@circusboy90210 - It all depends on the percentage full and how often the flight!!!! New York to LA is ALWAYS full and they make a TON of money with several 747's!!!!!! But Miami to Washington - was not making enough money - so they dropped the route!!! If a 747 route is NOT profitable - they will park the plane and dump the route!! Rather pay the $65,000/month payments for a 747 - than $65,000 for the plane PLUS $750,000 in fuel costs!!!!!!!!!
@Earthlinked $65000 is like next to nothing at this level of expenditure. one flight can pay for that 10 times over with the air freight alone. remember passengers are a miniscule part of the profit from a flight. there are reasons why you can be in a plane that's half full and it keeps the route. executive salaries are the reasons why aviation seems non profitable, this and cooking the books. fuel cost are minimal compared to money's generated from flights, and other incomes.
@circusboy90210 You are right - until you have 5 747's parked - then you are looking at about $300,000 in MONTHLY playment - to have airplanes parked and not making any money!!!! MOST 747's are paid for before the airline will get them - but the airline eventually will make monthly payments - almost forever!!!!!!!!!
does anyone think there may be even ONE Concorde that can remain airworthy to fly at special occasions? I know there were rumours about an AF Concorde in a fly-over at the London-2012 Olympics - does anyone know anymore about this rumour?
If you're holding your breath for that, I suggest you exhale now. F-BTSD is the only Concorde with a working hydraulic and electronic system, it was boroscoped in May 2010 to see what the possibility of TAXIING (not flying!) her around wound be.
But she won't be flying again. There's no CoA, there's no longer and certified pilots, there's no Mtx program support, and most of all, no $ to make any of the aforementioned happen.
@ImmortalSynn The Concorde program, from the beginning, was one giant money-pit... It only lasted for as long as it did on two things: public money (taxes) and European ego.. After the novelty of having the fastest passenger jet wore off, both France and England were looking for ANYTHING to finally throw this bad investment overboard.
Sorry, but you're speaking from a TON of supposition, and very little fact.
1) During its privatization (post-1985) Concorde was net profitable for BA
2) BA had already budgeted the "re-lifing" program phase I for Concorde, and was considering another that could've kept the ships flying until 2007 or further.
3) BA also worked with Airbus for methods to keep the fleet operational for months after AF pulled out.
@ImmortalSynn amen facts speak loudly but in this case conjecture has been given a bigger voice than reality. concordes are highly profitable, or virgin would not wanted to purchase them.
Concorde was not "very profitable"... in fact, it didn't even record its first yearly profit as an operation until after 1985.
For most of its duration with BA, it did accrue a tidy sum, as well as being an invaluable marketing agent. AF on the other hand, struggled to ever make money with Concorde... in part due to heavier aircraft, longer distances traveled, and a lower yielding market to New York.
@ImmortalSynn the money could be accrued with the level of profit these planes generate. virgin atlantic wanted to purchase and had the funds to operate them but the beligerant socilist governments refused to make a profit for the people and instead mothbolled them permanently.
@ImmortalSynn airbus did not build these planes boeing could just as easily proved that mtx support. virgin has way more than enough capital. the british government was the main obstacle. virgin is not a small airline nor cash strapped. this could have happened if governments had thought about roi instead of berocracy.
1) Airbus was the successor of Aerospatiale and BAC, the two companies who built Concorde, and no Boeing didn't have the necessary tooling, parts, nor financial incentives, to support the ships.
2) The British government had absolutely nothing to do with this, as all UK Concordes were privately and solely owned by BA.
3) Virgin's entire market capitalization alone isn't enough capital for such a task.
@circusboy90210 The British government was not the main obstacle. The French were just as desperate to pull out, but couldn't manage the loss of face. Read Roy Jenkins autobiography. The plane was a beautiful machine, but was doomed by the oil crisis and the refusal of most of the world to grant landing rights. We won't be seeing civil supersonic flights again in our lifetimes, I can assure you.
china has all kind of evil things, so many death camp, secret police, etc etc,,,,,,,china is most hell place in the world, communist kill their against people without any permission necessary, chinese communist party killed historical amount of people, china is perfectly lawless zone for anythings
yeah you like it too see from thousand miles away but whats with the people in the houses it must be so fucking loud when there is landing or starting a plane.
all people is not equal under the communism china,most of people is so poor,but major communist has so many privilege,car house food etc etc,,,,,,major communist in china just want to keep those privilege,so that why they killed historical amount of their citizen,its typical characteristic of communism,communist kill their against people without any permission necessary,china is perfectly lawless zone,chinese communist party killed historical amount of people for keep major communist`s privilege
@thepublandlord1 Sore about WHAT??? America said it was too expensive and England and France lost about $16billion over a few decades. Why should we be sore becasue England and France do not listen - HELL - if they listened Hitler would have never rose to power - and England would have never tried to suck his cock to appease him!!!!!!! It is normal - England screws up and America saves their ass - twice in the last century!!!!
@Earthlinked The reason we initially appeased him is because we wanted to avoid another world war at all costs. America would've done the same thing if they were in that situation
@aspiringdrummer17 AMerica has NEVER - and will NEVER appease a dictator - that is simply not possible!!!! Only in Europe do they drop to thier knees and start sucking when a dictator walks by!!!!! America does not tollerate that kinda shit!!!!! Just let us know when the next European dictator takes over - and we will - AGAIN - come kick his ass for you - and save your ass - AGAIN - since you seem to want peace with people that are living ONLY to make war!!!!!!!!
@Earthlinked Like I said, we were only doing it to avoid another world war because nobody wanted one including America. You saved the Continent's arse but not ours, we did that ourselves during the Battle of Britain, you know back in 1940 when America was still appeasing Germany
@aspiringdrummer17 America NEVER appeased Germany - instead we pissed them off helping Britian (look up American Supply Ships)!!! And the Battle of Britain - was fought with US supplied arms and US Suplied soldiers - you know - back when Chamberlin was on his knees sucking Hitler!!!!!!!! The best move for Britain was when Chamberlin died of cancer and Churchill took over - at least Churchill had balls!!!!!!
