Concorde was the result of a joint venture between the United Kingdom and France.
With its distinct delta wings and droop nose, it was an engineering marvel of its time. Capable of speeds over Mach 2, the Concorde could make transatlantic flights in under four hours, turning the arduous journey into a brief sojourn.
But in 2003, the world saw the end of commercial Concorde flights.
Yet, in 2006, an ambitious idea to breathe new life into one of these retired jets was tabled in the UK Parliament. A group of Members of Parliament (MPs) proposed that the UK Government recommission a Concorde to serve as the ‘Royal Air Force One’ – a prestigious aircraft for the royal family and, by extension, the nation.
An Early Day Motion (EDM) is a motion tabled by MPs to debate in the House of Commons. These are not legally binding but serve as a method for MPs to express their opinions on various issues or events. EDM 2177, tabled on 16 May 2006, was one such motion.
The proposal, backed by 10 MPs from various political parties, passionately argued for the reintroduction of a Concorde jet into service as a royal aircraft. The motion lamented the prestige lost to Britain when supersonic flights ceased and noted Concorde’s impeccable safety record. Furthermore, the motion expressed discontent at how these majestic jets were languishing and decaying, rather than being utilised.
The proponents believed that while Concorde might not have been commercially viable anymore, it could serve a ceremonial and representational purpose. In the world of diplomatic gestures and soft power, having a supersonic royal plane would undoubtedly be a statement – one that would arguably outshine the aircraft of other global leaders, they argued.
However, to understand the context, it’s essential to recall why Concorde was retired in the first place:
- Economics: The Concorde, while impressive, was a costly plane to operate. High fuel consumption, expensive maintenance, and the need for specialized parts and training made it an economic burden for airlines.
- Environmental Concerns: The Concorde was loud, and sonic booms over populated areas led to numerous noise complaints. Additionally, concerns about its carbon emissions in an increasingly environment-conscious world played a role.
- Aging Fleet: With the planes getting older, maintaining them became increasingly complex and expensive.
- Paris Crash: Although British-operated Concordes had an excellent safety record, the tragic Air France Concorde crash in 2000 severely impacted its public image.
The bid to resurrect the Concorde as a ‘Royal Air Force One’ was undeniably an ambitious one. Although the EDM highlighted valid points about prestige and the symbolic value of the Concorde, the practical challenges of bringing the jet back into operation were significant. With only 10 MPs backing the motion, it didn’t gain the momentum needed for serious consideration.
Of all the large commercial jets in the world today, Concorde would have been about the least suitable for the use-case being proposed. The absolute lack of technical understanding on the part of many MPs leads to a lot of bad laws, nonsensical strategy and wasted parliamentary time. At least this example was nipped in the bud.
A common misunderstanding about MPs here . Mps are legislators not government executives so they shouldn’t be criticised for suggesting a policy that the civil service – who do run the country- found wanting. The other point about ‘bad laws’ is similar . The laws are drafted by experts from the Commons office of parliamentary counsel. Complications arise over the updating and amendments that happen and of course get out of date . Maybe you have heard of computer software that can be much worse Do you really think the commercial world is run by business geniuses and advised by… Read more »
If I may be so bold to preempt Ian’s reply, when someone says bad laws, the distinction in who framed them, worked on the committees and voted them through is all the same. Parliament passes laws, many are bad simply by curtailing our freedoms. Whether it is quietly praying in your head to an old man, a lifelong Labour Party member, victim of the Nazis and renowned peace campaigner holding up a placard at a Labour Party Conference. Both being arrested under anti-terrorism laws, they are bad laws.
Spare us the drivel about your loony fringe ideas
Ministers of the Crown are legally and Constitutionally responsible for everything that happens in their Department, period. They are under no obligation to accept Civil Service advice. The Westminister system is based on a chain of command – Civil Servants report to Ministers who report to Parliament who report to the Voters.
No ministers are only *accountable* to parliament for the department, which is meaningless as there s no legal responsibility at all , ie they are accountable in a court.
Another reason Concorde was not an even greater commercial success. American envy.
Concerns about its Carbon emissions, hmmm, noted “played a role” but compared to everything else like every Space Shuttle launch?
What an aircraft. The article is right though, prestige matters a great deal.
Concorde had a lot of valve technology in it as well as just about everything being bespoke or out of military jets.
