Last Concord into Cardiff

Following not taken by me....but probably how it should be done.

Mine was hand held supported on a fence post near the NW end of the runway. And its a crop.

She sure is a beauty, certainly the wings are very pretty.
Trully one of a kind.

Actually, Concord was beaten in the race for supersonic passenger flight by the Tupolev TU-144.

I know that one Peter but I believed it never flew like a regular passenger aircraft.
It seems they did some semi-scheduled service flights but nothing like the full-scheduled service flights the concorde did.

Boeing was also busy at the time with their version at that time.
The last thing I heard was that they were busy with a transonic yet named the sonic cruiser but I don't hear a thing about that anymore.

There was also this one.

Yep that's the one Roger

This the Sonic Cruiser link
They cancelled the project and it evolved into the 787 it seems.
Smart move of Boeing since I don't think the a380 will be a succes.

All grounded from what I understand....sad.

"It has been suggested that Concorde was not withdrawn for the reasons usually given, but that during the grounding of Concorde it became apparent to the airlines that they could actually make more revenue carrying their first class passengers subsonically."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde

Rob

That was a part of the problem but it was of course great for the name to have a supersonic aircraft but it mainly costs money.
Also so far as I know the aircrafts needed to be upgraded to make them safer when it was discovered what was the cuase of the crash, since the aircraft cost money to begin with it wasn't word spending more money to keep them airworthy. This was the reason I got from KLM when I was an intern there, nothing official though.

Stefan et al,

It has to be about overall profit....to be more precise, contribution (sales less variable costs) to fixed costs.

If fixed costs are on the increase, eg installation of bladders and general overheads, and volume/value of bookings are down (perhaps put off by the dramatic crash) there comes a point when market forces will influence decisions to continue or wrap it up.

Overall contribution to fixed costs reduces of course as a function of a reduction in demand...eg volume of ticket sales, reduction in number of flights per diem, ticket prices etc, and increases in variable costs, eg fuel, aircraft staffing etc.

Then, when one analyses contribution per unit of scarce resources, decisions are taken to maximise overall profit...ie direct sales to the products/services that maximise the contribution per unit of limiting factor....more overall profit could be made by carrying first class passengers subsonically, as is asserted by Wikipedia.

But what value do you put on losing such a wonderful aircraft as the Speedbird.

Who would be a Chartered Management Accountant in your industry?

Rob

Oh yes I understand and I know that, but the aircraft was also a parade horse for them.
They would come to an end anyway, even without the crash. But the crash made it go faster, it was an instant nock out really. They would have been in serves for some time, surely untill their D check if things didn't happen like they did.

Maybe they can still redisgn and upgrade the ones that are still there.
If they can carry more cargo if they remove the heavy nose, and make them more fuel efficent with new engines they might have a change if times where different then they are now.

I'm curious who is Management Accountant, if they had push through the sonic cruiser it would have flopped and the 747-800 is also not from this time anymore, the cargo version however is a good plane though.
If they did a combo 747-800 KLM would likly have bought them to but they didn't do that. I also wonder if Airbus succeed with the a380, they still need to sell a lot I believe.

I'm a management accountant with MBA, but never worked in aviation industry.

It would be easy if every one in business made rational economic decisions, rather than political or just bad, ill-informed decisions.

Things may have worked out a little differently were Charles De Gaulle runways swept more regularly, and/or plane maintence was more regulated and reliable. You will doubtless know more about that.

A past colleague of mine lost his parents in the Tenerife air disaster in 1977. Pilot error has a lot to answer for.

Been reading Chris Weston's Mastering your DSLR...my brain hurts....and have discovered something else to occupy my retirement years....depth of field, hyperfocal distance, focusing techniques,etc etc

Interesting subject.....going slightly off topic...If its fine tomorrow, Stefan I'll try another shot at my azalia, perhaps with infill flash and a UV filter and what the heck....a tripod....that will really worry the neighbours.

Rob

Aviation is very different then any other brand I believe, the best doesn't always win but that's counts for every type of branch.
Do you know that KLM lease their aircrafts from KLM, I don't know why preciesly but it seems they are saving money by it.

The Tenerife air disaster never should have happen. Pilots aren't god anymore luckely, the mantenaince crew can overule the pilot now for example. But it's a shame that something most go wrong before things change.

It's good you're reading some books, it can get more complicated though
I'll be looking at your photos since I'm very interested in the DA* 55mm but also in the DA* 50-135, still not sure which on to get

I can tell you that the UV filter wouldn't do much, there is already an UV coating over the sensor. The only main reason why the use them is to protect the lens but they have quite strong coating these days so how usefull they are, is the question. You should get a polarizer though, they are very helpfull outdoors. They make the blue sky a more deeper blue and the from plants more vibrant.

Thanks Stefan, have UV and polarising on 300mmm zoom...same size, so can swap over.



Rob