@Earthlinked 'And the Battle of Britain was fought with US supplied arms and US Suplied soldiers'. So what you're saying is that the Spitifire and Hurricane were built in America and the British pilots were actually American soldiers! Wow thats news to me. I think you're getting your wires crossed a bit here. There were a few volunteer American pilots during the BOB but all the planes, AA guns etc were British. Yeah Chamberlain was a bit of a doormat but it was all done to avoid war
@Earthlinkedt Typicl yank if the japs had not bombed pearl harbour you would still be sat on the fence, you wont get invoved in any conflicts now without are backing, the only war you did was Nam and you lost that (FACT) come back when have lern't a few things!!!
@friday1808 Normal stupid Brit - can't spell - and thinks they had ANYTHING to do wiht winning WOrld War ii - the only things the Brits did was get in the way!!!!!!!!
Call US Again - when the next dictator kicks your ass and takes over!!! We'll save you ass for a 3rd time!!!!!! (And it is learned - GOOBER - not lern't)
@Earthlinked Yes you got it a true Brit stop talking through your arse again you help us out!! you big mouthed big head, you wont do anything on your own. Get in the way piss off how many Brits have you killed in your so called friendly fire. Oh and did Nam hit a nerve with you? My son-in-law is teaching your guy how to sky dive from 35000 foot, in the dark because you cant do it or you dont have the trained PJI to do the job. Wonder what excuse this gob shite will say now!!! LMFAO!!! GO SULK!!
America made the very first SST - The Sr-71 Blackbird. Then the Boeing 2707. They decided NOT to continue the 2707 becasue of the expense. NEXT came the Russian Tu-144 - basically a copy of the unfinished British Concorde! The TU-144 Crashed at an airshow. Then in the 1960's Britian AND France decided to build one together - the Concorde. During it's lifetime - the Concorde lost appx $16billion!!!! Both England and France wanted it grounded - it was a money looser - which America knew in 1965!
@aspiringdrummer17 SST = Supersonic Transport - which the SR-71 WAS!!!!! SST has NOTHING to do with military - it simply means that is goes faster than the speed of sound (ie Supersonic)!!!!!!
@Earthlinked sst means super sonic transport which sr-71 was not , it did not transport anyone other than crew which diqualifies the transport part it was a supersonic spy plane hence sss
@circusboy90210 Chuck Yeager was the first pilot to exceed the sound barrier, on 14 October 1947 in the Bell X-1. ANd SST means SUPER SONIC Transport - and how many people are in the plane - or WHAT is in the plane does not matter!!!
@MrEiriku TRUE! But it also cost the British and French governments BILLION$ to fly - becasue at the cost of about $12,000 per ticket - it was still a HUGE money looser!! It was bailed out by the governments simply becasue they had already sank BILLIONS into the development!! America proved this was a HORRIBLE investment - in the early 1960's - but it takes the English and French about 15 years to catch up!!! They were looking for ANY reason to cancel the flights - they were too EXPENSIVE!!!
@Earthlinked Youre right ofc, but I would still like to see it come back, even at that price pr.ticket and then maybe use em once a week for VIPs or rent it out as a private jet for teams that needs to continent hop in 3 hrs etc. There has to be a (small) market for that. Or so one could at least hope for that :)
@Earthlinked the flights were hugely profitable as the average flight profited $800,000 you need to remember that passengers are a small part of the income from a planes operation. these planes avereaged 2 flights a day. the billions would have been payed back within 3 or 3 years. the cost for the people who used it's service was a mere business expense.
@circusboy90210 - YOU obviously know very littl about this!!!!! THe average flight was 50% full - about 50 seats at about $10,000 per seat is about $500,000 - and the cost for one flight - INCLUDING maintanence was about $1.2 million - so EVERY FLIGHT lost money!!!! WHen they FINALLY shut it dows thery were only $12 BILLION in debt - which the French and ENglish people paid!!!!! IT was THEIR airplanes that sucked - too high maintanence!!!! And USA knew this 40 years ago!!!!!!!!!
@Earthlinked upi are totally off sir passenger revenue is a small component of air travel. the planes each profited about 400 million per year which made it profitable about 1985. there is no excuse for not advancing technology , including up front cost as the benefits garnered from it outside of the mere artifact and thousands of times better than just the artifact. so no it's not a losing proposition. plus the plane it'self is very profitable. most flights were full though.
@MrEiriku AMerica made the very frist SST (Super Sonic Transport) int eh early 1960's but dumped the project becasue the cost to fly would NEVER be covered by the cost of the tickets!!!
@Earthlinked No it was the British/French and the Russians who made the first SST's. All four countries came up with the idea of SST's in the early 1950s not the 60s. The US was the only country not to build an SST out of the four because their project was too ambitious, amazing but just too unrealistic given the emense costs. They should've made something of similar size and capability to the Concorde. That would've been very interesting!
Remember people, France deliberately killed off Concorde to get out of parts contracts as they were too stupid to make a profit on it. Of course, they like to kill off British stuff like Princess Diana... France is actually a nice place except that the white flag waving surrender monkey french live there.
The only time Concorde is ever going to fly is when I amass a certain £9,000,000,000 and get the spare parts and airworthiness certificates made/forged myself.
Yes that's the real name you're right. (but in france when you say "england" everybody understands "united kingdom", whereas if you say "scotland" they understand "scotland"...)
The Concorde was the first ever Commerical JETAIRLINER to be fitted with Super-sonic engines
as we see in our Fighter Jets! This slim smart aircraft ruled the skies for years...and made Boeing look slugglish. The concorde was built in Britian.... and remains, even though out of service,.. the most remarkable jetliner built to date...
I can't believe that the pilots would manage to keep a steady and stable steep turn at such a slow speed with this plane, since this plane doesn't have much lift because of its low surface area...
