Agreed, John. I really can't see how anybody can fault BA, Air France or Airbus for retiring the machine. I mean, it's an absolutely beautiful plane and I'll be sorry to see it go but as a commercial programme, it was an unmitigated financial disaster. The only reason it got off the ground in the beginning was because the British government at the time was desperate to join the EU and didn't want to piss the French off by pulling out of the programme. As for Virgin flying it, I can't believe anybody thought they were serious. It was a typical Branson stunt and, loon though he is, he's not dumb enough to shell out the big bucks needed to keep the thing flying. I really can't see Tupolev having many spare parts left for a programme that was chopped 20 years ago with not many built. Maybe NASA might have some? Grant SYD QF At 02:06 AM 07/10/03, you wrote: >Is it that the design is defective or that the airframe is past its >lifetime? If the first, then it would be a crime (metaphorically, at >least) to fly one, or to suggest that one can fly one by continuing to >support it which means Airbus is doing the right thing. If the latter, >why not have Airbus build some new (improved) Concorde's for PR? >Suppose you were an official at an airline that was going to purchase >airplanes, and Airbus flew you to its plant & offices on a Concorde. I >don't know about you, but this Boeing fan would be impressed. > >john > >On Friday, October 3, 2003, at 05:28 PM, Alireza Alivandivafa wrote: > >>In a message dated 10/3/2003 4:13:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >>jmgammon@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes: >> >><< Hopefully BA will follow through on its plan to keep one airworthy >>for >> airshows, etc. I'd love to see them accept pax on it too. But I >>doubt >> it. I guess Airbus have indicated they will no longer support the >>type, >> which will kill Virgin's idea to keep them in service. >> >> >>Yeah, well, that is Airbus being morons. Maybe they can get Tupolev to >>support them? They stole the plans anyway