This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Concorde is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Concorde at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
The article refers to the retirement of the Concorde as a result of it's only accident. This is not accurate, the Concorde continued to operate for three years after Air France 4590, and the conclusion was that the accident was a result of foreign object damage, in addition to inadequately shielded fuel tanks. The retirement was caused by the unprofitably of the concorde, the worsening economy, Airbus' decision not to support the Concorde, and it's aging technology. I will change the article to reflect this, and will attempt to source this. Skrelk (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
right. The main problem was about spares. Once spare stock remains empty, companies starts to use spare from other of their 10 planes, up to the moment there was no more spare available to fly at least 2 planes. Since Airbus did not want to produce more spare, Concorde was condemned to ground. v_atekor (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
There's quite a large amount of info about Concorde's operating life in these PPRuNe topics here:  and here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Useful and interesting video about Concorde on YouTube here:  - part 2 here: 
BTW, interesting bit of Concorde trivia: When reheat was applied at take-off the wheel brakes were unable to hold the aircraft still, as the take-off thrust produced would move the stationary aircraft even with wheels locked, causing flat spots on the tyres. Because of this on take-off the reheat was applied two engines at a time, after releasing the wheel brakes.
And the 60,000ft operating ceiling for Concorde was an arbitrary one, being chosen so as to allow the aircraft to make a descent sufficiently quickly without danger to the passengers should a cabin window burst or be broken. In test flights Concorde had flown as high as 68,000ft. To allow higher than normal rates-of-descent, Concorde could use the two inner engine's thrust reversers in flight. During the outward climb once over water reheat was engaged and the aircraft accelerated through Mach 1, and once reheat was cancelled, Concorde continued to accelerate on to Mach 2 on dry power while still climbing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The retirement of Concorde was effectively forced on BA by the decision of Airbus - the Type Certificate holder at the time, although originally it would have been Sud Aviation and BAC - to drastically increase the charges for engineering support for the Concorde type. Once Airbus decided to do this the aircraft became unprofitable to operate without a substantial fare price rise, and once airlines had declined to pay the increased charges, Airbus stopped support for the type and as a result its Type Certificate was withdrawn by the CAA and the French equivalent. Once this had been done it became illegal to carry fare-paying passengers on the type. So it wasn't actually a lack of spares as-such.
After the Paris crash Airbus would have suddenly found themselves having to concentrate money and engineering resources on solving the accident problems of a 40-year old type that was, in effect, not of their original design, and dated as far back as 1960. They no doubt - perhaps understandably - wished to concentrate money and resources on their own newer airliner types, then in current production and development. I suspect that the responsibility for Concorde was something they wished to rid themselves of as soon as was possible, as they gained little financially from it as it was no longer in production and generating income for its manufacturer, and I suspect they had few, if any, engineering staff who had been involved in Concorde's original design. So, financially the crash probably cost Airbus a lot of money on an aircraft that had never been profitable for them - they 'inherited' Concorde from what had been the companies they bought out when Airbus Industrie bought up various parts of the French and British aircraft industry back in the 1980-1990s - and the crash may have scared Airbus over possible future costs if more accidents were to occur. The Paris crash allowed Airbus to rid their hands of Concorde, albeit in an unfortunate manner, and one I'm sure that Airbus themselves would not have wished-for.
In addition, many of the BA Concorde's regular passengers were business men and women involved in finance, insurance, etc., who had been working in the Twin Towers and so, at a stroke, a small but significant proportion of BA's Concorde farebase was lost during the 9/11 attacks, and this small but important regular farebase hadn't recovered by 2003.
BTW, IIRC, if Concorde had not been retired early it would have been due to retire around now - 2013 - due to the airframe fatigue limits having been estimated to have been reached. Certainly prior to the Paris crash BA had been planning on operating it much later than 2003. About AF I don't know. Update - a 2002 Flight editorial on the BA Concordes expected life extension to 2010-15 here: 
IIARC, the only notable problems BA ever had had with the type were a couple of in-flight upper rudder losses due to dis-bonding - which were non-events, as Concorde had duplicated rudders - and a few precautionary engine shut-downs. I think AF were the only ones that had any fuel tank punctures, although why they affected AF and not BA I don't know.
A 2003 Flight article on Concorde's retirement here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Video on YouTube of a BA Concorde 'greasing in' at Kai Tak back in 1996 here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Besides the paragraph about Promotional efforts in 1997 being oddly placed, it says flights were sold for £2 10/- ... decades after the decimalisation of currency. Something's wrong there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkbeast (talk • contribs) 12:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
It is not unknown for prices to be in pre decimal quantities as part of such a promotion. Britmax (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
In 1997? Be serious. As mentioned in my edit summary when I fixed it, it was a simple misreading of the original article. Academic now, mind. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The section was a bit over detailed and not really that notable to the aircraft so I have removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
And it's back again. Are we generally agreed with MilborneOne that it should be out? I don't care either way, but I'll gladly stick to any consensus. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Another user added the '97 promotional text back. I trimmed the text, re-added the reference and tagged it with an importance tag in case others feel the remaining text is non-notable/minor. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Although the trimmed text is better I still dont think that it is notable to the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yea, probably not. If there were several of type events, they could be mention together in 2-3 sentences. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The cited reference makes no mention of a price offered by Virgin. Anyone got an actual cite for this discussion? Pinkbeast (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
According to these news articles , he offered £1, then £1 million, and later £5 million. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Great (except not quite, the £1 million is always "each"). Will update. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
That's right. The £5 million offer was the total amount for 5 aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The recent change and revert there seem to be around each other. User:Runlevel1 wasn't trying to change the facts at all, just clarify what was already written. I think there may have been a knee-jerk revert. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Nope, not at all if you read the edit summaries. £1.00 is clearly not the same as £1 million. The sources in the article only cover '£1 million'. Another source needs to be added to change per WP:Verify. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I've added a couple references to Virgin's original £1 bid. As Pinkbeast said, I was simply trying to make it clearer (visually) there were two different figures in play. The words '£1' and '£1 million' were written in close enough proximity that my eyes stumbled over that part of the sentence a few times. - Runlevel1 (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the updates and additional sources! -Fnlayson (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
text reads "but with a history of tyre explosions 60 times higher than subsonic jets" Do you mean 60 times more frequent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Concorde had a higher rate of tire damage; one in 3,000 times vs. one in 100,000 times for an A340. See BEA Accident report, pages 145-147 for more details. This has been added as a reference and the wording adjusted to clarify and correct. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
User NolanCRules has changed the section heading "operators" to "former operators" under the theory that because Concorde (which he/she incorrectly calls "the Concorde") is retired, there are no "operators." Fnlayson and I reverted it because it's obvious, as the article clearly notes Concorde is retired, and because consistency with other Wikipedia articles calls for "operators" (see, for example, the article about the DeHavilland Comet). If user NolanCRules wants to change it, I feel the burden is on him to explain why this article warrants an exception to the practice elsewhere. Simply saying "Concorde is retired" isn't good enough when deviating from general practice. 1995hoo (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, Operators is the normal WP:Aircraft section name, and former operators can be noted in the text per guidelines at WP:Air/PC, specifically WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I think this section could be trimmed down considerably, although important to the aircraft it does deserve an explanation but the fine detail particularly in the second paragraph is in the related article and doesnt really belong. MilborneOne (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure. I trimmed some intermediate details on the fuel fire, and more can be done. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)