Reply With Quotereally good actually. I always wonder with adverts like these though how much they cost to produce? Must be many thousands... Let alone the cost of actually showing them on TV.
Anyone seen their new commercial yet ?..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4JdQi60an0
Very nicely done I think.
B.
really good actually. I always wonder with adverts like these though how much they cost to produce? Must be many thousands... Let alone the cost of actually showing them on TV.
Saw that earlier, was very good.
Think there was a similer one for Virgin Airways a while back showing things through the decades, was quite good as well, people buying cassette tapes in Our Price :lol:
Someone really needs to make a new Concorde 8)
Can't believe no-one has taken up the challenge by now, a huge step backwards in aviation...
The fact that people are talking about it on here make it money well spent!Originally Posted by TGilly
A proper "British" advert. So much nicer than all those re-edited American ones.
And at 1:01, a nice plug for our sponsor. :bounce:
Edit: and this video gives the background to the planes seen in the advert.
You make a very good point sir. But for me don't think it will make me fly BA over any other airline. I usually just pick the cheapest option at the time.
So in that sense, there not going to make anymore from me!
You make a very good point sir. But for me don't think it will make me fly BA over any other airline. I usually just pick the cheapest option at the time.
So in that sense, there not going to make anymore from me!
Maybe they are not going for the cheap vote, seems to be an exercise in making them seem worth the extra £ as a premium British brand with some history, IMO
Very pretty I'm sure but they didn't mention anything about why they keep losing my luggage :x
Sorry for being cynical but I'm afraid BA are up there with RBS and BT, companies that spend more time and money painting pretty pictures than sorting things out when they deliver poor customer service.
bah humbug
grant
Having just been caught out by a silly BA policy of them cancelling a return flight as we didn't manage to catch an outward flight they are well and truly off my favourites list...
Good advert but I was not impressed with BA when I last flew with them or Virgin for that matter.
Read in the paper today that it cost £20 million, it was done by the BBH group.
Also read that the BA logo was photoshopped onto another plane but the unique serial number was left alone and some eagle eyed plane spotters noticed that the "BA" plane had Virgin Atlantic markings on it(£20 million :lol: )
I bet they came in their pants when they spotted that.Read in the paper today that it cost £20 million, it was done by the BBH group.
Also read that the BA logo was photoshopped onto another plane but the unique serial number was left alone and some eagle eyed plane spotters noticed that the "BA" plane had Virgin Atlantic markings on it
Must have taken several viewings to notice it, with their trousers around their ankles and whatnot. I always thought that people must have better things to do but no, no it appears they don't ;).
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
They wouldn't; ultimately it's the airport operator that did that. The ad is for BA, not BAA!
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
What's the pilot wearing at 1:14 ?
z
Good advert.
I'm sure their militant cabin crew & baggage handlers will make a meal of the cost, come the next round of pay talks though.
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
Saw it on the TV and thought it was nicely put together
Very good advert... they need something to help reinvigourate their tired brand...
Problem is in this day and age it's all about price competitiveness provided rather than service provided.
Ask any CFO today and chances are the corporate business travel policy will be "cheapest possible option" as more companies tighten their belts .... the only place that won't apply is at senior executive level
For personal travel ... again travellers are becoming more budget concious as very few people now have the readies to fork out for Business class or first class unless it's a special occasion
Nice ad, I like it.
mates a BA captain on 747-400- top bloke and rightly proud of the ad.
Fantastic ad! 8)
Beautifully done. With I could have flown on Concorde. :(
Enjoyed that. 8)
Have a look at the 'making of...' video that's linked from the advert page.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Great advert! Really enjoyed it like watching a mini movie.
What a brilliant advert for BA. Does exactly what a great ad should - promotes the brand, makes the public sit up and notice again and makes the employees proud at last.
Soul-stirring is the word and brings a tear to the eye! :)
Probably. Mindless trots. I bet Qantas will have to do something similar - this year it's taken the pounding of its life. Odds on something to do with Skippy, the bush and a bloke in a corked hat? :D
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
...and a few shark-attacks. :DProbably. Mindless trots. I bet Qantas will have to do something similar - this year it's taken the pounding of its life. Odds on something to do with Skippy, the bush and a bloke in a corked hat? :D
I am sure they would be delighted to learn how closely people attended to the ad, had to giggle at the plug :lol: :lol:A proper "British" advert. So much nicer than all those re-edited American ones.
And at 1:01, a nice plug for our sponsor. :bounce:
Edit: and this video gives the background to the planes seen in the advert.
I am taking the figure of 20m with a pinch of salt, surely they wouldn't have spent that much given how much they have been loosing these last few years. It was not that long ago they were talking of going bankrupt.
Their marketing budget is £400 million, PA.
That was good. Been better had they shown a more modern plane than a 744 though.
Probably not much as part of their overall spend.
Proctor and Gamble spends £150 million pounds a month on advertising.
Paul
Did anyone hear someone putting a call out for a Speedbird I?
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
Yep! :) 'Speedbird 1' was the call-sign for the first Concorde, I believe.
