Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?)

From:         Don.Stokes@vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes)
Organization: Victoria University of Wellington
Date:         23 Aug 96 13:45:02 
References:   1 2 3 4
Followups:    1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1996.1680@ohare.chicago.com>,
C. Marin Faure <faurecm@halcyon.com> wrote:
>Of course, the SST never materialized, so the 747 continued in its very
>successful role as a passenger carrier, but that was not the intention.
>If the SST HAD been put into production, you would not see any 747s in
>passenger service today, assuming Juan Tripp's plan had continued through
>to fruition.

Actually, the SST got axed at least partly because it wasn't going to be
as useful as subsonic airliners simply due to the sonic boom problem.
That problem wasn't one that could be made to go away by throwing more
money at it.

Even if the SST had survived, the huge drop in seat-mile costs that came
with the 747 (and other widebodies) would have meant there was always a
market for cheap subsonic travel.  I doubt any SST with the equivalent
capacity of a 707 could come close to a 747 when looking at raw seat-mile
numbers, and practical experience with Concorde tends to bear this out.

--
Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) +64 4 495-5052 Fax+64 4 471-5386