Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airliners That Never Broke Even  
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1533 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 26455 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:

- Trident & VC-10 series;
- Tristar;
- 747SP;
- Etc.

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:

A380 Break Even In 2014/2015 (by rheinwaldner Nov 30 2010 in Civil Aviation)


Faro


The chalice not my son
129 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNavigator From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1172 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 26448 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.



747-400/747-200/L1011/DC-10/DC-9/DC-8/MD-80/MD90/A340/A330/A300/A310/A321/A320/A319/767/757/737/727/HS-121/CV990/CV440/S
User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 26383 times:

Wasn't the Tristar quite successful ?


The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2473 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 26305 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The L-188, and L-1649A come to mind.


"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3373 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 26292 times:

Quoting KFlyer (Reply 3):
Wasn't the Tristar quite successful ?

I don't know how true it is but I have heard it said that the Tristar and DC10 stole sales of each other so that neither of them really made any money.


User currently offlineThorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 26218 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.

User currently onlinedc10bhx From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 26188 times:

Quoting KFlyer (Reply 3):
Wasn't the Tristar quite successful ?

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.



I'm lucky my job is my hobby
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2968 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 26072 times:

Would anyone consider the MD-11 as successful? If the Tristar made only 50 more sales than the MD-11, surely this one also never made it.


"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineridgid727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 26032 times:

The Convair 880 and Convair 990 produced huge losses for Genral Dynamics. The 880 only sold around 65 craft, and the 990 37 for a total of 102 frames for both.

User currently offline1stfl94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 26021 times:

How about the 717? Boeing must have inherited much of the R&D when they took over McDonnell Douglas but the sales were never that high, especially losing the orders from TWA and Impulse

User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 25979 times:

Vickers Vanguard? Big brother to the successful Viscount, it was introduced just as everyone was moving on to jets. Sold 43 in total IIRC.

User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3733 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 25983 times:

The A318 and B737-600, if we include variant developments. But the success of their siblings more than makes up for the shortfall...

I know they're still in the showrooms, but I doubt the An-140 and Il-114 will rack up many more sales. They're likely part of that list too.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2473 posts, RR: 23
Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 25882 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting art (Reply 11):
Vickers Vanguard

Yes, and the CL-44, Bristol Britannia .

I am also thinking the DC-8 struggled along. Can't recall if Doug ever broke even on them.

Many different "old-timers" like the Avro Tudor, the Hermes, Ambassador, etc.

I think a lot of the ones who couldn't break-even had a lot to do with market changes or unk-unks with airframe or engines.



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlinemetjetceo From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 411 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 25748 times:

Definitely the Dassault Mercure . It looked just like the 737 and I think only 10 were made/operated by Air Inter.

[Edited 2010-12-02 05:05:19]

User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8269 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 25734 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
Trident & VC-10 series;
- Tristar;
- 747SP;
- Etc.

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.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9141 posts, RR: 29
Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 25723 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


E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 25678 times:

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.

-Rampart


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4383 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 25597 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.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 25488 times:

Fokker-VFW 614
Baade BB.152 (although cost accounting in the former DDR might indicate otherwise, somehow)
CASA Azor
Douglas DC-5

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
Besides the obvious ones like the Concorde, Mercure, C880/990 and the like there are many doubtful or borderline cases:

Although I think on an operational basis, Concorde more than broke even. On a program basis, no way. But it was Europe's Apollo program in many respects.

Quoting KFlyer (Reply 3):
Wasn't the Tristar quite successful ?

Technically, yes. Accounting, no.

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.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9141 posts, RR: 29
Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 25447 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 17):
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.

which does not mean that they actually made money on the 1-11. 242 BAC 1-11 and 284 Caravelles , each in various sub-types, cannot have been a financial success.

BTW - no one mentioned the Concorde by name yet. AF even never made a profit on operating theirs, although they did not have to pay for the asset, same as BA.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2010 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 25387 times:

Various props are propable candidates

BAe ATP
SAAB 2000?
Dornier 328 (never mind the jet variant)

A whole generation of Russian/Soviet aircraft, some of which never made it into service
IL-96
Tu 204
IL-114
Tu 334

Finally, I imagine the MD90 must have been borderline successful as well...



