jorge,

Funny for such a crap aircraft the Airbus is certainly knocking the wind out of Boeings sails...And don't start on about Government subsidies; Boeing get just as much help as Airbus do, the only difference is that the accounting is perhaps more creative.

The bottom line is that the Airbus is cheaper to buy and run and does the job the airlines want; that why its so competitive. Does it have any problems ? I would say so, but remember the wiring issue of Boeings and the spate of engines that fell off DC10 a few years back. Its only a pity people have to die before such defects are sorted out.

Regards,

Pete

surestrike,



Sure i know Concorde has been retired, but you can't write off almost 25 years of passanger carrying service just like that. And grounded because of its one and only fatal accident in that time...Expensive ? Undoubtedly yes, but far from a commercial failure...you dn't fly a thing for 35 years if its not making money. In the end it did lose money as that accident hit passanger confidence hard especially in the after math of 9/11...Take a look at: http://www.concordesst.com/retire/retireindex.html



"Why IS Concorde being retired?



Concorde made an tidy operating profit for the airlines, but with the aircraft approaching 30 years of age a large investment programme would be required to update many of the systems on board the aircraft. With the premium first class market as it is post September 11th 2001, there is no hope of the airlines being able to fund this investment and keep the aircraft in profit.



Therefore, the airlines decided to write off the current levels of investment in the aircraft, of around �100M, rather than risk having to write off sums that could top �200M in the coming years, if the premium travel market did not improve.



British Airways have stated that they intended to "Celebrate Concorde" in its final months, and attempt to give people through the UK a chance to fly on-board the aircraft, before they were retired to museums.



It is a sad time, but the inevitable really only came forward a few years. We should celebrate what Concorde was and still is - the only profit making Supersonic Passenger Jet to ever to go into regular revenue service. The Americans or Russians could not even do it - that's how far ahead of its time it was ... and still is!"







Now leaving national pride aside for a minute, as a pilot surely you can't look at a plane as beautiful as Concorde, a plane who's looks are matched by her performance, and not want to fly her? Even the BA callsign "SpeedBird" just conjurs up something special



Regards,



Pete

jorge,

I did reply but it seems lost in cyber space and I can't be bothered writing it all again except to say this:

If SAA had bought new Boeing Aircraft but specified the same lay out ie "cattle truck", we would be having much the same discussion...Lets not lose sight of the fact that its SAA who is treating its customers like crap!

Anyways,I am off for a Chinese take-away!

Regards,

Pete

Pete,

Seats on the Concorde cost thousands of dollars (for a 3hr. flight) back in the day. Were they cheaper if origination was in the UK or France?

George

George,



I don't think it was any cheaper from the UK. You could book to go on "joy rides" which basically took off and then went out over the sea where it went supersonic before returning to land at the same airport.



There are three planes I wish I had flown on..one is obviously Concorde..equally I would have loved to have taken one of those old fashioned flying boat services down to Africa. I think they were using Catalina's?...Lastly I would love to have flown in a Supermarine Spitfire...just hearing the engine on one of those at an airshow sends a tingle down my spine!



Regards,



Pete

Pete E,

Several years ago (when we were living in California) the San Diego Zoo offered a trip from Cairo to Capetown in a flying boat. Numerous stops along the way for photo safaris. Man I'll bet that would have been a great trip.

Regards,

Terry

During the late 1930s the British aircraft industry attempted to catch up in the airliner market. Imperial Airways had placed a large order for the successful Shorts 'Empire' flying boat for it's long-haul flights to Australia. The first flying boats used were in the Shorts 'Calcutta' class.


Shorts Calcutta G-EBYH of Imperial Airways

While the airline was awaiting the new flying boats it needed a new airliner to fly the route to South Africa (Cape Town). In 1932 it introduced the Armstrong-Whitworth Atalanta four-engined monoplane, which was specially designed for this route. These aircraft flew the Cape Town route reliably until the new flying boats were introduced in 1937.


Armstrong-Whitworth Atalanta flew the Cape Town route

The Empire flying boats came into service 1936-7 and revolutionised long-haul flying for British travellers in the same way Pan American had introduced the Boeing 314 flying boat. These seaplanes would often fly the trip at heights between several hundreds of feet and a thousand feet giving passengers the sort of travel experience no longer possible today at 35,000 feet!


Short S.23 Empire-boat 'Canopus' G-ADHL departing Southamton -1937

Supersonic is almost as over rated as home cooking. Flying boats are fun for an hour or ninety minustes in Alaska, but your ass will get pretty numb for anything extended. I will admit that the old DC-3/Gooney Bird/C-47/Dakota planes are a blast to fly, and surprisingly comfortable to ride in (no more than a few hours though).
For pleasure traveling I'll take a 767, leg room, and another diet coke please.
JCN

Terry,

Shorts "Empires" ...that the aircraft I was thinking of! Now that really would be the way to travel to your safari!

Actually just a few years back there was a British business man who started running that service again but I have no idea if he was successful or not...

Regards,

Pete

Quoting Jorge �Second, the reason the Airbus is selling well is BECAUSE the various socialist economies over there DO subsidize the Airbus, enabling a cheaper product.� I read exactly the contrary, Boeing being less clearly subsidized. Yet I trust Jorge.
Freedom of speaking and thinking are basic human rights. Speaking of Airbus vs Boeing I think their challenge achieves constant improvements, that�s good for everybody. Poor Concorde was foremost a pride and dreaming, a track to be explored and doomed.
I am cursing T Carr, cause I cannot stop thinking about such a great idea, safariing hopping from one country to another on board a flying boat.
Back to the subject : I am enquiring about an reasonable alternative to SAA with or without Airbus, along with the IATA regulations about guns� transport.

As much as I love Africa look at the place and how screwed up it is. Why should we expect them to have well designed planes, that would not be consistant with the Dark Contenent.