Absolute joke. The airworthiness certificate was REVOKED. The worldwide fleet is GROUNDED. All available spares and parts have been AUCTIONED. Airbus has discontinued heavy mtx SUPPORT. All pilots with type certification have been out of training for nearly 7 YEARS. There's only one ship (F-BTSD) that still maintains an active hydraulic/lubrication system, and she'd need shit-tons of MONEY to bring it back to airworthy standard. And most of all: who would PAY for any of this?
You may not have dreamed it, but you ARE dreaming if you don't think that those very real impediments are present and persistent. Unless every single one of them is overcome, she ain't flying again. And again, I ask, WHO is going to pay for that???
@ImmortalSynn The same sort of people who have donated millions of pounds to keep a Vulcan in the air, to mention but a few hundred thousand people, organisations and companies.
.....were nowhere to be found when BA officially sponsored a group (led by Capt. Bannister) to basically scour the planet looking for ANY form of funding (from investment banks, to arts endowments, to rich Arab sheiks) to keep G-BOAF flying as a heritage piece.
Now they're going to magically materialize 8 years later, when there's NO official support/effort by the aircrafts' owner, nor its mtx supporter?? Keep wishing...
No offense, but you truly have no idea what you're talking about.
How is some unnamed "sightseeing organization or something" (your weird words, not mine) going to "upgrade" an unusually complex aircraft with no Mtx support and spare parts that don't exist?
@ImmortalSynn at first: I have an idea, I do not talk shit...
and, I know that that words are a bit weird, but I just used that expression to point out that I dont know the name of that organization. I have seen that message on TV in the - believable - news.
@ImmortalSynn I have an idea about what I am talking about.
Better?!
So I stop discussing with you at this point, I have no passion to talk to someone who changes the subject when he noticed that he has lost the beef -.-
What a pathetic cop-out. I've "lost the beef"? That's amusing, considering you're the one who ducked out on a very direct question. Here, I'll restate it, in case you missed it:
"How is some unnamed "sightseeing organization or something" (your weird words, not mine) going to "UPGRADE" an unusually complex aircraft WITH NO MTX SUPPORT, AND SPARE PARTS THAT DO NOT EXIST?"
Did you see it that time, or do I need to put it in neon lights?
@ImmortalSynn spare parts can be made by any competentn machine shop. virgin wanted these planes to keep them in service , but ba and the bg refused. this is a total waste . however boeing could provide support just as easily.
@ImmortalSynn who would pay for this??? virgin atlantic would gladly put them back into service. a few gaskets and some hydraulic fluid are all the other planes need to be back into service. maybe a few million dollars to put them back into service and the pilots who are trained can always get back into practice relatively quickly given enough notice this could happen within 6 months. there is no reason to waste mankind's achievements like this in a museum.
I note there are rumours that Air France is planning a Concorde fly-pass at the 2012 London Olympics. Does anyone know if there is truth in this, or is it just a dream?
This is just what's it all about, Breaking barriers, doing unbelievable things like shown here.This is not just a normal plane like eg. airbus a320 with not much special to offer except fly by wire thing.This was a plane which was like a jet fighter. Quick, Mean Machine :)
Brings back memories. Great promo for 4 handbuilt Concorde models at scale 1:144 from GTrans International. Check out the website at gtrans.com.au or email for a brochure at john@gtrans.com.au Percentage donation for each sale to the Premier's Flood Appeal
@Cathaydude it is normal considering that the Concorde is a delta wing AND... the front wheels are much inward than the conventional passenger planes.
@ELIKIS503 If you look at her history. Neither BA or Air France 'Lost' money flying her, sure she might have been an expensive plane to maintain, but she never lost money. And even if she comes back, she wont be used for commercial service. She would be strictly airshows and stuff now. Kinda like the Vulcan is now.
@Razgriz100000 she was retired because of low passenger numbers cited by the companies itself. Which they said will eventually lead to the airlines losing money.. And also.. The Airlines were not making back the money spent on the safety modifications and other upgrades, with some other big costs coming up (tens of millions, before any life extension programme), BA need to write off £84M now rather than £150M in 3 or 4 years. Air France wrote off a large sum of money too.
@ELIKIS503 And although they say there wasnt a demand, most of the flights even after the crash and up to her retirement were, if not full, close to it. BA and AF try to make Concorde out to be the bad one.
She was really killed buy the Airlines wanting to go for Economy over Luxury, and in a time where Environmentalism is at an all time high, the airlines gave in to the flak for her being noisy and inefficient
Like i said, dig for the 'true' facts, and not what BA and AF want you to believe.
@Razgriz100000 And besides, even the British government ended its involvement with the Concorde. So its return even with just for an Airshow is next to impossible since the operating cost of the Concorde is expensive. Yes they did make 750million... But... "TRUE FACTS".... the true fact is that the British government have its contribution in helping BA acquire a Concorde
@ELIKIS503 Any plane has to under go maintenance, but you dont see airlines getting rid of their 747's. And sure in the short run they were spending more than making, but thats how any plane works. Over her 27 year career she made over $750,000,000 for BA and AF which is a good return for airplanes they only paid 1million a piece for.
The 'maintenance' thing was an excuse to get rid of the planes. Considering they got a lot of flak for things like them being inefficient etc...
@Razgriz100000 Airlines doesnt get rid of their 747s because it has more modernized variants. As of 2003 the concorde was the last aircraft of BA to have a flight engineer...
The Concorde made and operating profit of £30-50 Million a year for British Airways in the boom years where many passengers were travelling first class. British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue for Concorde services against an operating cost of around £1 Billion. Air France made a much smaller profit.
Comment removed
ImmortalSynn 1 month ago
They need to make a new version of the Concorde..
nikthepilot 1 month ago
@nikthepilot they just need to bringn the old ones out of mothballs. they are very profitable.
circusboy90210 1 month ago
@circusboy90210 i'm guessing they cost ALOT in repairs & Maintenance..
nikthepilot 1 month ago
@nikthepilot yes but they were still way more profitable than an average 747 .
circusboy90210 1 month ago
@circusboy90210 - It all depends on the percentage full and how often the flight!!!! New York to LA is ALWAYS full and they make a TON of money with several 747's!!!!!! But Miami to Washington - was not making enough money - so they dropped the route!!! If a 747 route is NOT profitable - they will park the plane and dump the route!! Rather pay the $65,000/month payments for a 747 - than $65,000 for the plane PLUS $750,000 in fuel costs!!!!!!!!!
