Re: ATR-72's and Airbuses

Date:         23 Dec 96 22:48:02 
From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>> simply, if a product rating 5/10 (a pass) can sell without competition to
>> bring the orders (and money) in, then why bother building something a lot
>> better.

Competition doesn't necessarily produce a better product -- look at
the DC-10, for example, which was built under fierce competion from
the L-1011.  Despite that, the DC-10 is widely regarded as inferior
to the L-1011 (not to mention the 747 and A300).

>A "responsible" manufacturer should always design and build the best
>possible product with the given market conditions.

Does that imply that McDonnell Douglas was irresponsible?

>IMHO, the B747 which does not have any competitor (till now) is probably
>a far superior product than the DC-10/MD-11.

Yet Lockheed, driven more by engineering considerations than marketing,
built a plane which many considered unmatched technically until Boeing
produced the 767, and even that might only be an equal to the decade-
older L-1011.

(Engineering over marketing also killed Lockheed.  Had they been
willing to accept the technically inferior GE CF-6 engine in addition
to the RB.211, United apparently would have bought the L-1011 and the
DC-10 would have died.  Lockheed would still have had problems because
of the RB.211's teething problems, but without the DC-10 to kick them
while they were down, the L-1011 program wouldn't have died an early
demise.  McDonnell Douglas might have gone on to produce what instead
became the A300.)

--
Karl Swartz	|Home	kls@chicago.com
		|Work	kls@netapp.com
		|WWW	http://www.chicago.com/~kls/
Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills