👍

I just didn't get why the AIRBUS logo is on the box, AIRBUS wasn't a company yet when the Concord was developed, I guess they bought the name or something???

49 minutes ago, Matthew Kane said:

I just didn't get why the AIRBUS logo is on the box, AIRBUS wasn't a company yet when the Concord was developed, I guess they bought the name or something???

Concorde was originally a partnership between the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) and Sud Aviation.

BAC later became British Aerospace and later still part BAE Systems and Sud Aviation became part of Aerospatiale.

Both Aerospatiale and BAE systems had founding stakes in Airbus from when it was originally created in.... 1970?

Aerospatiale was taken over by Airbus in 2020. Airbus hold manufacturing and spares production rights to Concorde; it's technically an Airbus aircraft.

 

 

Wasn't Airbus the one who refused to keep on supporting Concorde, and therefore, killed her in 2003?

1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

Aerospatiale was taken over by Airbus in 2020. Airbus hold manufacturing and spares production rights to Concorde; it's technically an Airbus aircraft.

And, BAE Systems, which used to own 20% of Airbus, sold its shares to EADS ( Airbus parent company ) in 2006 so, we might say that, technically, the Concorde is now 100% Airbus.

5 hours ago, Luis Hernandez said:

Wasn't Airbus the one who refused to keep on supporting Concorde, and therefore, killed her in 2003?

Effectively, yes. Airbus ceased manufacturing spares in 2003 and ceased maintenance certification.

However, if BA and Air France had really wanted to continue operating Concorde this would not have happened.

Simply put, passengers wanting to fly on Concorde we’re going to want to cross the Atlantic one way or other and by 2003 airline economics meant  there was more profit putting these people in the first class section of wide-bodied jets than flying a one class SST.

11 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Aerospatiale was taken over by Airbus in 2020. Airbus hold manufacturing and spares production rights to Concorde

I knew about that takeover but that was way after the fact, Airbus calling the Concord an Airbus is like Boeing calling a DC-10 a Boeing when to be honest they are not, Airbus contributed next to nothing to the Concord program and buying the company that does doesn't give it credit, same reason as Boeing doesn't claim the DC-10 to be a Boeing.

Edit: To be honest Airbus came out of the conglomeration of companies that developed the Concorde and also the development of aviation in Europe in General, therefore I would consider Airbus to be the child of the Concorde program not the parent.

Edited September 12, 20232 yr by Matthew Kane

13 minutes ago, Matthew Kane said:

I knew about that takeover but that was way after the fact, Airbus calling the Concord an Airbus is like Boeing calling a DC-10 a Boeing when to be honest they are not, Airbus contributed next to nothing to the Concord program and buying the company that does doesn't give it credit, same reason as Boeing doesn't claim the DC-10 to be a Boeing.

Edit: To be honest Airbus came out of the conglomeration of companies that developed the Concorde and also the development of aviation in Europe in General, therefore I would consider Airbus to be the child of the Concorde program not the parent.

When it comes to the world of intellectual property and licensing, everything you have covered is mostly irrelevant. Airbus is now the owner of the Concorde and associated rights, and anyone that wants to release a product today is likely going to have to include Airbus' name on the product. Lego probably could have included Aérospatiale/BAC on the box, but I bet they were required to include Airbus on it.

30 minutes ago, goates said:

When it comes to the world of intellectual property and licensing, everything you have covered is mostly irrelevant. 

When it comes to documenting history, everything I said is true, purchasing the rights to something doesn't change history

29 minutes ago, Matthew Kane said:

When it comes to documenting history, everything I said is true, purchasing the rights to something doesn't change history

Again, that isn't relevant when it comes to things like copyrights and trademarks. Lego worked with the Airbus Heritage team and  got a licence for the use of the name, so included Airbus on the box as the current rights holder to the Concorde. It has nothing to do with ignoring or changing history.

Quote

AIRBUS and CONCORDE are registered trademarks of Airbus. They shall not be used without Airbus’ prior written consent. All rights reserved.

https://www.lego.com/en-ca/categories/adults-welcome/article/why-concorde-is-engineering-masterpiece

This box I agree with, even though Boeing took over McDonnell Douglas it just wouldn't be right to put a Boeing logo on this, historically it was an MD aircraft when it was produced:

For me same rule applies with Concorde, Airbus wasn't a company during it's development and production, therefore historically incorrect to label it an Airbus

2 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

This box I agree with, even though Boeing took over McDonnell Douglas it just wouldn't be right to put a Boeing logo on this, historically it was an MD aircraft when it was produced:

That's a bit different because that Revell DC-10 box came out in 1997, same year MD and Boeing merged so, it's likely MD was still a company when the model came out. On their F-16 box, they call it "Lockheed Martin", not General Dynamics, which was the manufacturer when the airplane came out, that's likely because the model came out after LM took over F-16 production.

But that's not the only point: Revell used the manufacturer's name only to describe it, it's not an MD logo with its official graphic and font, and this suggests the product didn't had a license, so McDonnell Douglas name was used only as an historic citation.

The Lego Concorde, instead, it's clearly a licensed product, which means Lego couldn't possibly had any choice about which Logo to use: both in its own interest, since the Airbus brand is widely known today, but also for Airbus as well, who has no interest advertising brands, like Aerospatiale, that doesn't exists anymore, or BAE, which still exists, but it might be seen as a bit controversial, being a defense company ( and Lego has a longtime stance of not releasing anything military ).

So, from a legal and marketing point of view, if you had one company logo on the box, it had to be Airbus, which is the owner of the IP. 

That doesn't mean I, as an aviation fan, I personally think this is the best solution, because it would have been nice to see also the original historic logos on the box, maybe with a separate logo saying "licensed by Airbus" or something like that. Also, it's a pity they haven't licensed BA or AF logos, so the airplane comes only with the house livery, with no stickers or anything else to make it look like a BA or AF version.

But I preordered it anyway...

It's not history, it's a box of plastic bricks....

Get off my lawn....

15 hours ago, virtuali said:

But that's not the only point: Revell used the manufacturer's name only to describe it, it's not an MD logo with its official graphic and font, and this suggests the product didn't had a license, so McDonnell Douglas name was used only as an historic citation.

Doesn't change anything, no different then when Ford Motor Company owned Volvo, anything licensed by Ford Motor Company for models etc was marketed and branded as Volvo, and you would see Ford in the small print Trademark on the bottom of the box at that time, but the car is still a Volvo regardless of Fords ownership. Now Volvo is owned by Geely but you would still see Volvo on a box not Geely but the Geely Trademark in the small print, but its still a Volvo

14 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

It's not history, it's a box of plastic bricks....

When you build Lego or Revell or anything with your kids you are also telling the history of it as its story to them. Hollywood is even worse in retelling historical events, its just retelling history to the simpletons