From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works
Date: 19 Oct 93 12:49:46 PDT
References: 1 2 3
Followups: 1
View raw article
or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1993.656@ohare.Chicago.COM> rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft) writes:>One other major reason why the L1011 was a commercial failure: The bankruptcy
>of Rolls Royce just as Lockheed was about to make its first deliveries.
The Rolls-Royce (and subsequent Lockheed) bankruptcy came well after
most of the major airlines had made their commitments, so its hard to
see how it had much effect on sales. The effect on profits was un-
deniably bad, but a poor second-place in sales is what really killed
the L-1011.
>The L1011 only ever flew with RR engines
Right, and that rather directly led to both aircraft being built --
United wanted the L-1011, but with GE engines because they didn't
think Rolls-Royce could deliver. (Correctly, as it turned out.) At
that time, McDonnell Douglas only had American's order, while Lockheed
had Eastern, TWA and Delta. I believe Lockheed also had some European
orders at that time. They felt they were in a good enough position to
dictate the engine choice. Had United agreed, the DC-10 would have
been cancelled. Had Lockheed hung GE engines on the L-1011 for United
the DC-10 would have been cancelled. But history chose a different
path.
>At least one airline had to get DC10s as a stop gap to cover prior
>orders, and of course that made it harder to get subsequent orders.
>(The airline in question was Delta...).
You just nullified your own argument -- Delta went on to acquire the
largest L-1011 fleet in the world, buying them right up to the end of
production and, in the used market, beyond. It's pretty hard to see
how their five short-term DC-10s affected subsequent orders!
--
Karl Swartz |INet kls@ditka.chicago.com
1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls
|Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA
Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com
