Richard J. wrote:

And it's the least safe commercial airliner currently flying, in terms of
fatalities per million passenger miles.
Your valid points are let down by this one.

After all, one minute it was the safest airliner by your measure, and
the next it was the least safe.

Both claims would be suspect.

Once upon a time -- around about 10/22/03 19:27 -- possibly
wrote:

Richard J. wrote:

And it's the least safe commercial airliner currently flying, in terms of
fatalities per million passenger miles.
Your valid points are let down by this one.

After all, one minute it was the safest airliner by your measure, and
the next it was the least safe.

Both claims would be suspect.

Actually, if you take into account the accident was caused by debris on the
runway left by a CO DC-10, Concorde has never crashed due to any mechanical
issue /or/ pilot error.

Faulting Concorde for this is just silly. I would fly Concorde before any
other aircraft. I was on the Eastern Airlines 727 that crashed in
Washington, DC in the early 1980s.

-- E

--
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat
you with experience.

"Richard J." wrote in message
...

I shall be looking out for the three Concordes on Friday afternoon like
thousands of others, but I also think that it was a sensible decision to
retire them this year.

Well from me it's grateful thanks to the ATCs for a wonderful piece of
'engineering' last evening, by bringing in one Concorde flight on runway 09L
and the other on runway 09R, in parallel with each other! The first time
(and now the last) that I've ever seen a brace of Concordes arriving at
Heathrow. A truly magical sight. Just a shame that the light was fading so
badly by the time they both arrived.

CMOT TMPV wrote:
Once upon a time -- around about 10/22/03 19:27 --
possibly wrote:

Richard J. wrote:

And it's the least safe commercial airliner currently flying, in
terms of fatalities per million passenger miles.
Your valid points are let down by this one.

After all, one minute it was the safest airliner by your measure, and
the next it was the least safe.

Both claims would be suspect.

Actually, if you take into account the accident was caused by debris
on the runway left by a CO DC-10, Concorde has never crashed due to
any mechanical issue /or/ pilot error.

But that debris would not have caused other types of airliner to crash. If
a plane can't withstand the destruction of one of its tyres without a
catastrophic fire, there are serious design problems with it. That's why its
C of A was suspended until it was modified.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Once upon a time -- around about 10/22/03 20:16 --
possibly wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
...

I shall be looking out for the three Concordes on Friday afternoon like
thousands of others, but I also think that it was a sensible decision to
retire them this year.

Well from me it's grateful thanks to the ATCs for a wonderful piece of
'engineering' last evening, by bringing in one Concorde flight on runway 09L
and the other on runway 09R, in parallel with each other! The first time
(and now the last) that I've ever seen a brace of Concordes arriving at
Heathrow. A truly magical sight. Just a shame that the light was fading so
badly by the time they both arrived.


Would have loved to see that. My experience on Concorde just isn't one I'll
ever forget. I've never had the opportunity to watch her take off from
outside the plane, though I did witness her land at MIA a number of times
but that isn't as exciting, of course.

I am unspeakably sad I didn't win the auction for the last two seats on the
last flight. The other bloke had way more money than me :/


-- E


--
I don't want to go to Heaven ... I want to be with my friends! -- Joe (JR32)

"CMOT TMPV" wrote in message
t...

Would have loved to see that. My experience on Concorde just isn't one
I'll
ever forget. I've never had the opportunity to watch her take off from
outside the plane, though I did witness her land at MIA a number of times
but that isn't as exciting, of course.

I am unspeakably sad I didn't win the auction for the last two seats on
the
last flight. The other bloke had way more money than me :/

I've still got a lump in my throat after last night! Alpha Golf passed
overhead just west of Heathrow in a south to north direction before turning
west to meet up with Alpha Delta, on the incoming BA002. The formation
landing was accompanied by much flashing of the landing lights by both
crews, Alpha Delta bringing BA002 in from NY on the south runway (09R) and
Alpha Golf bringing BA9021 in from Manchester on the north runway (09L).
Utterly awesome!

Once upon a time -- around about 10/22/03 21:33 --
possibly wrote:


"CMOT TMPV" wrote in message
t...

Would have loved to see that. My experience on Concorde just isn't one
I'll
ever forget. I've never had the opportunity to watch her take off from
outside the plane, though I did witness her land at MIA a number of times
but that isn't as exciting, of course.

I am unspeakably sad I didn't win the auction for the last two seats on
the
last flight. The other bloke had way more money than me :/

I've still got a lump in my throat after last night! Alpha Golf passed
overhead just west of Heathrow in a south to north direction before turning
west to meet up with Alpha Delta, on the incoming BA002. The formation
landing was accompanied by much flashing of the landing lights by both
crews, Alpha Delta bringing BA002 in from NY on the south runway (09R) and
Alpha Golf bringing BA9021 in from Manchester on the north runway (09L).
Utterly awesome!

If anyone is interested I have a number of Concorde pages about my personal
experiences

www.darsys.com/concorde.html -- tribute site
www.darsys.com/cweb/index.htm --- my trip log and photos
www.darsys.com/concorde2.html -- story of my attempt to get the last two
tickets mentioned above (with screen shots of private ebay auction)

--
Canada Post doesn't really charge 32 cents for a stamp. It's 2 cents for
postage and 30 cents for storage. -- Gerald Regan

"Richard J." wrote in message
...

And it's the least safe commercial airliner currently flying,
in terms of fatalities per million passenger miles.

Wrong: its only crash was caused by a problem which has been fixed, so "new
Concorde" is safer than any other plane.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

In article ,
Jack Taylor wrote:
The first time (and now the last) that I've ever seen
a brace of Concordes arriving at Heathrow. A truly
magical sight.

For me the sight never to be forgotten was Concorde flying
in formation with the Red Arrows for the Heathrow 50th
anniversary flypast. That was a tears in the eyes sight,
though a quick Google shows it wasn't unique:

http://www.concordesst.com/history/reds/reds.html

--
Tony Bryer

Paul Weaver wrote in message ...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:17:18 +0000, Richard J. wrote:
probably because there doesn't seem to be an ongoing demand from passengers.

Many frequent flyers died on September 11th

Basically, Concorde is an outstandingly beautiful plane and an amazing
phenomenon, but as a commercial aircraft it is a disaster. It was

Hence it should be kept for diplomatic missions

I agree it would be great to see Concorde continuing to fly the UK
representatives to all the trade fairs, conferences (not the
environmental ones though!), summits, Olympics, Royal occasions etc.
If only BA or Virgin or Airbus or a museum (or all of them) could
agree sponsorship of the maintenance costs. But to throw more public
money at it now, for largely sentimental reasons, would be daft.