There were a good few bits that were removed from the decommissioned Concordes as they were still sensitive.
It was a civilian plane that also had military level maintenance requirements as well as pushing the tech boundaries to the absolute maximum.
It was the polar opposite of a modern plane that is designed to maximise flying hours and minimise running costs.
Your second paragraph, I had idea about that, fascinating, SB.
It is quite well known that the variable air dam controls, used to decelerate the air into the face of the Olympus, in the engine intakes were highly sensitive.
They were computer controlled – really, in todays terms, algorithm controlled.
Nowadays you wouldn’t be able to put that kind of military tech on a civilian plane – it was a hangover from the fact that Air France and BA (and it’s predecessors) were state owned and controlled.
Which slightly begs the question of how realistic it ever was to export Concord?
Good point. So to the US only. Ooops.
The variable ramp intake of the Concorde was used as the basis for the Tornados.
Indeed – I was amazed to see one on eBay the other day!
Here is one for sale
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/394688774955?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=Osuisr6dQ8O&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=3thGvLAjSii&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY
There is also a radar on there which I was a bit surprised about……
Blimmey, I didn’t realise you could buy a DIY Tornado kit online 🙂
Cheers CR
Yes, my brother had a flight on Concorde to New York. Something he will never forget. He had a super time..
Well said DM! America was the primary reason that Concorde would eventually fail. In certain US circles, they absolutely loather the aircraft, because it was not theirs.
Boeing was developing their own super sonic transport. The reason they stopped is because it simply wasn’t economical. It was massively expensive to operate and to fly leading to ticket prices being so high which severely limited its market to only certain routes. New York and London obviously have wealthy people and business people which would pay such a premium. But good luck finding people wanting to shell out thousands of dollars to save an hour flying from Dallas to San Fransisco for instance. The sonic boom of course was an issue which is why it didn’t even fly over… Read more »
I loved Concorde flying over me as I worked in my garden in Reading, bit like a Battle of Britain Spitfire that flew over me – proud to be British. Sod the sonic boom.
Concord operated profitably for decades.
It was the era of executive lux travel before most corporations had long haul private jets.
Before video calls were a thing it had its place.
Patrick, I thought several airlines have already ordered the Boom X-59?
If, it does come about. I half expect the EU to ban it, not for anything in particular, just France getting payback.
I’d be amazed if that thing ever flew.
Just as Concord had ‘orders’ that evaporated…..they are really just expressions of interest
The Boom is using 21st century technology to supposably make it economical- albeit with business class fares. For one thing the engines won’t have afterburners so I imagine that will cut down on maintenance requirements and obviously fuel burn- not to mention making it more environmentally friendly (noise). They claim they have found 500 routes it could be profitable on, and see a market for 1000 supersonic jets… but I have serious doubts. from wiki: “Boom targets $5,000 fares for a New York-to-London round-trip, while the same on Concorde cost $20,000 adjusted for inflation; it was its only profitable route” They do… Read more »
I’m American but I don’t buy that we were the reason Concord didn’t become more successful. There are routes to Australia and New Zealand, Middle East, South America, Caribbean, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore….
The blame America is a common thread on site so why should I be surprised.
Concorde didn’t have the range for cross-Pacific routes, and even Japan to Australia/New Zealand was probably too long (not to mention probably not enough demand).
Singapore was proposed as a go-between, and would have had the demand. One Concorde even did a sales run through there I believe. But it came to nothing, probably because of the route it would have needed to take (following sea lanes).
Can you imagine the furore from certain quarters if we had both Concorde AND a new Royal Yatch.
The fall out would have been cataclysmic, heads may even have exploded with indignation.
It would have been worth it for that alone- never mind how it would have showcased much maligned British innovation …oh and simply how cool it would have looked.
I think one of those oft used petitions is again in order… 🙂
Agreed, the recent “Royal Yacht” fiasco also crossed my mind, and the original one.
Worth reading!
“Cold War tensions between the superpowers marked the years 1956 to 1966, where the United States, Britain and France prioritised European defence against Soviet aggression. Despite being envisaged for civil aviation purposes, the Concorde aircraft was the Franco-British alternative to US proposals concerning the introduction of a supersonic bomber within the Inter-Allied Nuclear Force (IANF) to protect against Soviet attack during the Cold War technological race.”
