Re: Subsidies ...

From:         M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings)
Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP
Date:         30 Mar 96 16:01:08 
References:   1 2 3 4
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1996.417@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
Russell K Ching <rching@saclink1.csus.edu> wrote:
>Andrew Sapuntzakis (andrewsa@comm.mot.com) wrote:
>: In addition to 707 production depending on the KC135, one source
>: (which I can dig up) I have read claims the DC-10 did not have enough
>: (commercial) orders to justify production until the U.S. gov't
>: stepped in with a request for the KC-10.
>
>I don't think so.  The KC-10 went into operation in 1980, about 10 years
>after the first production DC-10 went into service.  Yes, the USAF is the
>largest operator of DC-10s (at 60), but (no) they didn't save the project.
>BTW, the DC-10 was selected from a pool of candidates which included the
>747, 767 and (possibly to my recollection) the L1011.  I'd be interested
>to see your source, though.
>
	They probably did have something to do with MD being
able to launch the MD-11, however. KC-10 production allowed
the DC-10 production line to stay open until the launch of the
MD-11, something that likely would not have been possible otherwise.
Of course, you can argue whether or not this was actually beneficial
to MD.

	Michael.
--
Michael Jennings
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
The University of Cambridge.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/mjj12   mjj12@amtp.cam.ac.uk

"Much of what passes for quality on British television is no
more than a reflection of the values of the narrow elite which
controls it and which has always thought that its tastes are
synonymous with quality" - Rupert Murdoch