Should concorde be allowed to fly again?
Answers:
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.
it wont
Definitely !! one crash in 30 years is an amazing record, and the crash wasnt even due to plane or pilot error. It was due to debris left on the runway. Its all just an excuse becoause the Americans were always jealous of Concorde.
Yes is the short answer. Unfortunately not economicaly viable now.
Look to the future, it was a one off or it's time!
Yes! I never got a chance to fly on it. as soon as i was out at work and earning a living (able to afford to go on it) the damn thing stopped running!
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.
Yes definitely. It is a giant leap backwards for mankind seeing Concorde out of action. All because a lot of media hype and bad press over one plane crash. If a 747 crashed would you see them going out of service in the way Concorde has?
Yes .. as long as all safety factors where resolved & it was made cheaper to run
yes , why not (one of the best things we ever built) I dont know why richard Bransen was not alowed to buy it. I think he would have made a great success of it.
As far as I am aware it is allowed, it's just that no-one that owns one wants to fly it.
Typically British invention (with help from the French for once) designed way before its time, sabotaged by the Americans because they couldn't compete.
it should. But problem before was that there was a niche market out there for people flying on concorde. Ok you may get to your destination in half the time, but you're charging extortion prices for a ticket. So what's the point?
I think Richard Branson was gonna buy the company but pulled out. HE could make a packet out of this deal if he proceeded with it & make it a success I believe.
How long was it flown for? It should be in a museum. It is a wonderful piece of old tech. Should it be flown again? Just for delivery to the Museum.
Edit and to Mash's comment about 747s going out of service, they are like mad but not because of a crash. There are large fields of 747s in perfect flying condition in deserts all over that nobody wants to buy or licence because of the fuel costs in relation to the passenger load. They just cost to much to fly.
As much as I'd love to see it in the sky again, I can't see it happening myself, especially in a world ruled by health and safety jobsworths, shareholders, and everyone going on about 'global warming'.
would be great to see them flying again. however it is not hte crash that has them on the ground, but the opperating cost of each unit. An aircraft is suposed to make money everytime it flies, but the concorde was costin waay more that it was making, and after a while, it becomes kind of hard to keep pumping money in it. Someday there will be a better one.
Yes it should I think because it will make air travel more faster.
Why not? all the other airlines that have an accident do, just because a DC 10 crashes do they quit flying it?
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.
No. It isn't a good plane for economic reasons or environmental reasons.
No
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
Yes it should,The americans are just jealous of the magnificent flying being as they are now of A380.Thats why they always take up the security issues.And thats what i call BULLSHIT!
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.
-
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!
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.
Indeed it should. It was unfortunate that such horrific things happened within such a short space of time for Concorde, however it was a breakthrough in aviation and should be given a second (more regulated) chance.
Concorde should be allowed to but it WONT, The Japanese are developing an SST now.
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.
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.
no, based on the number of take off/landings it had quite a high accident or incident ratio. It was old technology that looked great but was way out of date in relation to comfort, noise and safety
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.