BLUE STEELE
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/data/attachments/5/5427-6fc0919697dc392d837836f8631ebd26.jpg
An interesting read. I once had a face to face conversation with Tony Ben in which he stated that he had cancelled the military variant of Concord. He was very clear on that. He didn’t seem to know much about that when I tried to get him to distinguish if he was talking about TSR2 or a Concord variant. I could never find any real paperwork for a military variant of Concord – I looked. There was a Concord that was BAE/MOD owned that was used for various purposes. It never had a cabin fit. It has a different skin… Read more »
I think it would have required a redesign to carry an external payload or an internal one for that matter.
Clearly a non starter without further investment, but interesting nonetheless!
when the president comes to town you know it. in london 3 x chinooks with police helicopter escort fly in. obama’s last trip, we had 3 ospreys flying around for 3 days, great to watch from my window. we shouldn’t bother emulating that. the Americans enjoy it and can afford the circus.
Agreed. There is always a wider furore though whenever a VIP story appears, including left leaning media and SM commentators, and HM opposition all chipping in. Every nation has VIP, VVIP aircraft, for security, for communications, and we should be no different. Just not at AF1 levels like you say. The publicity, and the moaning, that one of our own Voyagers got when the flag was painted on it is a prime example of this aversion to natiinal pride, prestige, and above all, marketing, putting our flag, a flag well known throughout the world, out there. As Grizzler above says,… Read more »
DM have good regard for your posts. the optics were wrong for flagging a voyager. bojo’s personal history of bikes, buses and 2 riot control vehicles, another PR stunt. a less presidential PM is the preference without hurting UK standing in the world. whilst not agreeing with mrs merkel’s politics she played her image quite well I thought, quite dowdy.
👍
yes I think your right..at any other time no one would have batted an eyelid at a new paint job for a voyager….but by that point most people were just fed up of Boris grand standing…so I think the reaction was more..shut TFU Boris than anything else.
True that.
It amuses me to no end that while the president travels with half the USMC in tow, the King can be found wandering alone around the Scottish highlands, free for a chat if you can find him.
Some great stories like that concerning our late Queen too. She was bumped into alone or but with a sole security officer by the public on many occasions. Including a hillarious one concerning two American tourists who had no idea who she was.
Indeed, that tale was a winner. Apparently they asked her if she’d ever met the Queen to which she replied ‘no, but he has’ referring to her protection officer. Still sadly missed.
Indeed, I found it weird writing “late Queen”
All I ever knew.
If you think the Queen was low key sometimes then she got it from her mother. Due to what my family has made a living out of for 2 generations, my uncle and aunt were seconded for 6 months up to HMS Vulcan (MOD/RR part of Dounreay) near Thurso. They loved it so much they moved permanently. So as a wee lad I got shipped up on the train every summer for 6 weeks. HM the QM lived up the rd at Mey and no one was phased what she did or when. The only grand thing was when her… Read more »
What a story mate! I’d read that Vulcan will be decommissioned when the new reactors arrive?
I’ll get back to you later on.
OK it’s a bit up in the air at present due to contract negotiations. But it is a matter of public record that the STF (PWR2) was finally shut down in 2015. It is now in a long term process of being de-fuelled and post operational examination prior to de commissioning work. I will not speculate on how long that will take because it keeps on changing. PWR3 didn’t need a land based test site because of computer simulations and the accumulated knowledge and experience gained in the last 75 years. It will in due course be handed over to… Read more »
Hi mate.
Thank you, as always, you’re clearly the SME here for this stuff.
Love your spotter story further down too BTW! You are about 10 to 15 years ahead of me with the spotting. 😋
That is a cracker of a life story. I bet you could entertain us for an hour or two over a few pints.
In London, they have the bars locked in front of them, in Scotland, they are just local.
Sunak took a commercial flight with his family over summer to LA. They have an apartment in Santa Monica. Wandered around with the kids with minimal protection. This sort of story only publicised after its over.
Unfortunately the case for most heads of government far safer overseas where they arent noticed.
Biden could be just another very old man on a bike at Bournemouth if he wanted to visit
The President of the US is actually important enough that he needs to be protected. His assassination has consequences. The only power the King of England has is to ratify an election and ask an MP to form a government which is of absolutely no interest to the rest of the World.
