Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Lockheed Martin Commercial Aircraft Programs  
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7966 times:

Whats the reason why Lockheed stopped making commercial passenger jets? Ive never flown on their L1011 aircraft and I guess the only way to fly on one is to go to the middle east.

Is L1011 the only jet that Lockheed ever built or are there other Lockheed pax jet family?


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7935 times:

Well Lockheed did have the Jetstar biz-jet if that counts.

A lot of why Lockheed left commerical aviation was the money they lost on the L-1011 program, roughly 3 million per airframe built.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7927 times:

What I pretty much ment was with revenue pax service with airlines like United, etc etc...

$3 million bux for one L1011?? Interesting......



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7908 times:

The L-1011 was the only one.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7901 times:

How many airframes did Lockheed sell on the L1011 program total?


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineCadmus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2004, 185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7863 times:

Lockheed sold 249 TriStars. They also built one company owned prototype that was broken up for spares in 1986.


Understanding is a three-edged sword
User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7777 times:

$3 million bux for one L1011?? Interesting......

From the way you wrote that, it looks like you were thinking that was the price of the L.1011. That was in fact the loss per L.1011. The price at introduction was closer to $25 million.

Lockheed had a successful turboprop business going when jets first came online. They figured the lower per-unit operating costs of the L-188s would lure airlines to the Electras. Unfortunately, they guessed wrong, excepting Shuttle, which used L-188s for many years, as well as a few other operators of the type who needed a stop-gap aircraft to replace some aging props until smaller jets (like th 727, 737 and DC-9) came online.

Lockheed bowed out of the jet market until PanAm went looking for an ultra-large passenger aircraft, eventually choosing the Boeing 747. Not wanting Boeing to have a monopoly in this market, Pan Am and other airlines including TWA, American and United approached Douglas and Lockheed about building competitor aircraft.

Douglas's initial design put the 747 to shame (in fact, it looked a lot like today's A380!). Due to the production problems at Long Beach and the resulting merger with McDonnel, the design was paired back to the DC-10 we all know and love.

Lockheed developed the L.1011 in much the same way that MDD did: A less expensive, slightly smaller, but capable aircraft with capacity roughly 50% greater than anything else available at the time. Three engines would hopefully make it less expensive to maintain, and the simpler, smaller design was hoped to entice airlines to choose it as a more flexible option over the 747.

Unfortunately for Lockheed, the L.1011 suffered from the same problems that Douglas would suffer from not having a middle-range aircraft after stopping DC-8 production. Since there were no small- or mid-sized Lockheeds to buy, a lot of airlines chose to operate Boeing or MDD aircraft, since they could develop stronger relationships with those companies.

"We're quite happy with these 707s, 727s and 737s we've been flying, and now we're looking at widebodies to augment our regional route system and become a national carrier. We'd like to look at the 747. What kind of deal can you give us?"


The same kind of things go on today.



It's interesting how a decision made in the 1950s (selling the L-188 over a jet aircraft) could affect Lockheed's ability to sell widebodies in the late 1970s and early 1980s.



Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4537 posts, RR: 41
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7673 times:

According to this website, Lockheed lost a total of $2.5 Billion (!) on the L1011 programme, or $10 Million on every airframe produced.

Early development problems, relating to the RB211 engine, all but killed Rolls Royce - they went bankrupt on the 4th of February 1971, and was nationalised by the British government later that month. Lockheed almost had the same fate - they were saved by $250 Million emergency loan guarantee from the Federal Government.

There is no doubt that, technically, the Tristar is a brilliant aircraft. Sadly the programme fell victim to circumstances, including the reliance of RR, an overburdened manufacturer and the high inflation of the time.

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7559 times:

$3 million bux for one L1011?? Interesting......

From the way you wrote that, it looks like you were thinking that was the price of the L.1011. That was in fact the loss per L.1011. The price at introduction was closer to $25 million.


I thought it was $3 mil. for ONE airframe.....my bad!

Its sad to see that Lockheed couldnt compete to this day at all. They could have made more airframes in different sizes.




A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7489 times:

To sum it up, Lockheed made two main mistakes in the commercial airline market....

1. As mentioned above, airlines like commonality and that gives a big advantage to manufactures with a full product line. You can't really go half-assed into the airliner business like Lockheed tried to do with the Electra and later the L1011. You either go all in, or all out, or you will be kicked out. Notice that Airbus did not start succeeding in a big way until they had the A320 series to join the A300 and A310.

2. They guessed wrong about the desirability of turboprops versus jets. If turboprops turned out to be better than pure jets for most applications, Lockheed probably would have had a full product line by the time the L1011 came out. As things really happened, the advantage of pure jets on high altitude and long range routes ensured their dominance. It also didn't hurt that pure jets are mechanically simpler than turboprops, and were even more so at the time of the Electra.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Will Lockheed Produce Another Commercial Aircraft? posted Sun Dec 24 2000 09:31:14 by United Airline
Boeing And Lockheed Martin JV On 737 Replacement? posted Thu Oct 26 2006 22:56:32 by Lumberton
EADS: Exit Daimler Enter Lockheed Martin? posted Tue Oct 17 2006 21:48:25 by Iwok
What If LM Produced Commercial Aircraft posted Mon Sep 18 2006 05:27:39 by KSUpilot
Can You Track Commercial Aircraft Movements? posted Wed Apr 12 2006 16:20:27 by Avi8tir
Commercial Aircraft Wreckage Remains posted Fri Feb 3 2006 18:31:02 by Markdirk
Chicago Air Show - No Commercial Aircraft - Why? posted Fri Aug 19 2005 23:41:09 by United787
Websites To Buy Commercial Aircraft? posted Fri Jun 17 2005 17:48:20 by Dirkou
Boeing Commercial Aircraft Strategy posted Wed May 4 2005 04:53:00 by Monteycarlos
Insurance And Commercial Aircraft? posted Wed Jan 19 2005 17:10:33 by ArmitageShanks
Will Lockheed Produce Another Commercial Aircraft? posted Sun Dec 24 2000 09:31:14 by United Airline
Bolivia Will Limit Age Of Commercial Aircraft posted Fri Feb 19 2010 08:07:00 by 123
China Unveils Its Commercial Aircraft - Comac C919 posted Mon Sep 7 2009 03:36:12 by Aviationbuff
LHR - Smallest Commercial Aircraft? posted Tue Jan 20 2009 02:14:39 by GayrugbyMAN
Chicago Air & Water Show - Commercial Aircraft? posted Wed Aug 13 2008 15:18:22 by United787
Values Of Used Commercial Aircraft - Where To Find posted Thu May 15 2008 04:14:49 by LaoLao
Commercial Aircraft List Prices posted Tue Nov 27 2007 03:31:20 by Planesailing
Last Russian Commercial Aircraft Launched? posted Wed Sep 19 2007 11:50:07 by Trevidic
Price TAG On Used Commercial Aircraft posted Mon Sep 3 2007 16:32:25 by BOAT
Commercial Aircraft At Air Shows posted Mon Sep 3 2007 15:55:25 by Mats