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineadam42185 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 413 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 25344 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.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6812 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 25305 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
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9141 posts, RR: 29
Reply 23, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 25251 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.


E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 838 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 25430 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 20):
BTW - no one mentioned the Concorde by name yet. AF even never made a profit on operating theirs, although they did not have to pay for the asset, same as BA.

I was sure that they both paid full price for the initial frames, it was the later "spare" ones which they were allowed to purchase for £1 and 1F each.

As for the topic. Are we talking about sub types? If so then then I wouldnt have thought the A318 made back its investment, Or the 737-600, 767-400 and 757-300.


25 Slinky09 : Concorde for BA was a great money spinner - but only after BA realized how much they really could charge for a ticket. So in operation, and for some
26 PanHAM : for the French and British tax payers rather......
27 art : Indeed. The story is that when it was dicovered most(?) Concorde passengers were unaware of the price of their seat, prices were raised to make opera
28 KFlyer : scouseflyer, dc10bhx you might be correct. I think it's because I was used to see many UL L1011s. How about the E-JETs ? Have they broken even ( on E1
29 beechnut : It's hard to tell with niche airliners like the 747SP and the A340. Both shared the line with more "successful" variants. The SP was basically a trunc
30 Post contains images solnabo : . We got B747-400ER that sold 6 frames to Qantas while the Freighter version sold like hot cakes. //Mike [Edited 2010-12-02 07:55:43]
31 bohica : Jetstream 41. Only 100 were built. I don't think BAE made any money on it.
32 KGRB : Is that a typo, or do you really mean to say 'DC-8'? A production run of 556 over the course of 24 years surely broke even. On the other hand, there'
33 474218 : Sure if you consider a $2B loss successful. But yes operationally it was a success but financially for Lockheed it was a disaster.
34 yankeejuliet : Hello all, The Fokker-vfw614 was a big loser as only 10 were built.
35 Post contains links and images N14AZ : I cannot prove it with financial numbers but I have the slight feeling that these airliners did not break even: View Large View MediumPhoto © Andy Ma
36 FX1816 : I agree with you, there is NO way the DC-8 didn't break even but I think you meant a 14 year production run, 1958-1972. FX1816
37 WA707atMSP : "The Sporty Game" by John Newhouse, says the DC-8 lost money. It could have turned a profit if McDonnell Douglas had kept it in production past 1972,
38 MEA-707 : 20-40 years ago huge production runs like the 737 and A-320 were unheard of, apart from the major Boeing and DC products, most factories, especially
39 faro : Amazing to lose money with a 556 frame production run. It may be high-glamour but building airliners is also a very high-risk business... Faro
40 mariner : That's probably true, although I think a case can possibly be made for the BAC-111 and the Caravelle. The original breakeven number for the A380 was
41 bmacleod : MD-11 - didn't broke even or just barely. 747SP - failure Tristar - might have broken even thanks to big DL and Eastern orders. Wasn't AC one of the l
42 odafz : The fokker F27, the HS 748, the SAAB340 were all successful aircrafts and made money for their manufacturers , However the F28 and F100, the VFW-Fokk
43 F9Animal : Great question, and I am sure you will hear tons of different answers. To be honest, until the airplane gets delivered, it is not even in my mind a s
44 art : The faster they can be produced, the faster the investment sunk into design and development starts being repaid? Reduces penalty payments as well, I
45 Northwest727 : I notice a lot of people on here ripping on the 753, 764, 747SP, and possibly, the A345 and A346. Because these aircraft were nearly evolutions of exi
46 1337Delta764 : Does anyone know if the 757-300 broke even? While it sold poorly, it probably didn't cost much to develop and thus it is quite possible that it broke
47 rampart : I agree with MEA-707, I think, though I assume that PanHAM has some grasp on history, based on previous posts! Production runs >200 would have bee