Interesting idea when Concorde was new, but not so much in 2006.
Environmental issues alone would have limited its use.
That’s what I thought before I read the article. This is a plan from when Concorde came into service.
Some MPs are mad to think you can take a retired aircraft, produced in small numbers and bring 1 back into service. It would have taken a permanent large team, producing parts and keeping it running. The costs would have been huge.
When the Queens Flight aircraft were properly run by the RAF. The lowest rank that could work on the aircraft was a Sargent. Even then they had to work in pairs. I remember visiting the Sqn when they were at Benson. Everything was immaculate, even the hanger floor was polished. The aircraft then were the BAe 146s. Imagine what it would have been like for a few Concordes. As one aircraft would simply not be enough, you’d more likely need three at least, to cover scheduled and unscheduled maintenance down times. The cost would have been something else!
Hanger D at Benson. The shiniest floor ever. But my dad, later a crew chief on the Andovers first joined Queens Flight as a corporal servicing the Vikings
As a peace dividend circa 1990-95, I wish we had a batch of new build, new tech Concordes. I read that new materials could have been swapped in secondary structure & that weight saving would have given it 700 miles extra range. You would have got more by turning Olympus engines into “leaky turbojets” i.e. a very low bypass ratio of 0.2 to 1. The three suitcases of 1960s electronics that controlled the engine inlet doors could have been replaced by 3 microchips. The 3 man cockpit could have switched to a two man cockpit.
That is starting to sound a lot like a new plane.
And the original design team had long since been dispersed by then.
Memories live long as to the painful amounts of money spent on Concord(e) on both sides of the channel. It was the ultimate Grand Project that developed a lot of supersonic know how that still lives on in current projects. But commercially it never made any sense.
Look at the Boeing 747-100, then look at the final version the 747-8i. It gives you an idea of what could have been done.
747 was a continuous production incrementally improved design that benefited from grandfathered type certification.
You couldn’t do that for Concorde as the line was shut and the team dispersed. Production stopped – full stop.
Well there was over 12 years between the last Lockheed C5A rolling off the production line & then the USAF getting the first new C5B. This new Concorde would have been in the same sort of gap. How many who worked on 747-100, were still working for Boeing 30+ years later when they started on the 747-8? Twin Otter & D328, show how aircraft can have updated production restarted.
On the other hand the issues of trying to update the Nimrods show that trying to “update” a design that old can get into serious costs and issues fairly easily. Not too mention the minor issue of their being no customers for such a new build.
Nimrod was the stupidity of trying to fit new wings to old, twisted fuselages. Would not have been a problem if all the aircraft had been built new. The fantasy Concorde “C” would have been mid 1990s new build.
When Bristol were developing the Olympus they had quite a few issues with the main shaft snapping due to resonance, that with Rolls-Royce’s help was solved. This was during the development stage for the TSR2. However one of the developing variants was a compound turbojet, with an afterburner/ramjet very similar to the Pratt & Witney J58 engine used on the SR71. It was thought that the combination engine in the ramjet mode would be more efficient at speeds greater than Mach 2. However, the engine predication was saying that it was going to be to powerful for TSR2 let alone… Read more »
Rolls-Royce could have used that to kill the Olympus off and get the Vulcan wuth Conways
DaveyB, W/ due apologies to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s character Sherlock Holmes, believe that “the (technology) game’s afoot,” and has duly transitioned from supersonic to hypersonic flight as the aerospace frontier. Defense News reported the award of a contract by DoD in March 2023 to Australian firm Hypersonix for the continued development and flight test of Dart AE, a technology testbed powered by a scramjet(s?) capable of Mach 7, under the auspices of AUKUS Pillar 2. First flight slated for 2024, and including a continuous test program through (2028?). Presumably, the first application will be in reconnaissance realm, followed predictably… Read more »
I don’t disagree it would be flashy, showing up in the only supersonic plane, but Concorde is narrow and cramped. Nowhere near the space to resemble Air Force 1.
It would be interesting to see if the EJ200 could replace the Olympus engines. I did hear about a group of engineers wanting to get one back in the air, but it does seem it has fallen by the wayside. Sadly, bringing back an aircraft that has been idle for twenty years would be difficult. Also, I’m not talking about the April Fools Emirates article. Just think that Virgin wanted to buy Concorde, but BA wouldn’t play ball.
