Concorde RIP

[of Concorde]

I'm amazed. How long have you worked/lived in London & Uxbridge?

Ged knows how many times I've seen one flying but I'll never
forget the first time - My Dad took me to Farnborough airshow
for a birthday treat in 1975 and one flew a couple of 'touch and go'
passes as the runway wasn't long enough for it to land and take-off.

Other memories from that show include an SR-71 and a Galaxy, both
on static display.

 

I saw one of those do a full takeoff/flyby/landing display at Mildenhall
in the early 80s - I think it was the first time they'd had it fly in
public, at least over here, rather than the B2-esque "officially it
doesn't exist but it's just bombed Libya" stylee. [1]

Fucking wonderful plane.

[1] Yeah, I know it was a recon unit, but ykwim.,

 

Spooky.

 

Not BAC?

 

Sort of.

 

I can't see your name mentioned on the Who Will Win? page.

 

what on earth for?

 

I agree it is sad. it's annoying that BA wont let anyone else run the
plae just so they can say "BA were the only british company to have a
supersonic aircraft". I really would like to see Branson run it just
so that it still flies.

 

Slider wrote

There never has been a need to cross the Atlantic quickly, other than
when travelling west-east.

 

It's like, erm, well, it's like something.

 

Ah, he's always there, it's just he never leaves his office.

Cheers, I'm down Mon/Tue/Wed for this "we've saved loads of money by
hiring a trainer and cramming a 5 day course into 3 days and putting it
on site" Linux course. Same as for the NG stuff, and that was pretty
crap.

 

?

 

On a documentary a few weeks ago, Branson suggested that BA are hoping
to move their Concorde customers to First Class subsonic services, and
know that if another airline took up the running of Concorde they'd lose
those high-margin customers in an instant.

I've also heard mumblings that Branson was planning to run the bird for
a while for PR and then axe it once he'd had the publicity but that,
unlike the bit above, was just hearsay.

 

BAe then, OK

 

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:08:22 +0100, Mick Whittingham

Really, Mick, there's no need to get up tight about it. If supersonic
passenger flight was economically viable, other people would have
built such planes. The fact that they did not, and that BA/Air France
really just ran them as flagships, shows that, beautiful engineering
aside, they did not make sense.

 

Oh.

 

Bwahahaha.

I didn't even know anything about that, but then again with the lovely
zero training budget my view is I'll make myself busy around 2 days a
week learning stuff in works time.

By the end of the year I'll hopefully have worked with *every* websphere
product, on Linux. I suspect I'm also the only person in our lot that's
done anything with Domino 6.5 on Linux too.. which was how I filled my
spare time this week.

Both will be going on my CV, natch.

 

Champ wrote

It is.

They did make sense but the rub is this Military Technology crap.

I think it still holds true that Concorde has logged more supersonic
hours than all the worlds military put together. Do you honestly think
that HMG and the Pentagon are going to let technology as advanced and
capable as that into the hands of foreigners? No siree bub. Concorde
was dead in the water from the moment they twigged how useful it would
be as a pattern for weapons development.

 

They do not make sense---they will *always* use much more fuel than
fast subsonic aircraft.

What's the Pentagon got to do with it? It's a Franco-British aircraft
and the Russians were quite capable of building their own large
supersonic aircraft.