Let's get Concorde flying again!

"Peter" wrote ...
>
>
> I think the above is absolutely correct. Whether Richard Branson was
> really intending to operate Concorde, or was just rubbing BA's nose in
> it, very few people will ever know. But if he did operate Concorde,
> Virgin would have become UK's #1 airline without question.
>

Horse manure.....

If he had tried to operate the a/c nearing the end of its service life, with
antiquated avionics, without spares and a mighty long logistics tail, even
Richard might have seen empty coffers staring him in the face, and Virgin
would have become a target for derision in the corporate world.

He would have simply lost money faster operating the a/c than did BA or AF
for which it only served as "showing the flag", never really profitable.
Loverly as it might seem (and it was pretty to look at, but butt-ugly
inside, the a/c was from the day of inception unsuitable for successful
commercial service.

TMO

"TOliver" <toliverjrFIX@Hot.> wrote

>If he had tried to operate the a/c nearing the end of its service life, with
>antiquated avionics,

Plenty of airliners fly with similar avionics even today. INS aside,
you can get fancier nav gear in a £250k IFR tourer but Concorde spent
its whole life at FL600, and departures/arrivals were under radar
control as they usually are. One isn't doing the unofficial VOR/DME
procedure into Wellesbourne :)

>without spares and a mighty long logistics tail,

That was all taken care of, at a price which obviously made it
attractive for the vendor, by Rolls Royce / Airbus etc etc.

>even
>Richard might have seen empty coffers staring him in the face, and Virgin
>would have become a target for derision in the corporate world.

That's conjecture. Even before one compares the worst-case losses on
Concorde with typical airline advertising budgets.

>He would have simply lost money faster operating the a/c than did BA or AF
>for which it only served as "showing the flag", never really profitable.
>Loverly as it might seem (and it was pretty to look at, but butt-ugly
>inside,

The above is highly debatable; I flew on it in 2003 and it looked
perfectly nice. One spends a max of about 3hrs on it so no need for a
double bed.