Re: Other Lockheed commercial passenger jets than the L1011 ?

From:         rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date:         22 Oct 93 01:05:17 PDT
References:   1 2 3 4
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1993.659@ohare.Chicago.COM>, kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes:
|> 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.

You must mean "no one built the right aircraft", or something similar.

|> 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.

In fact McD-D had plans to build the DC-10 as a twin, but didn't think it
had the prestige of the L1011.

There was an excellent article on just this topic, in, of all places,
the New Yorker, sometime during the last 5-10 years.  It's one of those
patented New Yorker articles that goes on for pages and pages and tells
you absolutely everything you ever wanted to know about the subject.
McD-D's decision, in combination with Lockheed's decision to only support
RR engines on the L1011, has to be one of the worst things that ever
happened to the commercial aircraft industry.