Re: BAe ATP performance

From:         rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date:         27 Jul 93 23:49:43 PDT
References:   1 2
Followups:    1 2 3 4
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1993.531@ohare.Chicago.COM> spagiola@leland.Stanford.EDU writes:
>The two problems are, of course, related to each other: poor market  
>analysis leads to both poor design choices and poor marketing.   
>Another example is the BAe 146; BAe originally thought it would sell  
>primarily on the strength of its small-field performance, to 3rd  
>world countries.  Instead most of its sales have been on the strength  
>of its quietness, to developed country airlines.  BAe thought the  
>small 146-100 would be the most popular model; instead the -100 sold  
>in very small numbers, with the larger -200 taking most of the  
>orders; today most orders tend to be for the even larger -300.

There's another market for the BAe 146 (soon to be the BAe RJ).  That's
service to small downtown airports, based on it's short take off and
landing capability.  London City Airport and Stockholm Bromma come to
mind.  I think it's also capable of using Miegs Field (Chicago) and
Lakefront (Cleveland) but other (non-flight) regulations prohibit this
at the moment (anyone know the details about this).

The decision to allow the 146 to use London City had to be a no-brainer
for the British govt:  it's the only jet that could ever use the airport,
and so opening LCY to the 146 could only stimulate 146 sales.  And it
really is extraordinarily quiet.

British commercial aircraft development has been a farce since the
end of WWII (with certain exceptions, e.g. BAC 1-11, maybe the Viscount).
It's a pity, because some of their aircraft were really quite nice.  I've
always been fond of the VC-10, which I think is one of the most beautiful
post-war aircraft.  The Russians paid it the ultimate compliment by
ripping off the design, wholesale, for the IL-62.