As I said - soul stirring!! :mrgreen:
I thought it was a really naff advert that pitched for the heritage appeal but just came across as a rather amateu advert. The voice over was terrible.
Two major reasons:
1) Noise. The FAA, USAF and NASA conducted a test program of supersonic overflights of a major city for six months in 1964. Eight overflights per day at the expected overpressure levels expected of an SST. At first the noise was accepted, but after a few weeks, opposition mounted and eventually caused the test to end early. But, the tests had proved people weren't going to put up with regular supersonic overflights....
Because of this, the Concorde was restricted to subsonic flight until well over the Atlantic. This made the take-off and climb-out and descent and landing portions of the flight almost as long as the actual supersonic cruise portion....
Also, the after-burning pure jet engines were much noisier than the high-bypass turbo fan engines of other commercial (modern) transports, so much so the engine throttle setting during climb-out from JFK were governed by noise abatement not fuel efficiency. They had to reduced power over the more populated areas....
2) Economics. After-burning turbojets (and even after-burning low bypass turbo-fan, which a new SST would surely use) are thirsty things. Nowadays, fuel cost are a big chunk of an aircraft's operational budget. Several airlines are retiring relatively low hour Boeing 737s for brand new Airbuses simply because the Airbuses have slightly lower fuel consumption. A modern high bypass subsonic transport uses about 2/3 the fuel to go the same distance under ideal conditions, but carry three to four time the number of paying passengers.
However, due to the noise abatement requirements the Concorde could never actually fly from point A to point B under maximum fuel efficient conditions. A supersonic transport would have to spend long periods in subsonic flight (and depending on the engine noise use inefficient throttle scheduling during climb-out and descent), which means the design would be very inefficient in supersonic flight, or very complicated in order to achieve efficiency in both sub- and supersonic flight.
It is unlikely that anyone would be willing to foot the development cost of something that starts out as an extremely expensive aircraft to develop and operate and the has such a restricted route.
The noise problem was, to some extent, reduced with the Shaped Sonic Boom Demonstration. It managed to reduce the noise by about 1/3, but that may or may not be enough, depends on the actual perceived noise level on the ground is.
The fuel consumption problem is, as of yet, still unresolved....
I read a short book on the history of Concorde many moons ago, from memory it was written by an ex-pilot or project engineer. So either well informed or intrinsically biased. From what I recall, his viewpoint was that the Americans were caught napping when Concorde was released, and feared their own enormous commercial aviation industry was about to be left behind in it's wake. They needed a way to stop or delay the commercial success of the European aircraft, until they had their own supersonic competitor. This never materialised, though they tried, but the oil-shock and the newly found interest in noise ( :wink: ) over JFK was enough of a headwind to permanently doom Concorde.
Paul
Bloody Yanks! They couldn't develop their own version so they got Concorde canned by whinging about the noise it made. Sneaky, devious little gits!! :D
The US aircraft industry was so much napping, but the failure of the US SST program was due to over-confidence, program mismanagement and government interference and some hysteria on noise. The development of the SST program in the US was quite different from say the Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8. The normal development of commercial aircraft (such as the DC-8 and 707) was the industry would provide the development money and hope to make it up in the sales price of the aircraft. Due to the projected high cost of the SST development, the FAA underwrote the development much in the manner of the military procurement. However, the FAA had neither the experience with procurement, nor the technical expertise to manage such a big contract efficiently. The design was allowed to creep and the required size grew from 100 to 150 seats to 250 to 300 seats. By 1967 a Boeing design was chosen as the winner of the competition. It would have been a massive wide body with 2-3-2 seating, wider than most sub-sonic transport in service, with variable geometry wings and a conventional tail.
It is at this time that the noise pollution and environmental activists started to actively oppose the SST development. Some complaints and concerns were justified, such as the sonic booms as was demonstrated over Oklahoma City on Operation Bongo II; and some were just silly, unverified speculation, such as the projection that 500 SSTs flying at 65,000 feet would double the water vapor content in the upper atmosphere and cause global temperatures to rise, or the claim that sonic booms caused birth defects.
By 1970, Federal spending was on the rise and there was a large movement in Congress to limit spending and the SST program was an obvious choice as it was viewed as the American public subsidizing Boeing (which it was to an extent). Boeing’s SST design was suffering from weight problems due to the swing wings and needed a major redesign to solve this problem, which entailed more funding.
In 1971 Federal funding was cut and the US SST died unborn.
The closure of JFK to the Concorde was never an attempt at “if we can’t have it, no one will”, but merely an extension of the anti-noise movement that was rapidly overtaking the communities that had sprung up around airports, and the hysteria that had grown around the Oklahoma City boom tests. Older 707s, DC-8s and 727 were also required to fit hush-kits or be re-engined with newer, quieter engines in order to continue to operate in most airports in the US. There were a number of other countries that banned supersonic over flights due to noise concerns, India being one.
At subsonic speeds concorde was still very very loud.
I grew up in the Highlands getting buzzed by fast jets all day, but none sounded like the first time I heard concorde.
It's no wonder it was restricted.
Damn shame, I would have loved a flight in the thing. Beautiful.
Posting Permissions
