cocorde trial again?

My guess is that some attorneys are thinking about huge monetary settlements either through the courts or via out of court settlement.
 
Doesn't appear to be money...the victims settled years ago.
But it does appear a little sinister, so many years on...the real agenda will emerge as the trial unfolds.
 
Sounds to me like Air France and the French aviation industry's reputations are at stake here.
 
lol, after 10 years? their court system must be damn slow!

next time i should register my companies in France...if something goes wrong, i have 10+ years to hide from it....hehe..

On a serious note - too bad for the Concord tho. She was such a beautiful jet. I had a chance to go inside one a few years ago....felt like i was in some sci-fi film's spaceship.... the narrow tube inside and the sleek lines felt like she can take you to another planet...

-feng
 
the thing that gets me .. is that is was just one crash that practicly killed it ... how many boeings, airbuses etc have crashed?? they didnt exactly stop the 747 after the first crash :kilroy:
 
stiz said:
the thing that gets me .. is that is was just one crash that practicly killed it ... how many boeings, airbuses etc have crashed?? they didnt exactly stop the 747 after the first crash :kilroy:
Click to expand...


I think the rising cost of fuel and the downward spiral of our economy killed Concord...
 
I think Harleyman is correct. The Concord was expensive to maintain, expensive to fuel, and carried few passengers for the money spent. There were also noise problems as the engines sounded more like those of a jet fighter than an airliner (at least that was my impression when I saw one land and takeoff back in 1977). Then there is the sonic boom, can't have that were peoples windows might get rattled. There was an uproar of protests over noise in the U.S. when Air France started Concord service, I think most of the noise problems were perceived rather than actual. The Concord did have an excellent safety record, but ultimately it was economics that killed it.
 
Either the discovery channel or National Geographic had a great documentary on the rise and fall of the concord....

according to the show, the concord was barely surviving and making very little money; and on top of that, many airports won't allow it to land....thus forcing a lot of concord passengers to transfer in order to get to their destination...not good for business.

the crash basically sealed the deal for the concord. The tickets sales tanked after the crash (unlike when a 737 or 747 crashes; ticket sales are probably barely affected)....and those ticket loses forced concord to close its doors...

ps. the concord flights actually continued after the crash i believe.....british and france both operated it....just that nobody flew on it...

-feng
 
i remember when it landed at kilg. i worked in a sheetmetal shop that was right behind the airport. i think i counted 11 go arounds before it actually landed. it took a long time to get low enough and slow enough. one of the coolest sights to have seen in that little airport
 
stiz said:
the thing that gets me .. is that is was just one crash that practicly killed it ... how many boeings, airbuses etc have crashed?? they didnt exactly stop the 747 after the first crash :kilroy:
Click to expand...

One accident in barely over a dozen Concordes versus a few accidents in a few hundred "standard" jets make for a pretty bad statistic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top