You’ve gotta love Concorde. Apparently USAF often used to train by intercepting her over the Atlantic. I’ve heard there’s a great recording (taken from an F15 I believe) which goes something like, one mile behind Concorde… two miles behind Concorde… three miles behind Concorde…
I believe that our Lightning was the only aircraft to properly intercept the Concorde. There are loads of photos and a video when Concorde met up with a Tornado F3 at Mach 2. The Concorde had to slow down, as the F3’s engines started running too hot. Plus it was a prearranged meet up, where the Concorde really intercepted the F3. There was next to no aircraft that could catch her in a tail chase, not even the F14 or F15.
The F-15C can and absolutely did intercept the Concorde. The commentary of this website loves to downplay the capabilities of US aircraft.
So could Soviet MiG 25.
F15C cannot super cruise at over Mach2 for sustained periods.
Concord would cross the Atlantic at Mach 2.2.
Hello DaveyB and everyone else…
Lightning XR749 piloted by Flt. Lt. Mike Hale was able to intercept a BA Concorde in April, 1985. As far as I can tell, this was the only fighter/interceptor to do this. XR749 was described as “a very hot ship, even for a Lightning”.
Concorde, Lightning, TSR2, Harrier, Vulcan, Victor, and all the rest; the very best of British engineering! I wish they could still be flying today…
It wasn’t the engines getting to hot, it was the F3 running out of fuel. Accelerating to M2 uses a huge amount of fuel, and any supersonic intercept is measured in couple of mins or less. That said, high altitude supersonic intercepts are practiced regularly. But it’s more about the interception point In the sky to engage and release weapons, rather than a pure tail chase. All fighter types would be embarrassingly short of endurance if they try a simple tail chase at high supersonic speeds.
In a previous existence was working on the Mk 10 frigates Vosper Thornycroft built for the Brazilian Navy. Used to watch Air France Concorde going supersonic down the Channel through a camera stuffed up a 4.5 in gun barrel. Apparently if we’d fired a shell it wouldn’t have caught up with Concorde.
After BA shredded all the associated paperwork for these aircraft, they became only skilfully crafted lumps of metal. IMO BA should have handed these back to the UK government for what they paid for them…$1 each!
Concorde had Air France 4590 not crashed would have retired in 2008 and really its capacity was not suitable for an RAF transport which it was considred
The reason Wilson’s government approved Concorde was because they had just cancelled the TSR2. That is why Concorde had so much military tech onboard. The Americans objected to it landing at New York for months because the Olympus engines emitted so much crap at lower speeds.
If it had a bit more range, it would have been profitable flying over the Pacific from LA to Tokyo
The updated version would have eliminated the after burners. Unfortunately the production stopped just before Concorde B was built
I know for a fact that an Air France Concorde was used during the annual big AD exercises in the late 70’s / early 80’s along with Mirage IV’s. No idea about the Atlantic but they definitely did run in over the North Sea. Back then I was a teenager and got into plane spotting, all piled into the back of an escort van with cameras, books, scanner and sandwiches. Conningsby, Waddington, Binbrook were our stomping grounds and Donna Nook for A10’s and F111. Phantoms, Lightnings, early Tornados, Hawks (with Sidewinders), Hunters drenching us with distilled water and lots of… Read more »
Concord, a great Anglo-French coup. Totally unsuited to an air force one role. Vey heavy on fuel, very small cabin space when you’d need something big & roomy(Hence 747s) for sustaining a sizeable staff/exec with a little living space.
Many better candidates even back then.
Despite the prestige, Concorde would have had the tree huggers doing backflips for just about everything that it would have taken to fly. While a new HMY Britannia has a great deal of merits, the old HMY earned Great Britain PLC a lot of overseas trade and opened doors for UK Businesses. Royal Air Force One is a no-go.
I worked in bae Concorde spares in Filton as a temp filing clerk. Concorde was loved by everyone including it’s engineering team, but time was being called on the majestic bird long before the crashes. The Spares dept was cannibalising static displays to find parts to repair the service fleet. It simply wasn’t possible to manufacture new parts due to the exotic alloys used to meet the performance needed in the extremes that Concorde flew in.