The greatness of Concorde lies not only in the amount of engineering, flight testing, lobbying for acceptance in foreign countries, and money allocated to the supersonic transport jet mega-project, but also in the purity and elegance of its profile, lines and curvatures together with graceful manoeuvres on take-off and landing, and overall sheer good looks (decibels quite apart, I admit). Moreover, Concorde  kicked off a passionate debate in the far recesses of my own mind: did she look sleek by design or as a result of  her suitability as an airliner in both a subsonic climb to altitude and approach to land environment on the one hand, and a supersonic cruising environment on the other?

   Imagine the engineering ingenuity  that went into designing a flap-less delta-wing supersonic airliner fit for existing airports. The end result was an aircraft both so streamlined and functional that body-style designers, such as Ferrari, perhaps could not have dreamed of for any vehicle. At high levels of attack on take-off and landing with her drooped nose, she maintained a graceful look, something straight out of an artist’s imagination.

   Most people did not realise also how much engineering know-how had to be applied in order for Concorde to stretch and contract in length as her skin went from low temperatures to high temperatures generated  by Mach 2.2 cruise flight on her wings and fuselage. A civil aviation marvel she was indeed.

   By hubris or not, the magnitude of the Concorde project which, some say, helped usher France and the U.K. into the European Union, reflects the hopes and aspirations of a whole generation. Continents would be linked in less than half the time it takes for subsonic jets to fly the same intercontinental routes.

   The frailty of Concorde can be found in her anachronism. Her splendour was obvious; however, she was born out of older technology, a problem that a number of reputable aeroplanes, such as the DC-3 and the Boeing 707, to name but a few, shared with Concorde, albeit with fewer news coverage of dramatic and fatal signs of aging.

   This airliner was the subject of much attention by both pro-Concorde and anti-Concorde interest groups. A compromise agreement was struck: Concorde would be allowed to overfly populated areas at subsonic speeds only.

   Why would dual flag-carrying airliners such as Concorde be allowed to operate amongst slower jetliners built to recent, more stringent and more efficient aeronautical and environmental standards? Oh yes, I hear: “She was grandfathered in.” If so, should public authorities keep on protecting, from a regulatory perspective, a beautiful aeronautical product from a recent past at the cost of putting lives at risk until other circumstances brought its commercial use to an end?

   How many people would nowadays go for a ride in a hot air balloon built in all respects like the original Montgolfier brother’s (presumably) successful model?

   France and the U.K. had every reason to be jointly proud of Concorde. The problem is neither country knew when to confine the aging supersonic airliner to a museum before disaster struck. Did the the Concorde program change to a prestige-driven venture only? This was likely the case since a number of jet aircraft of an older vintage and no longer allowed to carry paying passengers are still allowed to carry freight. Unfortunately, Concorde did not have a  fall-back commercial niche; flying the Jet Set at premium airfares was its only remaining one.

   When Concorde crashed after her fateful take-off from Roissy, she was technologically decades behind her times by several standards, even if she could cruise twice as fast as modern subsonic  jetliners.

   On a more positive note, Concorde was the first commercial airliner to incorporate sophisticated fly-by-wire technology, a major engineering feat  in the 1960s. Her quadruple Olympus power plant was amongst the most reliable at the time. Unfortunately, Concorde’s complex design made it difficult to incorporate later on engines that were more fuel-efficient, less noisy and more resistant to FOD. 

   The Concorde disaster in Paris has a positive fall-out: the growing opinion that high-speed intercontinental travel should perhaps be carried out above the atmosphere, i.e. with suborbital spacecraft. This approach is supported in part by the major airlines’ reluctance, in today’s economic context, to place orders for new supersonic transport aircraft operated at higher operating costs on a per seat per mile basis. 

   The short to medium solution now being considered and tested is not an improved existing SST concept, but a totally different one: a suborbital spacecraft such as the Virgin Galactic SpaceshipTwo recently unveiled by Virgin Air’s CEO, Sir Richard Branson and by Dick Rutan, a well-known pioneering  expert in composite materials applied to innovative aircraft designs.

  NASA is wise in phasing-out the current space shuttles. In fact, the U.S. space agency had set a life expectancy for its fleet of space shuttles.

   Were the U.K. and France in the process of acting likewise for Concorde when the Paris crash occurred? Civil aviation authorities in both countries may have set a time limit only as a result of Concorde’s unfortunate crash in Paris.

   Having said this, the future looks promising for supersonic intercontinental travel using suborbital trajectories with whatever vehicles will foot the bill in terms of commercial feasibility. For now, suborbital transportation remains far in the offing. Spaceflight bookings confidently accepted at present by Virgin Galactic will no doubt offer space tourists a sensational experience, keeping in mind however their amazing spacecraft will land where it took off from. 

