It did OK and I know people who used to use it every week . It was the crash of Air France Flight 4590 that finished off the Concorde. Although it was caused by debris on the runway the reputation of Concorde never recovered.
We were discussing Concorde at work the other day. I said it had an impeccable safety record, then googled it to prove it. Well I must have a very selective mostly positive memory. Loads and loadsof them crashed.
It had an almost impeccable safety record. No injuries or deaths apart from the Air France event. The were quite a number of damaged tyre events because of the friction cause by speed. These were replaced more frequently. Other than that there were a couple of rudder problems due to vibration (one of the problems occurring during flights through Mach 1 to 2). There were also a few, typical, maintenance problems and some oil pressure problems. No accidents occurred although some flights were aborted. After the announcement of BA stopping Concorde (due to the downturn after the crash and also 9-11) Virgin wanted to buy the planes and carry on. BA wouldn't sell to them. I clearly remember all the hassle over it. One renovated Concorde is due to fly again in 2019.
They never built loads of them, so how loads could have crashed is a mystery, they probably had their share of troubles, but the main point is that due to what happened when Concorde entered service no further development went on, so it was sunk from the start. It Was finished years before that crash, it was a dead end, no further development was going on. The Air france crash was just a good point to call it a day. And who's debris was it that was left on the runway??
That's pretty much what I thought, but when I googled it, I found a long list of accidents. I think it was on Wikipedia, so it must be true
All types of planes have accidents and mishaps, it mostly about how many people they kill that counts.
A Continental Airlines plane. They were found guilty but not culpable. Yes, they were a list of incidents and not accidents. No one died or was hurt - except in the Paris crash.
And what country does Continental Airlines operate from Flew with them once, it was enough. The most dilapidated DC10 that ever got off the ground.
At risk of deviating far off topic, this detour into the realms of Concorde reminds me of one of my most disappointing observations about the progress of mankind. Between Concorde and the moon landings, two completely separate amazing feats of engineering that have been done, and never equalled or bettered since. It's like we've gone backwards.
And United weren't much better. Just slightly Maybe. Yes it does seem that way, got to agree. Kind of points out that who in the world now has the real wealth. And where we went wrong.
There was nothing "subtle" about his speech, Clueless, and to be fair there were no threads said or implied he just expressed his view. But I do think that view was of what use can the UK help America with any negotiations with the EU. But as far are the back of the queue when it comes to trade agreements with the US remark stands, firstly we have no trade agreements with the US nor have we had any since WWII so that remark is empty and valueless and I am surprised Obama said it as he must have realised that. One other point I don't think that the US is really interested in an trade agreements with the EU as again they are trading normally with the EU now, so why bother to change now. Also, getting any trade agreement that would have to be biased towards the US, as is their policies and practice, would have to get past the 28 different political policies of the member countries, and there's a more than fair chance of at least one country not voting it's approval.......and then US knows it.
i was interested to read this small article in last week's NS: https://www.newscientist.com/upfront/ "The uk's membership of the EU has been overwhelmingly good for the environment.......we bathe on cleaner beaches, drive more fuel-efficient cars,and can hold government accountable on air pollution....inside the EU we can influence and improve EU environmental law" Many witnesses noted that the UK would set standards at a less stringent level than has been imposed by the EU . This was from a House of Commons environmental audit committee, and a separate report concluded that eu membership has boosted scientific research in the UK, thanks to extra funding,ease of movement,and common regulations. There have been a few downsides such as the difficulty in getting approval for gm crops, but member states are free to approve crops on an individual basis so a Brexit would not help in this regard.
The problem is that although the pro-Brexit groups could state that all beneficial EU legislation could be made UK legislation in the event of a Leave vote, it's those politicians currently in power that would both negotiate terms of departure plus decide which laws they'd retain, and that would be David Cameron & Co who've promised a bonfire of EU Regulations.
I've thought long and hard about this. And while I want to vote out, the sad truth is I simply don't trust any of our politicians enough to run the country on their own. So I think I'm going to reluctantly vote in, not because I like the eu, but because I think we need a third party to police our incompetent, corrupt, lying, thieving, spineless worms of politicians. EDIT that goes for politicians of all parties, not just the tories. They are in fact all as bad and untrustworthy as each other. The only thing we can trust them to do is lie and steal.