Earthlinked 1 month ago
@Earthlinked $65000 is like next to nothing at this level of expenditure. one flight can pay for that 10 times over with the air freight alone. remember passengers are a miniscule part of the profit from a flight. there are reasons why you can be in a plane that's half full and it keeps the route. executive salaries are the reasons why aviation seems non profitable, this and cooking the books. fuel cost are minimal compared to money's generated from flights, and other incomes.
circusboy90210 1 month ago
@circusboy90210 You are right - until you have 5 747's parked - then you are looking at about $300,000 in MONTHLY playment - to have airplanes parked and not making any money!!!! MOST 747's are paid for before the airline will get them - but the airline eventually will make monthly payments - almost forever!!!!!!!!!
Earthlinked 1 month ago
@Earthlinked most planes are actually owned by ge and leased out to the actual airline.
circusboy90210 1 month ago
Damn, that thing could stop on a dime!
bowecho 3 months ago
whoa that's loud as! can't believe the concorde flew to kai tak! when was this filmed?
GoingToBeAPilot1 3 months ago
L33T skill!
MTWJ 4 months ago
How come Air France flew Concorde to HK, was it a scheduled flight?
kenneflaw 4 months ago
@kenneflaw no, there was some unscheduled flight in the past but very long time ago
leonardomafucci 4 months ago
Landing in such a challenging airport in the Concorde must have been difficult.
fernando365493 4 months ago
unforgetable...................
Marcelbexiga 4 months ago
They Both damn-well raised the Pucker-Factor to their respective Extreeeemes!
Perhaps this is why they will Always be Respected and Admired.
FlightlessRock 4 months ago
WOW! i heard that it is harder to do step turn with Concorde compare to other jet like 747, and they have to do it in kai tak? crazy!
suck2longdick 4 months ago
i will watch this vid at 1,000 times and never get bored:)
boeingfan1000 5 months ago
balls of steel!
HDDRIVE2GO 5 months ago
the AOA is so high you can see condensation above the wings. cool..
megaduce104 6 months ago
you got to be one hell of a pilot to land this bird there!
KushPizzaSleep 6 months ago 2
that is one ugly plane....
haicugolu 6 months ago
@haicugolu You're talking about the TU-144. That's a Concorde.
TheBreakdanzkat 6 months ago
@haicugolu you're the ugly one.
konrad4212 6 months ago
oh, man
this thing was sooo noisy
Xpert30 6 months ago
SEXY BEAST
stratagie1 6 months ago
Why couldn't it have been BA, especially when Hong Kong was a UK territory then...
flyzapva 7 months ago
Perfect approach and landing.
puapake 7 months ago
Noisy indeed.
CYTL1960 7 months ago
Really noisy indeed.
CYTL1960 7 months ago
Just look at the angle of attack while the Concorde flared. This plane was such a beast.
member111222 7 months ago 2
does anyone think there may be even ONE Concorde that can remain airworthy to fly at special occasions? I know there were rumours about an AF Concorde in a fly-over at the London-2012 Olympics - does anyone know anymore about this rumour?
drmartyn 7 months ago
@drmartyn
"does anyone know anymore about this rumour?"
If you're holding your breath for that, I suggest you exhale now. F-BTSD is the only Concorde with a working hydraulic and electronic system, it was boroscoped in May 2010 to see what the possibility of TAXIING (not flying!) her around wound be.
But she won't be flying again. There's no CoA, there's no longer and certified pilots, there's no Mtx program support, and most of all, no $ to make any of the aforementioned happen.
ImmortalSynn 6 months ago
@ImmortalSynn The Concorde program, from the beginning, was one giant money-pit... It only lasted for as long as it did on two things: public money (taxes) and European ego.. After the novelty of having the fastest passenger jet wore off, both France and England were looking for ANYTHING to finally throw this bad investment overboard.
hwoods01 5 months ago
@hwoods01
Sorry, but you're speaking from a TON of supposition, and very little fact.
1) During its privatization (post-1985) Concorde was net profitable for BA
2) BA had already budgeted the "re-lifing" program phase I for Concorde, and was considering another that could've kept the ships flying until 2007 or further.
3) BA also worked with Airbus for methods to keep the fleet operational for months after AF pulled out.
Use fact, not fiction, please.
ImmortalSynn 5 months ago
@ImmortalSynn amen facts speak loudly but in this case conjecture has been given a bigger voice than reality. concordes are highly profitable, or virgin would not wanted to purchase them.
circusboy90210 1 month ago
@hwoods01 was very profitable in reality.
circusboy90210 1 month ago
@circusboy90210
Concorde was not "very profitable"... in fact, it didn't even record its first yearly profit as an operation until after 1985.
For most of its duration with BA, it did accrue a tidy sum, as well as being an invaluable marketing agent. AF on the other hand, struggled to ever make money with Concorde... in part due to heavier aircraft, longer distances traveled, and a lower yielding market to New York.
ImmortalSynn 1 month ago
@ImmortalSynn the money could be accrued with the level of profit these planes generate. virgin atlantic wanted to purchase and had the funds to operate them but the beligerant socilist governments refused to make a profit for the people and instead mothbolled them permanently.
circusboy90210 1 month ago
@circusboy90210
The fact that he did NOT do that, shows that he was just worming his way into it as a form of free advertisement.
Well that, and:
1) Virgin doesn't have the free capital it would've taken to make such an offer
2) Even if they'd gotten their hands on Concorde, they still would've needed BACE's resources, which would *not* have come cheaply
3) They still would've had to convince Airbus to continue mtx support, which again would not have come cheaply.
