$10 000 USD? Where did you find that info?? It's expensive but not neary that much!

It started making profits only after 25 years (for the airlines that is, not counting government subsidies) AFAIK. Anyhoo, according to www.welt.de, the BA aircraft have all been promised to various museums already, for those who were worried. Misha

WFO, the concorde is still younger in terms of hours on the airframe than even the 777. And another thing, if it wasn't for concorde you would not have ABS on cars, or any form of autobraking/antiskid on any aircraft (yeah, that includes your boeings and airbuses). The 727 is an old jet (''jurassic jet'') but you don't run that down calling it antiquated do you? Most people that run concorde down are just jealous that their country could not produce an SST. Every country has its strengths, look at the USA and the shuttle (incidently look at all the stuff thats happened to the shuttle and the controversy thats caused, you ain't carrying on about that are you?) Nor am I, for that matter, I am not jealous, I have been in the shuttle mock up in Houstan, it is an amazing machine and America should be proud of it, I am proud for you guys, you have achieved alot through it but is it cost effective? NO! So please, can't we all regoice in other countries achievments and not run them down? The concorde is a fantastic plane if not profitable and an amazing piece of hardware.What is not cost effective is BA retrofitting the thing only to retire it, epecialy in these troubled times.Anyway, Im done now.Rici

Round trip Concorde tickets from New York to London were 6819 U.K. pounds when flights resumed a couple of years ago. That is $10645 U.S., plus taxes. That is the base fare.New York to Paris is a little less.http://www.concordesst.com/returntoflight/archive/a52.html

Isnt Concorde the only airplane that can travel at Mach 2 with the afterburners switched off when other planes have to have them on all the time?Its a shame its going but It would be good if maybe those charter flights where you could do those 3 hour trips would still be available. Id love to have a ride on it supersonically as I think as things stand at the moment there wont be another airliner that will travel supersonic now for quite a while. Its just so expensive but if I had the money Id ride it at the drop of the hat.Craig Kiltie

Ok, I've removed a couple of posts were people were taking this too far and will now lock this topic.

Hi guys,just a question: next month I will be in London for a few days and I'd like to catch the opportunity and watch Concorde take-off, since it may be the last (and only) time in my life to see it. Where would you go to best watch the airplane? Spectators' terrace in Heathrow still seems to be closed due to security reasons.Any suggestions?Thanks and all the best,Stefan

Heathrow Visitor's Centre car-park. Just north of 27R.

Hi StefanAt the moment Concorde only takes off on the northern runway (27R/09L) so to see it t/off go to the visitors centre on the northern part of the perimeter road, parallel to 27R. You could watch it land on 27L in Hatton Cross car park, which is literally yards from the threshold of 27L.edit: if you didnt know, it is scheduled to t/off at about 6.50pm local time and lands at about 1800 lcl.

Come on now! Americans could have produced the SST but chose not to do so because the cost-benefit analysis. It was on the drawing board and everything. We don't have a nationally subsidized airline, and none of the airlines in the US at the time would have been willing to purchase an SST knowing that they would have been in the red for 20 or so years before turning a profit. I give the British and French credit for doing so, but those counties are much closer to a socialist government that we in the US, so they could afford to step up. BTW, I am a proud American who happens to be half English. My mother is from Norwich England. Both great countries!Robb

Come on now! Americans could have produced the SST but chose not to do so because the cost-benefit analysis. It was on the drawing board and everything. We don't have a nationally subsidized airline, and none of the airlines in the US at the time would have been willing to purchase an SST knowing that they would have been in the red for 20 or so years before turning a profit. I give the British and French credit for doing so, but those counties are much closer to a socialist government that we in the US, so they could afford to step up. BTW, I am a proud American who happens to be half English. My mother is from Norwich England. Both great countries!Robb

Well, thanks for the info!Hope I find the time to try your suggestions.All the best,Stefan

>deemed a commercial failure. A commercial failure for Airbus maybe, but not for BA. The decision to retire Concorde was not really in the hands of either carrier. Airbus Industries decided it wasn't economical to, what would be custom-build spares for these beautiful birds anymore.Cheers,Paulhttp://www.strontiumdog.plus.com/sbird.jpgOfficially licenced by British Airways plc for use of name and logo

The decision to retire Concorde was not really in the hands of either carrier.Not in the hands of BA, though Air France had a role in it. Why do you think they're pulling their fleet 4 months before BA? :-roll

>Not in the hands of BA, though Air France had a role in it.>Why do you think they're pulling their fleet 4 months before>BA? :-roll AI named the day maintenance support ends. Upto the carrier if they want to pull early, but at the end of the day it was AI that grounded concorde not BA or AF.EDIT: here's a little bit of info I managed to get in a couple o' minutes......

May 01, 2003 BA chief blames French for killing off Concorde By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent BRITISH AIRWAYS was forced into retiring Concorde because Air France and Airbus, the French-based manufacturer, refused to continue supporting it, the airline