should concorde be allowed to fly again?

Answer 1

YES: wonderful airliner, marvelous piece of technology, beautiful aesthetically, symbolic milestone in aviation, and after the extensive upgrading it underwent in the wake of the single tragic crash it had in 30+ years of flawless service -to fix the technical glitches that had contributed to the tragedy- I can only say that it is a terrible waste to have it grounded.

Answer 2

To correct a few of the urban myths on this board (and on every Concorde thread since time began, it would seem!), the ONLY reason Concorde stopped flying was because Aerospatiale decided they weren't going to supply parts and maintenance any more.

The aircraft almost always flew at a tidy profit (so there was no economic problem), and bought in untold extra millions for BA and AF by creating a 'prestige' factor that filtered through to their subsonic services too.

It didn't lose it's airworthiness certificate permanantly after the Paris crash, but resumed flying after fuel tank modifications had been made. Importantly, though the fuel tank rupture was touted as a serious and unique 'design flaw' to Concorde (which dramatically affected public confidence), it had actually been suffered by other aircraft without nearly such adverse publicity.

In theory, Concorde could fly again, but in practise this is very unlikely, since most of the models have had their hydraulic fluid drained off - something that would be extremely costly/ difficult to reverse. It is alleged that two (french) aircraft remain in something approaching airworthy condition - their engines are started occasionally and they still have their hydraulic fluid.

A rumour circulated recently that Concorde was to be used to bring the England Football team back from the World Cup if they were victorious, though it's hard to say which was more far-fetched - Concordes resurrection, or Englands mitts on the Jules Rimet!!

Lastly, for proof of how iconic and adored the aircraft was, it is said that during the 'farewell' flights, people wept openly.

-

Answer 3

Yes concorde should still be flying it was a crime that it was taken out of service. British Airways should have let Richard Branson take over but there was no way they where going to let a competitor steal their Flagship, which is rater ironique as the taxpayers of the uk and france actually funded the develpoment of the aircraft in the 60's when it was been designed an built. The safety record of the airplane was second to none 1 crah in 30 years of operation means it was one of the safest in aviation history, sadly now they are all in museums or on the way to museums so they wont be going back in to service. One of the main arguments was that the company who manufactured the spare components (bristish areospace which is part of the airbus consortium) was winding down the concorde support infrastructure and thats why the spares where getting harder to replace( no coincidence they are building parts of the airbus super jumbo eh) ??? however Richard Branson would have taken over that and was willing to build his own maintance factory and make the components, the mani reason was things like 9/11 and the downturn in the world economy that inicident caused (plus the fact that concorde could outrun any fighter if it was hijacked) this caused business's to downgrade travel perks and the market was diminshing

Answer 4

I wish i would but it will never happen. I work at the plant in Wales that used to overhaul the engines. I was part of the team that tested them. All the RR Olympus tooling and test bed equipment was scrapped quite some time ago so even if an aircraft were serviceable, there would be no engines for it.

There were only ever 16 built (2 prototypes (one of which is on display at RNAS yeovilton) and 14 production aircraft, 7 each for BA and AF). About half had already been retired by the time the last flew, the rest were put in museums or broken up.

The aircraft type certificate (not the airworthiness cert.) was withdrawn after it retired and it takes about a year of test flights to get one.

Ok thats enough rambling from me!!!

Answer 5

It was a pretty cool plane - Only 1 crash in 30 years! I think that the Concorde should be allowed and more and more airlines should have A fleet with Concordes.

Answer 6

It's not that they aren't allowed to fly. They were grounded for a couple months following the crash in France, but they were allowed to fly again and they did fly for a few more years. In fact, I've had several concordes blow past me while crossing the Atlantic after the accident in France. As it turned out, it was tire debris from a different airplane that caused the one in France to crash.

The reason why they aren't currently flying is because they are simply too expensive to fly. They consume an astronomical amount of fuel in crossing the Atlantic, they have many limitations that other airplanes don't have, parts are very expensive and hard-to-come-by, they require an extensive logistical system by themselves, they are extremely expensive to insure, they are extremely expensive to maintain, etc. Air France and British Airways were simply losing way too much money on them.

It is unlikely that we will be seeing supersonic flight anytime soon. The fact is, it is impossible to make an aircraft go supersonically in an inexpensive fashion. It is very easy for us to make an aircraft go supersonically, but impossible to do it inexpensively. Many people think that there are radical new technologies that are coming out that will change this but again, such radical new technologies will be too expensive to implement. As such, there is very little motivation on the part of propulsion system engineers and manufacturers to try to make airplanes go faster. Instead, they is huge motivation to make airplanes operate more inexpensively. If you had an airline, you can't operate an aircraft that is radically more expensive per passenger transported these days because your competition won't operate such airplanes and as such, the competition's ticket prices will be cheaper and more people will purchase tickets from them, leaving you out of business.

It all boils down to finance. Finance governs just about every single decision that an airline (or any company for that matter) makes these days. It used to be that there were only a few airlines, a few car makers, or a few dominate players in just about every industry. Now days just about every industry has lots and lots of players and competition. If you can't do things for the same price or less than your competition, you will get run out of business. It's an unfortunate reality these days.

Answer 7

Yes she should. When I first saw Concorde, I thought she was the most beautiful thing I had ever seen. I still do. I am fortunate enough to have flown in her. What a tale to tell my grandchildren!
Every time she flew overhead, every face on the ground below looked up to see her. I live in a village near one of the airports she flew from, we all knew her time-table and routes and would make sure we were in our gardens to watch her fly over. She was truly a magnificent flying machine.

Answer 8

Absolutely! Damned expensive thing to fly, but what a sight it would be to see her soaring over the skies again!
My husband did his aircraft engineering apprenticeship on concorde, and used to fly around the world with her as 'flying spanner', he still has her on his licence, so if someone were to fly her once more he'd be right at the front of the queue to work on her!

Answer 9

Absolutely! The development of this aircraft cost this country a fortune and should still be in use . I gather there were many people who were willing to pay the cost of a ticket. One accident in 30 years is an impressive record, particularly as the one accident was, I believe, nothing to do with the aircraft failing, but due to established procedures not being completed, i.e. checking the runway for debris, before take off. I believe Branson wanted to take over the aircraft but was prevented from so doing.

Answer 10

Yes it should. The fact that it only had 1 crash in it amazing history is a testimony to the engineers who developed it. You have to remember the technology that was available at the time of development and initial construction was nothing like what we have now. Alas though i do not think it will ever fly again due to noise and pollution restrictions, but I do not think it should NOT be allowed to fly again on the grounds of safety. It will never fly again, commercially, a couple of reasons, and they are a good couple of reasons, they are for environmental and financial reasons, not safety.

Answer 11

Yes.

I don't think it should have been stopped anyway. It was a priveledge for British Airways to fly Concorde. They were given the plane with a responsibility to keep up it's service. They shouldn't have been able to take it off service by their own call. Especially if theres nothing actually wrong with the plane.