ImmortalSynn 1 month ago
@ImmortalSynn airbus did not build these planes boeing could just as easily proved that mtx support. virgin has way more than enough capital. the british government was the main obstacle. virgin is not a small airline nor cash strapped. this could have happened if governments had thought about roi instead of berocracy.
circusboy90210 1 month ago
Comment removed
ImmortalSynn 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusboy90210
Your ignorance to this topic is extraordinary.
1) Airbus was the successor of Aerospatiale and BAC, the two companies who built Concorde, and no Boeing didn't have the necessary tooling, parts, nor financial incentives, to support the ships.
2) The British government had absolutely nothing to do with this, as all UK Concordes were privately and solely owned by BA.
3) Virgin's entire market capitalization alone isn't enough capital for such a task.
ImmortalSynn 1 month ago
@circusboy90210 The British government was not the main obstacle. The French were just as desperate to pull out, but couldn't manage the loss of face. Read Roy Jenkins autobiography. The plane was a beautiful machine, but was doomed by the oil crisis and the refusal of most of the world to grant landing rights. We won't be seeing civil supersonic flights again in our lifetimes, I can assure you.
ogvert 1 month ago
What a beautiful plane it was,, must return,,
DBJ06 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
china has all kind of evil things, so many death camp, secret police, etc etc,,,,,,,china is most hell place in the world, communist kill their against people without any permission necessary, chinese communist party killed historical amount of people, china is perfectly lawless zone for anythings
77777XYZ 7 months ago
She's a beauty. Puuurrrrfect Landing!
akihasaka 8 months ago
when i read "Concorde landing at Kai Tak " i wee'd myself a little
2minnoodles 8 months ago 6
I miss Kai Tak, and Concorde, In my opinion the two best things in aviation! (Kai Tak, and The Concorde!)
DillandShaj 8 months ago 14
@DillandShaj
yeah you like it too see from thousand miles away but whats with the people in the houses it must be so fucking loud when there is landing or starting a plane.
xxkilleroxx 4 months ago
@DillandShaj well...totally agree
hkg2gxc 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
all people is not equal under the communism china,most of people is so poor,but major communist has so many privilege,car house food etc etc,,,,,,major communist in china just want to keep those privilege,so that why they killed historical amount of their citizen,its typical characteristic of communism,communist kill their against people without any permission necessary,china is perfectly lawless zone,chinese communist party killed historical amount of people for keep major communist`s privilege
77777XYZ 8 months ago
@Earthlinked...Ps (if you know what that means) You Spell with not wiht, cant-spell-
friday1808 8 months ago
Comment removed
friday1808 8 months ago
Wow 2006, Concorde still flying.
DJ727ROBLOX 8 months ago
@thepublandlord1 Sore about WHAT??? America said it was too expensive and England and France lost about $16billion over a few decades. Why should we be sore becasue England and France do not listen - HELL - if they listened Hitler would have never rose to power - and England would have never tried to suck his cock to appease him!!!!!!! It is normal - England screws up and America saves their ass - twice in the last century!!!!
Earthlinked 8 months ago
@Earthlinked The reason we initially appeased him is because we wanted to avoid another world war at all costs. America would've done the same thing if they were in that situation
aspiringdrummer17 8 months ago
@aspiringdrummer17 AMerica has NEVER - and will NEVER appease a dictator - that is simply not possible!!!! Only in Europe do they drop to thier knees and start sucking when a dictator walks by!!!!! America does not tollerate that kinda shit!!!!! Just let us know when the next European dictator takes over - and we will - AGAIN - come kick his ass for you - and save your ass - AGAIN - since you seem to want peace with people that are living ONLY to make war!!!!!!!!
Earthlinked 8 months ago
@Earthlinked Like I said, we were only doing it to avoid another world war because nobody wanted one including America. You saved the Continent's arse but not ours, we did that ourselves during the Battle of Britain, you know back in 1940 when America was still appeasing Germany
aspiringdrummer17 8 months ago
@aspiringdrummer17 America NEVER appeased Germany - instead we pissed them off helping Britian (look up American Supply Ships)!!! And the Battle of Britain - was fought with US supplied arms and US Suplied soldiers - you know - back when Chamberlin was on his knees sucking Hitler!!!!!!!! The best move for Britain was when Chamberlin died of cancer and Churchill took over - at least Churchill had balls!!!!!!
Earthlinked 8 months ago
@Earthlinked 'And the Battle of Britain was fought with US supplied arms and US Suplied soldiers'. So what you're saying is that the Spitifire and Hurricane were built in America and the British pilots were actually American soldiers! Wow thats news to me. I think you're getting your wires crossed a bit here. There were a few volunteer American pilots during the BOB but all the planes, AA guns etc were British. Yeah Chamberlain was a bit of a doormat but it was all done to avoid war
aspiringdrummer17 8 months ago
@aspiringdrummer17 WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING TALKING THIS SHIT ON A CONCORDE VIDEO YOU SHOULD BOTH BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES
phreak761 8 months ago
@phreak761 The guy was an idiot. I was just putting him in his place
aspiringdrummer17 8 months ago
@Earthlinkedt Typicl yank if the japs had not bombed pearl harbour you would still be sat on the fence, you wont get invoved in any conflicts now without are backing, the only war you did was Nam and you lost that (FACT) come back when have lern't a few things!!!
friday1808 8 months ago
@friday1808 Normal stupid Brit - can't spell - and thinks they had ANYTHING to do wiht winning WOrld War ii - the only things the Brits did was get in the way!!!!!!!!
