Re: Other Lockheed commercial passenger jets than the L1011 ?

From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works
Date:         19 Oct 93 12:49:48 PDT
References:   1 2 3
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1993.657@ohare.Chicago.COM> (James R Ebright) writes:>>Furthermore, their battle paved the way for Airbus to
>>enter the market.

>I don't understand the above conclusion.  The widebody market at the
>time just wouldn't support three vendors and I am sure all three suffered.

The widebody market could easily have supported three vendors, unless
you want to discount the 747 as being far too big for the market at
the time.  The problem is that everyone built the wrong plane -- a
widebody twin.  McDonnell Douglas should have let Lockheed have the
trijet market and built the A300.  Lockheed was looking forward to a
TwinStar derivative of the TriStar (L-1011) but with the failure of
the L-1011 it never had a chance.  So, Airbus built the right plane.
Their early problems were mainly AirWho? problems rather than market
demand for such an aircraft.

>How does this effect the entry of Airbus?


>Or is the point the three original vendors were so weakened by their
>battle that the later entry of Airbus was possible because the two
>suvirvors could not commercially raise the resources to compete?

Boeing, through luck as much as anything else, managed to stay above
the problems.  But McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed did serious damage
to each other, effectively eliminating both as serious competitors in
the market.  Lockheed is obvious -- they're gone.  MacDAC is perhaps
less obvious, but they are very weak in many areas.  Financially, many
analysts have felt they've been near the brink for a long time.  Their
product range (in terms of commercial airliners) is weak, too -- the
DC-10 was their last new aircraft, and in addition to a rather old
lineup they have some serious gaps.

With Lockheed gone and MacDAC reeling, Boeing was left without any
serious competition.  Airbus could have sold to the Europeans on its
own, but would have had a difficult time in the U.S., which was (and
is) a critical market, if they had two U.S. competitors.  With only
Boeing as a serious contender, the airlines desire for competition
amongst airframe vendors gave Airbus the chance they needed.

Karl Swartz	|INet		
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