Re: Concorde parts

bub wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 05:33:26 GMT, Nick C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > Of junk.
>
>
> Huh?   Junk?   Wow, a part of an airliner
> that flew at Mach II, that only had one
> fatal accident during it's entire lifetime.
> It's junk?  Well yes, to me and you it's 
> probably junk.  But it could be a motivator
> to the new owner.  About how a company
> or country could market such a high priced
> service for such a long time.  
>
> heheheh
>
> Walt

Junk, by any other name would still be junk. Now if the bidder would 
have bought the entire aircraft, that would be considered an historical 
preservation of an aviation milestone. As it stands now, IMO, all those 
who bid on the aircraft's bits and pieces bought junk; with one 
exception. Whoever bought the ships clock at least bought something 
useful, though greatly overpriced.

Nick