Call US Again - when the next dictator kicks your ass and takes over!!! We'll save you ass for a 3rd time!!!!!! (And it is learned - GOOBER - not lern't)
Earthlinked 8 months ago
Comment removed
friday1808 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Earthlinked Yes you got it a true Brit stop talking through your arse again you help us out!! you big mouthed big head, you wont do anything on your own. Get in the way piss off how many Brits have you killed in your so called friendly fire. Oh and did Nam hit a nerve with you? My son-in-law is teaching your guy how to sky dive from 35000 foot, in the dark because you cant do it or you dont have the trained PJI to do the job. Wonder what excuse this gob shite will say now!!! LMFAO!!! GO SULK!!
friday1808 8 months ago
@friday1808 the japs were forced into the war .
circusboy90210 1 month ago
America made the very first SST - The Sr-71 Blackbird. Then the Boeing 2707. They decided NOT to continue the 2707 becasue of the expense. NEXT came the Russian Tu-144 - basically a copy of the unfinished British Concorde! The TU-144 Crashed at an airshow. Then in the 1960's Britian AND France decided to build one together - the Concorde. During it's lifetime - the Concorde lost appx $16billion!!!! Both England and France wanted it grounded - it was a money looser - which America knew in 1965!
Earthlinked 8 months ago
@Earthlinked The SR-71 isn't an SST. It's a military aircraft not an airliner.
aspiringdrummer17 8 months ago
@aspiringdrummer17 SST = Supersonic Transport - which the SR-71 WAS!!!!! SST has NOTHING to do with military - it simply means that is goes faster than the speed of sound (ie Supersonic)!!!!!!
Earthlinked 8 months ago
@Earthlinked sst means super sonic transport which sr-71 was not , it did not transport anyone other than crew which diqualifies the transport part it was a supersonic spy plane hence sss
circusboy90210 1 month ago
@circusboy90210 Chuck Yeager was the first pilot to exceed the sound barrier, on 14 October 1947 in the Bell X-1. ANd SST means SUPER SONIC Transport - and how many people are in the plane - or WHAT is in the plane does not matter!!!
Earthlinked 1 month ago
@Earthlinked if your talking about. concorde. It wouldnt have flow for so long if nobody could afford ticket to fly it
MrEiriku 9 months ago
@MrEiriku TRUE! But it also cost the British and French governments BILLION$ to fly - becasue at the cost of about $12,000 per ticket - it was still a HUGE money looser!! It was bailed out by the governments simply becasue they had already sank BILLIONS into the development!! America proved this was a HORRIBLE investment - in the early 1960's - but it takes the English and French about 15 years to catch up!!! They were looking for ANY reason to cancel the flights - they were too EXPENSIVE!!!
Earthlinked 9 months ago
@Earthlinked Youre right ofc, but I would still like to see it come back, even at that price pr.ticket and then maybe use em once a week for VIPs or rent it out as a private jet for teams that needs to continent hop in 3 hrs etc. There has to be a (small) market for that. Or so one could at least hope for that :)
barath4545 9 months ago
Comment removed
aspiringdrummer17 8 months ago
@barath4545 Sorry wrong person :P
aspiringdrummer17 8 months ago
@Earthlinked the flights were hugely profitable as the average flight profited $800,000 you need to remember that passengers are a small part of the income from a planes operation. these planes avereaged 2 flights a day. the billions would have been payed back within 3 or 3 years. the cost for the people who used it's service was a mere business expense.
circusboy90210 1 month ago
@circusboy90210 - YOU obviously know very littl about this!!!!! THe average flight was 50% full - about 50 seats at about $10,000 per seat is about $500,000 - and the cost for one flight - INCLUDING maintanence was about $1.2 million - so EVERY FLIGHT lost money!!!! WHen they FINALLY shut it dows thery were only $12 BILLION in debt - which the French and ENglish people paid!!!!! IT was THEIR airplanes that sucked - too high maintanence!!!! And USA knew this 40 years ago!!!!!!!!!
Earthlinked 1 month ago
@Earthlinked upi are totally off sir passenger revenue is a small component of air travel. the planes each profited about 400 million per year which made it profitable about 1985. there is no excuse for not advancing technology , including up front cost as the benefits garnered from it outside of the mere artifact and thousands of times better than just the artifact. so no it's not a losing proposition. plus the plane it'self is very profitable. most flights were full though.
circusboy90210 1 month ago
@MrEiriku AMerica made the very frist SST (Super Sonic Transport) int eh early 1960's but dumped the project becasue the cost to fly would NEVER be covered by the cost of the tickets!!!
Earthlinked 9 months ago
@Earthlinked No it was the British/French and the Russians who made the first SST's. All four countries came up with the idea of SST's in the early 1950s not the 60s. The US was the only country not to build an SST out of the four because their project was too ambitious, amazing but just too unrealistic given the emense costs. They should've made something of similar size and capability to the Concorde. That would've been very interesting!
aspiringdrummer17 8 months ago
THAT THING IS ALMOST AS BIG AS THE OTHER ONE
MichaxMassega 9 months ago
thumbs up if you love KLM/AIR FRANCE!
Tutorialreporter 9 months ago
Remember people, France deliberately killed off Concorde to get out of parts contracts as they were too stupid to make a profit on it. Of course, they like to kill off British stuff like Princess Diana... France is actually a nice place except that the white flag waving surrender monkey french live there.
Cyberwwwizard 9 months ago
the korean air was just like "I wish i was flying that instead of this 747"
rewindablender 9 months ago
The Best!!!!!
caesarberda 9 months ago
it was only ahead of its time so u never know , it or something like it might come around
aell0111 9 months ago
Two best things are gone for now :
1)Kai Tak
2)Concorde
Thumbs up if you want those back too!
TheThomasTT 9 months ago 97
@TheThomasTT I wanted them back, they were the heroes of aviation.
fs10inator 9 months ago
@TheThomasTT Speaking as someone who's training to become a pilot, I don't think I'm going to regret not flying into Kai Tak.
Getting a chance to strap on Concorde, though... I'd give my left leg for that. (And pray I don't need to apply left rudder during the flight, natch)
frogger626 6 months ago
@TheThomasTT I wish I were on board Concorde, it retired when I was only 5
murakwan29 6 months ago
@TheThomasTT and the british harrier now
Judjefferys 5 months ago
'Sightseeing organisation' xD
The only time Concorde is ever going to fly is when I amass a certain £9,000,000,000 and get the spare parts and airworthiness certificates made/forged myself.