48 connies4ever : See Slinky's post below. I think GDB has chimed in on this topic more than once, in the affirmative that Concorde operationally made tons of cash for
49 bohica : No way. The 747SP was far from a failure. It met the requirements of airlines in the late 1970's for a long haul plane. Boeing kept the development c
50 ZKCIF : The very fact that Airbus dreamt of selling 500 units of A320 and had the number of 600 as their wildest dream corroborates the idea that Caravelle wi
51 Post contains images N14AZ : Excuse me if I ask - I don't know this gentleman even though I made a quick internet search: is this really true and confirmed by another source? It'
52 Post contains images KELPkid : Poor market timing for it's intended market (the USA), who went through a major recession just around the time of its intro. Delta cancelling the res
53 rwy04lga : Maybe I missed it.....Tu-144 sure fits the bill
54 AirNZ : Sorry, but how can anyone have a meaningful discussion on such a subject when, quite simply, no-one here has access to the type of information necessa
55 ACdreamliner : In regards to the L1011. We have to remember that the engine core that was developed the RB211 has seen many variants of it and been hung on many vari
56 nitepilot79 : How about the Boeing 720?
57 KC135TopBoom : Timing was the DC-5s failure. It was a pre-war aircraft that WWII introrupted, along with the B-314 and B-307. An interesting thing about the DC-5 wa
58 Post contains images rikkus67 : Definitely not a money-maker, and eventually brought A.V. Roe (AVRO) Canada to their demise. This little airliner was second only to the Comet in fir
59 474218 : The TriStar was doomed as soon as Rolls Royce went bankrupt. The TriStar L-1011-500 "launch customer" was British Airways. Delta was the second opera
60 eta unknown : Lochkeed Tristar: not successful. If it was, Lockheed would still be in the business of manufacturing large pax aircraft. 747SP: I can't accept this i
61 ltbewr : The other problem for Lockheed with the L-1011 was that Lockheed didn't offer a 727, 737, DC-9 or even a 707-DC-8 equivilent. Most airlienrs even then
62 AirFrance744 : Boeing actually sold one less than they needed to break even, then a government (I can't remember which) asked for one after the line had been closed
63 cpd : B2707 is another exmple of a plane that never broke-even, and didn't have any chance to do so. The chosen design wasn't correct in the first place - a
64 ImperialEagle : Yeah, well I recall there was a tremendous amount of continuing R&D and it ran Doug way out there as far as costs were concerned. Too much tweaki
65 connies4ever : Have to disagree on Avro's demise. Not theJetliner but no cost control on the Arrow -- although not entirely their fault, specs were changing. Also A
66 rikkus67 : I stand corrected Connie (in regards to the Arrow, and it's effect on the Jetliner)! I do have to wonder though, how politics played into this, and n
67 connies4ever : Politics certainly played into the jetliner's demise, as CD Howe ordered Avro to stop work on it and focus on bringing the CF-100 interceptor into se
68 art : Handley Page Herald - started off with 4 piston engines, then re-designed with turboprops. Total production (in several variants) of about 50. More or
69 Wingscrubber : One must remember that an aircraft manufacturer doesn't necessarily make all its money up front during the initial sale, but with support and spares o
70 gasman : The DC-8 was hugely successful - especially the Super 60 series with its stretched fuselage, which nailed the 707 in terms of sales. The 707 was event
71 longhauler : This biggest problem with the Jetliner was that no one ordered it. A lot of airlines expressed interest, but after several years ... no orders. And a
72 connies4ever : There was a bit of an issue, though, that no firm orders were forthcoming as no commitment to produce had been made, and no commitment to produce was
73 faro : Have even heard noises to the effect that the DC-10 program would also have lost money were it not for the KC-10 production run... Faro
74 WA707atMSP : 556 DC-8s were sold. About 1,000 707s were sold. I think the 707 nailed the DC-8 in terms of sales, not the other way around! Another factor which li
75 WA707atMSP : If you haven't read "The Sporty Game", you need to buy a copy TODAY! "The Sporty Game" discusses how Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas wound up building
76 Post contains images N14AZ : Excuse me very much, my knowledge in aerodynamics is obviously limited, how does the sweep of the wings limit the ability to strecht the fuselage? So
