faro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1489 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 25420 times:
I know that such information is often confidential but how about compiling a list of those airliners which, to the best of our knowledge, most likely never broke even or -a more contentious proposition- most likely will never break even.
Besides the obvious ones like the Concorde, Mercure, C880/990 and the like there are many doubtful or borderline cases:
Likewise, taking into account anticipated penalty payments, special discounts to disgruntled clients, etc, what about the 787? Finally, to what extent should the A380 be taken into consideration in this discussion? How likely are the chances that it will never break even:
Navigator From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1101 posts, RR: 15 Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 25413 times:
Quoting faro (Thread starter): I know that such information is often confidential but how about compiling a list of those airliners which, to the best of our knowledge, most likely never broke even or -a more contentious proposition- most likely will never break even.
Do you refer to break even for the manufacturer, the society as a whole or an airline? Depending on what you look at you get very different financial views.
Thorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 25183 times:
Did the A340-500/600 actually ever break even? I remember reading about development costs of $ 3 billion (without the HGW version). They sold only 144 and I remember reading they sold them at around $ 100 million per plane, despite a list price of $ 200 million. Doesn't mean that much per plane for R&D expenses.
When you consider the L1011 only had 250 copies made, took Rolls Royce into Bankruptcy and as Scouseflyer mentioned stole sales from the DC10, I think the word successful does not really apply.
Please do not take this comment the wrong way, personally speaking my two favourite aircraft are the DC10 and L1011, but when you look at the sales figures (for both of them being honest) I do not think anyone could call either of the two aircraft a big success. Please bear in mind that I am ignoring sales made to USAF for KC10's.
I am mindful of the history the L1011 had with various carriers which made good use of the frames (especially UL/DL/BA) and I am sure that without the Aircraft certain Airlines would have a different look now.
How can the 747SP be a looser ? Boeing sold 47 SP's. It was always meant to be a niche derivative, and lots of research and development for teh SP let full size 747-200 and -400 achieve what they achieved. Without an SP they would have not been nonstop from JFK to NRT by a 742 in the early 1980's.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8270 posts, RR: 26 Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 24688 times:
Anything that has been build in Europe prior to the invenmtion of Airbus did not break even with possibly the noteable exception of the Vickers Viscount. Not yet mentioned but no winners either the Caravelle and the Bac 1-11
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4302 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 24562 times:
I think it makes no sense to add sub-types into a list, or at least they need a special category - it may be they alone never made it, but could attract costumors to the other sub types. Example: A318 was the first Airbus ordered by BA, and while they never were delivered as 318s, but as 319s and 320s, they opened BA as a costumor for Airbus,narrow bodies,.
I expect 787 and a380 both to break even on the long run, but agree that long means long. Did the DC10 brerak even, and the MD11? MD 90? B717?
A345/6 we know didn't, they were strategical decisions to fill the gap above the A343 until the real thing arrived.
Quoting art (Reply 11): Vickers Vanguard? Big brother to the successful Viscount, it was introduced just as everyone was moving on to jets. Sold 43 in total IIRC.
Another a/c, like the Electra & CL-44, that came too late. Vanguard suffered from stall problems in initial flight test, and the Tyne engines were problematic during development which put it back quite a lot (also the CL-44).
Quoting rampart (Reply 17): Quoting PanHAM (Reply 16):
Not yet mentioned but no winners either the Caravelle and the Bac 1-11
I always read that the 1-11 and Caravelle were sales successes. 1-11 was said to be the most successful airliner export since the Viscount.
I'd have to think that Caravelle, with about 285 sales, and 1-11, I believe over 400, at least broke even.
adam42185 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 407 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 24309 times:
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 19): Although I think on an operational basis, Concorde more than broke even
I could be wrong so someone more in the know feel free to correct me, but I thought the operating and mx costs of the concorde made it too expensive to operate and it never actually made any money regardless of high ticket prices, but in fact lost money, even when fully booked -- that the reason the concorde flew for so long was simply because it was a symbol of prestige for AF and BA.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6473 posts, RR: 41 Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 24270 times:
If you look at total history, the number of airliners that never broke even likely exceeds by a wide margin those that did. Comparatively few really made money, and most of them were built by Boeing. Prior to the jet age the only manufacturer to make real money building airliners was Douglas.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8270 posts, RR: 26 Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 24216 times:
Forget about the Russian types, commercial success never was meant to be. The BAADE 152 was a prestige object that never came across the prototype stage. Even if it would have been technically viable, it would never have been successful for a potential operator and certainly not for the manufacturer.