Doomsday2060 10 months ago
Muito bom gostei do seu video!!!
Brazil
Ney8666 10 months ago
I creamed my jeans
EnjoiLife222 10 months ago
When France and England conceive a plane together, they create a perfect bird...
MarechalDeRochambeau 11 months ago 38
@MarechalDeRochambeau at least the french do something good XD
Jimbobthebarbarian 7 months ago
@MarechalDeRochambeau true that
batseye 7 months ago
@MarechalDeRochambeau France and the United Kingdom actually
aspiringdrummer17 6 months ago
@aspiringdrummer17
Yes that's the real name you're right. (but in france when you say "england" everybody understands "united kingdom", whereas if you say "scotland" they understand "scotland"...)
MarechalDeRochambeau 6 months ago
miss you "rocket" - work is not the same without seeing you in the victor cul-de-sac
lhrlyc 11 months ago
1 of the most difficult airplane to fly with is landing at the airport with 1 of the most dangerous approaches ever
I miss the Concorde
and much more i miss this great Airport
:(
CrazyFriday93 11 months ago
The Concorde was the first ever Commerical JETAIRLINER to be fitted with Super-sonic engines
as we see in our Fighter Jets! This slim smart aircraft ruled the skies for years...and made Boeing look slugglish. The concorde was built in Britian.... and remains, even though out of service,.. the most remarkable jetliner built to date...
wild1heart 11 months ago
im getting hungry... gonna go make some lunch
mrblewsky 11 months ago
Awesome and noisy
69Andersson 11 months ago
I can't believe that the pilots would manage to keep a steady and stable steep turn at such a slow speed with this plane, since this plane doesn't have much lift because of its low surface area...
MatisDaBest 1 year ago
The Concorde will return in 2012! no joke...
AirbusA330Pilot 1 year ago
@AirbusA330Pilot
Absolute joke. The airworthiness certificate was REVOKED. The worldwide fleet is GROUNDED. All available spares and parts have been AUCTIONED. Airbus has discontinued heavy mtx SUPPORT. All pilots with type certification have been out of training for nearly 7 YEARS. There's only one ship (F-BTSD) that still maintains an active hydraulic/lubrication system, and she'd need shit-tons of MONEY to bring it back to airworthy standard. And most of all: who would PAY for any of this?
ImmortalSynn 11 months ago
@ImmortalSynn umpf absolutely no joke, please spare me with any discussions about that, I havent dreamed that!
AirbusA330Pilot 11 months ago
@AirbusA330Pilot
You may not have dreamed it, but you ARE dreaming if you don't think that those very real impediments are present and persistent. Unless every single one of them is overcome, she ain't flying again. And again, I ask, WHO is going to pay for that???
ImmortalSynn 10 months ago
@ImmortalSynn The same sort of people who have donated millions of pounds to keep a Vulcan in the air, to mention but a few hundred thousand people, organisations and companies.
Zadster 10 months ago
Comment removed
ImmortalSynn 10 months ago
@Zadster
"The same sort of people who"
.....were nowhere to be found when BA officially sponsored a group (led by Capt. Bannister) to basically scour the planet looking for ANY form of funding (from investment banks, to arts endowments, to rich Arab sheiks) to keep G-BOAF flying as a heritage piece.
Now they're going to magically materialize 8 years later, when there's NO official support/effort by the aircrafts' owner, nor its mtx supporter?? Keep wishing...
ImmortalSynn 10 months ago
@ImmortalSynn The Concorde is beeing upgraded by a sightseeing organization or something like that, which obviously will engage it in the next years.
AirbusA330Pilot 10 months ago
@AirbusA330Pilot
No offense, but you truly have no idea what you're talking about.
How is some unnamed "sightseeing organization or something" (your weird words, not mine) going to "upgrade" an unusually complex aircraft with no Mtx support and spare parts that don't exist?
ImmortalSynn 10 months ago
@ImmortalSynn at first: I have an idea, I do not talk shit...
and, I know that that words are a bit weird, but I just used that expression to point out that I dont know the name of that organization. I have seen that message on TV in the - believable - news.
AirbusA330Pilot 10 months ago
@AirbusA330Pilot
"I have an idea"
...just not a very logical one. lol
ImmortalSynn 10 months ago
@ImmortalSynn I have an idea about what I am talking about.
Better?!
So I stop discussing with you at this point, I have no passion to talk to someone who changes the subject when he noticed that he has lost the beef -.-
AirbusA330Pilot 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AirbusA330Pilot
What a pathetic cop-out. I've "lost the beef"? That's amusing, considering you're the one who ducked out on a very direct question. Here, I'll restate it, in case you missed it:
"How is some unnamed "sightseeing organization or something" (your weird words, not mine) going to "UPGRADE" an unusually complex aircraft WITH NO MTX SUPPORT, AND SPARE PARTS THAT DO NOT EXIST?"
Did you see it that time, or do I need to put it in neon lights?
ImmortalSynn 10 months ago
@ImmortalSynn spare parts can be made by any competentn machine shop. virgin wanted these planes to keep them in service , but ba and the bg refused. this is a total waste . however boeing could provide support just as easily.
circusboy90210 1 month ago
@ImmortalSynn I never trust anyone who uses random capitalised words.
Zadster 10 months ago
@Zadster
...and you seem to believe that any rational individual would somehow care, because ______?
ImmortalSynn 10 months ago
@ImmortalSynn who would pay for this??? virgin atlantic would gladly put them back into service. a few gaskets and some hydraulic fluid are all the other planes need to be back into service. maybe a few million dollars to put them back into service and the pilots who are trained can always get back into practice relatively quickly given enough notice this could happen within 6 months. there is no reason to waste mankind's achievements like this in a museum.
circusboy90210 1 month ago
this airplane was fuckin cool !!!!!!!!!!!!
zeroedodici 1 year ago
She flies like an angel! ! ! ! perhaps a noisy one though :-)
21voyageur 1 year ago
such beauty and grace
boundaryzero 1 year ago
I note there are rumours that Air France is planning a Concorde fly-pass at the 2012 London Olympics. Does anyone know if there is truth in this, or is it just a dream?
drmartyn 1 year ago
@drmartyn I've heard the same hope so love see her fly over London again she will pull the crownds she always did
homer151 1 year ago
That thing is loud!