Happy New Year!

   PS: With the underside of their delta wing strengthened after the deadly crash of a Concorde shortly after take-off from Paris-CDG airport in 2000, other Concorde units resumed commercial transatlantic flights under the Air France and British Airways banners. All Concorde units were finally retired in 2003, owing to excessive operating costs to both airlines. Concorde had flown commercially for nearly 30 years with no reported casualties until the most unfortunate Paris crash.  See Wikipedia for further details about the history of Concorde.

Oh, “le grand Charles” would not be pleased at all about this news item if he were still around! He would surely use some of his famous public statements in an attempt to correct CDG Airport’s faltering image, such as: « Vive l’aéroport CDG libre de tout défaut ! » or « Passagers de tous pays, oui, je vous ai compris ! ».  Hmmm… need I translate posthumous statements of such historical significance?   

However, there is no need for alarm here, I believe, regarding CDG airport because what that website says really is that Paris, as a major world destination and the prestigious capital of France, deserves a higher level of service at its main international airport.

The “Guide to Sleeping in Airports” website is by no means scientific. It basically goes along with user reviews.

Whether or not French people are getting a bang for their tax-dollar (keeping in mind that the Aéroports de Paris management group has been privatised in 2005), and airline passengers for the airport user fee, might warrant deeper public debate or study.

It does seem that CDG airport authorities, Aéroports de Paris, might take notice of issues raised in the passenger reviews in order to make significant and yet inexpensive improvements for the benefit of CDG airport users. 

There are cultural factors involved here that are worth mentioning, some of which I have observed myself over the years. I have travelled through France on numerous occasions, sometimes using major airports, mostly driving through by car. I have had very few unpleasant encounters outside Paris. On the contrary, I was consistently charmed by French hospitality in the countryside and smaller cities.

Paris, is another story, with all due respect for “la Ville-Lumière”.  I’ve had minor mishaps with local folks in hotels, restaurants, banks, on the streets and in airports in Paris. Nevertheless, I would go back there anytime, given the right opportunity. Parisians are great people. However, there is a significant proportion of employees – whether from Paris or not – unhappy with their jobs, so it would seem, and they perhaps take it out on travellers and tourists. Some mishaps turned up to be quite funny, and as a visitor’s reward is to go back home with a delightful yarn to spin about a short stay in Paris. 

Not all passenger reviews about CDG Airport will take local culture into account. In other words, there are ways in which Parisians do their job that, say, adds colour to experiencing Paris.

Sticking to civil aviation topics, in 1985, I missed my Orly to Montreal (Mirabel) flight because my return ticket showed my airplane leaving at 7:30.  I took it to mean 7:00 pm, not 7:00 am. When I showed up at the airline check-in counter (the now defunct Nationair charter company), the company rep just laughed saying out loud how stupid a mistake I made and pointed out that my return ticket was now void. No other information was provided; this person had to close her check-in counter right there and then.

Well, I can think of kinder ways of dealing with ‘stupid’ passengers such as myself. I felt briefly both shocked and stranded. My well-wishers had already gone back home by car hundreds of kilometres away. Not a pleasant experience, although three days later I was back home in Canada thanks to a very pleasant Air France flight out of CDG booked by a helpful and compassionate travel agent at a rock-bottom fare.

I have crossed the North Atlantic dozens of times and up until then, and never had a Canada-bound airliner leave that early in the morning. But Nationair was a charter airline. Gate slot assignments are different for charter airlines. Was I supposed to know that fact? Maybe so, given the nature of my profession.

Meanwhile back in Ottawa, my employer at the time, Transport Canada – Civil Aviation, thought I had quit my job because I failed to return to my desk on the due date. When you are on holidays abroad, the last think that comes to mind are government rules on deemed abandonment of position in the federal Public Service. Another lesson learned.

Well, now I can laugh about the whole experience. I did not lose my job but had some explaining to do. What I am not laughing about so much is the fact that more than 20 years later, many Parisians employed to serve tourists and passengers are just as bold with foreigners as ever before. Yesterday, the “Le Monde” newspaper ran an article noting that fewer and fewer recent French high-school graduates are able to converse in English.

Public education, local culture, airport service levels… it all ties in together. Where does one start fixing the problem? Or, is the problem that serious? It could very well be that only airport users with negative experiences make their voices heard. Happy airport users simply go unnoticed.

Do you know where the sweetest airport P.A. voice originated from? Orly airport, in Paris. People call it “la voix d’Orly”. It’s charming and relaxing, and makes going through airports so much more pleasant and conceivably allays the fear of flying for some.