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

From:         Don.Stokes@vuw.ac.nz (Don Stokes)
Organization: Victoria University of Wellington
Date:         17 Sep 96 02:24:41 
References:   1 2 3 4
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1996.1864@ohare.chicago.com>,
Michael Leahy  <leahy@panam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Pan Am did not drop the Concorde orders quietly but like all other
>airlines that had ordered the aircraft (except the British and French
>state airlines) they cancelled when,after the Arab Israeli War in 1973,
>the Arab countries imposed a ban on oil exports to the USA and the
>price of oil shot up through the roof. The already uncertain economics
>of Concorde now became very uneconomic.

Pan Am's options on Concorde expired in January 1973.  BAC tried to
persuade Pan Am to extend their options, knowing that because of the
heavy investment in 747s, Pan Am couldn't afford to buy the aircraft at
that time, even if they wanted to.  However Pan Am chose not to renew
their options, as did most other airlines who had taken options in the
60s before problems of supersonic travel had been made apparent.  (BA and
Air France had already ordered.)  Qantas and JAL extended their options,
but these too were never turned into sales.

I wonder if Pan Am's decision not to extend its options would have been
different had Trippe still been at the helm, or whether wiser heads would
have prevailed.  (Trippe retired as president of Pan Am in May 1968, but
stayed on keeping a hand on the tiller for some years afterward.)

>As an aside, Charles Lindbergh, who had at last become a director of
>Pan Am was against supersonics on both enviromental and economic
>grounds.

--
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