Just like it's just 747, BAC One-Eleven, Caravelle, etc. If it's "the BAC One-Eleven" and "the Sud Aviation Caravelle", but just "Concorde", then dropping the "the" in front of the Concorde is an affectation, an affectation that the French do not have.

I wish to fly One-Eleven one day.

"Human Factors in the Concord"; a published in the UK in 1967.

I was being sarcastic earlier.

I would say "a 747", "the 747", etc...

No one says "I flew 747 on my last flight to Tokyo..."

Actually, no, it's not... after the joint decision was made to spell the name with an "e", it was also jointly decided between the airlines to utilize that name as a title. You'll very rarely catch anything official from AF or post-1985 BA referring to Concorde utilizing "the".

I like the night takeoff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m3d79pepow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVtRMQxJejc

Sorry, but far too many people would make the same complaint with plenty of vitriol and without any hint of sarcasm.

Not even the people who would have said "I flew Concorde..." would say "I flew 747." Is that because "Concorde", like "BA First", refers to the class of service, and not the aircraft? What's so special about [the?] aircraft project that it is so different from all others, including all other British and French aircraft?

It's interesting that BAC and Aerospatiale had such power over rules of English grammar (if such things exist). Also, note that the Brits and French are not in concord regarding this issue; the French, when speaking their governmentally regulated language, use the definite article when referring to the aircraft in question.

Does Boeing have the power to declare that its new aircraft shall not be preceded by the definite article "the"; that the correct terminology will hence forth be "Flying 787"? Does Airbus have the power to make the statement "The A380 was plagued by wiring problems." grammatically incorrect?

When you fly Concorde, do you fly on all of it, or just 1/20th of Concorde?

Seriously; what's the origin of this affectation, and were the French involved in any way? If it's not an affectation, but a legitimate application of grammatical rules (UK or other versions of Engish), how so?

...even more droll that some struggle to grasp the simple concept of a longstanding tradition, due to nothing more than it not being flawless in its grammatical application.

The New York Times has always called it "the Concorde" in text, but may abbreviate to "Concorde" in headlines.

Headline example, October 20, 1963:

C.A.B. Head Assays Supersonics And Finds the Prospects Gloomy; Tells Senators Concorde is 'a Loser' and Warns That American Airlines Probably Will Fail to Profit From New Planes

Text example, January 30, 1964:

The Concorde is the supersonic airliner being built jointly by the British and the French.

In this article, both headline and text, November 13, 1977:

Aloft at Mach 2, a Critic Rides and Rates the Concorde; Riding and Rating the Concorde

Before I begin this diary of a flight on the Concorde, I must, as an obedient child of the 1960's, explain why I decided to do such a dastardly thing in the first place.

I think I've seen this before.

And I'm still wondering what's funnier - the nerds who had the "Concorde on t'aime" sign printed, or the one who put the whole thing into a music video.

I wish I had had a chance to fly on Concorde, or for a r/t, additional Concorde.

What's the origin of the tradition?

It originated in Britain and is copied by people in other countries for unknown reasons.

Apple does the same thing:

• "Apple Reinvents the Phone with iPhone"
• "Getting Started with iPhone"
• "Do more with iPhone"

Whether your a fan boi of Apple or Concorde, I think you get a little schwing! in either case.

I once had a chance to fly Concorde on a return trip for an upgrade price of a few hundred dollars. I turned it down. I sort of regret that but I had been supersonic before several times while working for the military as a contractor on the F-4 and F-15.

Another thing I think is sad is there never was a formation flight of Concorde and an SR-71.

Don't believe it's ever done formation with any aircraft in the US armed forces... but has done so plenty of times with the Red Arrows, et al in Europe.

So replace SR-71 with A-12. Of course that would require time travel (AFAIK the last A-12 flight was before any of Concorde took to the skies.

Indeed, A12 last flew in '68, Concorde first flew in '69.