Guitarhero0904 1 year ago
i cant even land a dogleg with 20Kt wind in FSX with the concorde let alone do a checkerboard landing in Kai Tak. SALUTE!
fenderstratocaster96 1 year ago
Perfect,this plane needs to come back..
MrDollarhyde 1 year ago 54
@MrDollarhyde perfect, the airline who will recommission this plane will lose a lot of money.
ELIKIS503 1 year ago
@MrDollarhyde it went out of service coz of a DC-10
TheTGGuy13 1 year ago
@MrDollarhyde yes and KAI TAK! Kai Tak is now ABONDONED
aval1998 1 year ago
@MrDollarhyde as does this airport
dm12377 11 months ago
This is just what's it all about, Breaking barriers, doing unbelievable things like shown here.This is not just a normal plane like eg. airbus a320 with not much special to offer except fly by wire thing.This was a plane which was like a jet fighter. Quick, Mean Machine :)
kkacper89 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kkacper89 perhaps, but it has no place in civil aviation
nighthawk0077 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Brings back memories. Great promo for 4 handbuilt Concorde models at scale 1:144 from GTrans International. Check out the website at gtrans.com.au or email for a brochure at john@gtrans.com.au Percentage donation for each sale to the Premier's Flood Appeal
TheGTrans 1 year ago
fooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooda!
JanCtVi 1 year ago
was that a 10 degree flare?
Cathaydude 1 year ago
@Cathaydude no
beergut111 1 year ago
@beergut111 looks like it
Cathaydude 1 year ago
@Cathaydude it's 12.5 degrees up.....thats the profile they fly
beergut111 1 year ago
@beergut111 could be a stall
Cathaydude 1 year ago
@Cathaydude no...why would you think that? do you know what a stall even is?
beergut111 1 year ago
@beergut111 is when a plane faces the high sky that makes the plane dead still while they r climbing
Cathaydude 1 year ago
@Cathaydude lol um no
beergut111 1 year ago
@beergut111 i mean pitches too high and makes the aircraft have no airspeed so it falls
Cathaydude 1 year ago
@Cathaydude it is normal considering that the Concorde is a delta wing AND... the front wheels are much inward than the conventional passenger planes.
ELIKIS503 1 year ago
@ELIKIS503 k
Cathaydude 1 year ago
@Cathaydude its not a stall, its landing, its a delta wing, it doesnt have flaps, this is a normal landing, clearly
BringEllisTheHoriZon 1 year ago
Kai Tak oh yes! with Concorde fuck yeah!!!!!
tigerek12 1 year ago
from0:19 to 0:35, there was something blurry on the wing!what was that?
rishiroypilot 1 year ago
@rishiroypilot vaporized water, caused by the pressure conditions over the wings.
Ululuro 1 year ago
@Ululuro yeah i guessed so, thanks anyway :)
rishiroypilot 1 year ago
As the Hood from the thuderbirds would say "WHAT A MACHINE"!!!!!!!!!
mrsgritoli1 1 year ago
At :024 it's like a swan ready to touch the water
barthoedemaker 1 year ago
bring her back for 2012
raf4jack 1 year ago
@raf4jack bringing her back will lead to the net loss of the airline that will recommission the concorde
ELIKIS503 1 year ago
@ELIKIS503 If you look at her history. Neither BA or Air France 'Lost' money flying her, sure she might have been an expensive plane to maintain, but she never lost money. And even if she comes back, she wont be used for commercial service. She would be strictly airshows and stuff now. Kinda like the Vulcan is now.
Razgriz100000 1 year ago
@Razgriz100000 she was retired because of low passenger numbers cited by the companies itself. Which they said will eventually lead to the airlines losing money.. And also.. The Airlines were not making back the money spent on the safety modifications and other upgrades, with some other big costs coming up (tens of millions, before any life extension programme), BA need to write off £84M now rather than £150M in 3 or 4 years. Air France wrote off a large sum of money too.
ELIKIS503 1 year ago
@ELIKIS503 And although they say there wasnt a demand, most of the flights even after the crash and up to her retirement were, if not full, close to it. BA and AF try to make Concorde out to be the bad one.
She was really killed buy the Airlines wanting to go for Economy over Luxury, and in a time where Environmentalism is at an all time high, the airlines gave in to the flak for her being noisy and inefficient
Like i said, dig for the 'true' facts, and not what BA and AF want you to believe.
Razgriz100000 1 year ago
@Razgriz100000 And besides, even the British government ended its involvement with the Concorde. So its return even with just for an Airshow is next to impossible since the operating cost of the Concorde is expensive. Yes they did make 750million... But... "TRUE FACTS".... the true fact is that the British government have its contribution in helping BA acquire a Concorde
ELIKIS503 1 year ago
@ELIKIS503 Any plane has to under go maintenance, but you dont see airlines getting rid of their 747's. And sure in the short run they were spending more than making, but thats how any plane works. Over her 27 year career she made over $750,000,000 for BA and AF which is a good return for airplanes they only paid 1million a piece for.
The 'maintenance' thing was an excuse to get rid of the planes. Considering they got a lot of flak for things like them being inefficient etc...
Razgriz100000 1 year ago
@Razgriz100000 Airlines doesnt get rid of their 747s because it has more modernized variants. As of 2003 the concorde was the last aircraft of BA to have a flight engineer...
The Concorde made and operating profit of £30-50 Million a year for British Airways in the boom years where many passengers were travelling first class. British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue for Concorde services against an operating cost of around £1 Billion. Air France made a much smaller profit.
ELIKIS503 1 year ago