flight.

BA owned the airplanes and were free to push them off Beachy Head if
they wanted to, so legally they were OK. But it wasn't logical or
sensible - except to stop Branson having a go.

[Flying Rat]

Post by Peter

Post by Flying Rat
Virgin Atlantic doesn't even do its own heavy maintenance.

Do you? (I assume you are an aircraft owner). Why not? Because it
makes economic sense to get somebody else to do it. Virgin obviously
finds it better to keep its business lean. I do the same in my
business. Those that do that can ride the ups and downs of the market
much better than those with heavy fixed costs.

as it's going over your head I suggest you re-read below.

Post by Peter

Post by Flying Rat
They fly
aircraft to KLM and Aer Lingus bases. The kind of support a Concorde
operation would need is far beyond anything Sir Beard could cobble
together, and Airbus did not want to lose more money supporting the
aircraft.

Virgin does not have the kind of facilities and expertise needed to
support a Concorde operation. They take much more dedicated support than
an equivalent Airbus or Boeing aircraft. That kind of support is not
available in the overhaul market.

You cannot just fly a Concorde to Schiphol and ask A320 rated mechanics
to deal with it. Concorde requires specialist materials and manpower
support, and I cannot see anyone from BA Engineering giving up their
pensions and salaries to go and work for a third party MRO outfit.

In fact the BA people laughed long and loud at the prospect of following
the plane into VS service. Concorde rated engineers were nicely set in
the scheme of things at BA.

As for Airbus, they frequently stated that the grandfathered Concorde
support operation was a loss maker. Parts support was complicated,
simulator support costly as it was low volume. Airbus may have been
paid, but as a "business owner" do you not understand that being paid
for something doesn't automatically mean you make a profit from it?

FR