77 SEPilot : It's funny how people think that a billion or two isn't much. Even a derivative design costs more to develop than any other project you can imagine e
78 Northwest727 : And? If the aircraft being sold is valued at say, $120 million a piece, then after 10 frames, the aircraft broke even. If you are trying to prevent a
79 Thorben : If the aircraft is sold at $120 million, then maybe 10 or 20 million go to the R&D costs, the rest is for building it and overhead costs. You can
80 Northwest727 : Read the rest of my post...if it means preventing customers from going to the competition, then its worth it. Granted, aircraft manufacturing isn't r
81 Northwest727 : Here's something else to thing about...if Boeing designed the 764 for CO and DL, knowing that they were going to have low sales, then why did they do
82 SEPilot : Thorben addressed your first point. Your point about keeping a customer loyal by building a variant is valid; however, no company can afford to do th
83 mirrodie : I have also heard, from people in the know, not speculators, that BA did indeed make a nice penny on Concorde. So I don't know if it can be deemed a
84 Northwest727 : I see what you are saying. The point I am trying to address is when a company develops a brand-new airplane from scratch, say the L1011, in hopes air
85 SEPilot : We are talking about aircraft making money for their manufacturers. In the case of the Concorde the development costs were paid for by the government
86 rampart : While SEPilot reminded me above of the difference between the 707 and KC135, weren't many of the KC135s successfully re-engined with the CFM 56 engin
87 SEPilot : Yes, they were (and I got the chance to ride on one about 15 years ago when I was in CAP). There were no KC-135's built since the 60's, and hence non
88 Post contains links and images N14AZ : According to my production list this is the last B 707 built, FF was on 15-03-1991. View Large View MediumPhoto © Paul Carlotti
89 connies4ever : Between the three types, something over 400 built for the civilian market, which actually for the day was pretty good. Military variants I believe nu
90 1337Delta764 : To keep both DL and CO from fleeing to Airbus, obviously. Clearly, DL and CO wanted an aircraft that would be a near exact match in size to their L-1
91 Viscount724 : The Hawker-Siddeley 748 was almost certainly a profitable program with 380 sold, not far less than the 444 (or thereabouts) Viscounts sold.
92 gasman : The Fokker F27 sold nearly 600 units, and that was before it evolved into the Fokker 50. Hard to imagine that didn't turn a profit. Do you have a sou
93 Burkhard : A sub type or a new aircraft I'm not so sure, but the failure of the Fokker 70 contrubuted to the end of Fokker.
94 faro : The HS 748, Viscount, Fokker F27, BAC 111 and (just maybe) the Caravelle were probably the only European airliners that made hard money before the ad
95 Grid : Has anyone mentioned the Spruce Goose? I don't know what they charge for admission to it, but I doubt it has generated enough revenue to compensate fo
96 milesrich : Although I cannot recall the specifics, Douglas did NOT make money on the DC-8 program prior to the introduction of the Super Sixty Series aircraft.
97 mogandoCI : Concorde flyers are the "creme de la creme" - if the super-rich people don't mind paying $12K for a 7-hr flight to London, then the uber-rich really
98 MEA-707 : No the F-70 was selling ok... Fokkers problems were more complex; the F-50 wasn't selling well by 1996, their production was inefficient (too many ma
99 connies4ever : Cantor Fitzgerald, so I've been told, in 2001 represented 25% of the Concorde pax market. Mostly financial advisors going to/from London for meetings
100 474218 : The L-188 does not have a "Bomb Bay" or "Sonobuoy tubes"? Additionally the P-3 fuel capacity is increased from 5450 gallons to 9200 gallons and the w
101 gasman : But of course, the Super Sixty series is still a DC-8. The point I think you're getting at, is that when an aircraft has to span two decades of produ
102 Post contains links VC10DC10 : I originally saw this vintage 1983 Seattle Times article here on A.net... it makes a few interesting points about the profitability of U.S. jetliners:
103 SU184 : The Dassault Mercure with only 10 built for Ait Inter, and the MD-90 with only 116 built however its a heavily modified MD-80 derivative, it was quite
104 Post contains images ImperialEagle : Actually there really are some major differences. However, I think it could be said that Lockheed pulled a rabbit out of the hat with the Orion progr
105 N14AZ : Intersting link in deed and some very interesting statements made in 1983:
106 474218 : Could you please provide details of the "up-dated Electra"? I worked at Lockheed in the early eighties and sure don't remember an "up-dated Electra".
107 ImperialEagle : I suppose it may have just as well been in the late seventies as early eighties however that was the time frame I recall. The idea was to stretch and
108 Post contains images YVRLTN : Fast forward to 2010 in Canadian aviation history, and do we have a deja vu....?? C Series and GTF's (I know it has some orders of course) So we feel
109 milesrich : I have heard the stories about Pan Am referring to the DC-Late, but I don't think the 50 series was a dog. The fact is that only United of the three
110 gasman : Me neither - I was referring to the decade, rather than series. The initial DC-8s had serious drag issues, and most definitely did under-perform. Com
111 ImperialEagle : They did build great airplanes. The key to longevity as far as the -8's and the -9's were concerned was the heavier structure.
112 SEPilot : But it still remains that the original DC-8 underperformed, and cast a pall on the whole program. The fact that the Super 60 series was superior to t
113 Access-Air : The Fokker F.27 did...but I dont think the license built Fairchild F-27s or FH-227 ever did....In reading the history of the Fairchild aircraft, it lo
114 milesrich : What you say is true, but the platform is the same, and of course, Lockheed, as is their business strategy, got the American Taxpayer to fork over bi
115 474218 : In the mid-80's Lockheed won a Navy contract to build the replacement of the P-3, called the P-7. However, after numerous delays and cost over runs t
116 ImperialEagle : O.k. dude, well, which is it? Somehow I get the impression that you think I am arguing with you----which is not the case. We obviously have some diff
117 474218 : You may be referring to the passage in Rene Francillon's in his book 'Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913'. Where he suggested Lockheed reconsidered reopeni
118 Post contains images ImperialEagle : Hmmmmm---sounds almost like: Therefore: Halallujah! I am soooo glad you finally found some thread of evidence to ease your mind.
119 474218 : The secret work is "almost". Lots of ideas discussed at Lockheed to keep our hand in the commercial market after the phase out of the L-1011 was anno
120 metjetceo : In the current issue of Airways (at least the U.S. edition) has a fantastic article on the 990. In fact they sold them for an average of $3.5 Million
121 longhauler : I always remember watching an interview with Sir Conrad Black, (ex-Canadian and recent jail-bird), when asked if he flew Concorde. His answer, "Sorry
122 N328KF : Let's just keep in mind that the reason that the DC-8's main competitor (the 707) is not flying in the same numbers is not because the airframe lacke
123 SEPilot : From what I understand the DC-8 was decidedly more robust than the 707 (and I say this as a Boeing fan.) This may have had a part in the 707 being mo
124 milesrich : Loc What do you mean "is not flying in the same numbers is not because the airframe lacked longevity?" That certainly was one of the reasons. Go back
125 Viscount724 : In terms of range, neither the A320 or 757 even approach the range of the 707-320B/C and DC-8-50 which regularly operated nonstops like SFO-TYO, LHR/
126 SEPilot : Milesrich makes some excellent points; not only were the DC-8 airframes extraordinarily robust, but the efficiency gains by re-engining were dramatic.
127 Post contains links milesrich : Thanks, but don't forget the replacement of the JT-3C's on the original 707-100's and the DC-8-10's with JT-3D's. Actually, one or two JT-4 equipped
128 Viscount724 : No 757 (except those in VIP service with extra tanks) could operate with an economic payload on routes like LHR/FRA/CDG-LAX/SFO, or JFK-EZE, or SFO-N
129 MD-90 : "The Sporty Game." p.4
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...
A/C That Never Got On A Country's Register posted Thu Apr 1 2010 11:28:11 by initious
Boeing (etc.) Renderings That Never Came To Be posted Sat Mar 6 2010 19:04:39 by Airport
Planned CO CLE Routes That Never Became posted Sun Apr 19 2009 16:51:26 by USAirALB
Planned Service That Never Started posted Wed Jan 28 2009 17:19:09 by USAirALB
ANZ New Livery That Never Was? posted Fri Sep 21 2007 15:44:44 by Speedmarque
Airport Plans That Never Were-SAN posted Wed Dec 20 2006 19:49:21 by Stirling
Airliners That Use Container Bins On A320s posted Tue Jul 25 2006 16:45:49 by N659AA
Models Of A/c That Never Were? posted Fri Mar 17 2006 16:31:17 by CalAir
Northwest: Old Rules And A Future That Never Came posted Mon Oct 24 2005 00:12:49 by Matt D
Are There Any Airlines That Never Got Accident? posted Sun May 1 2005 23:04:31 by Palladium