Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A Third Party  
User currently offlineTripple Seven From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (16 years 3 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1001 times:

With only Boeing and Airbus Industrie left as the major suppliers of commercial jet liners, it would be interesting if a third party comes in and take the place where McDonnell Douglas had left. Lockheed left the race in defeat with its wonderful TriStar in 1984 and how interesting would it be if Lockheed could sum up its courage and re-enter the 'big-boys' market again. Soon replacement for aircraft in the class of the Airbus A300/A310 and early 767s must be sought. Lockheed could build a derivative of the TriStar and make it a twin engine aircraft (a Lockheed BiStar ?!?!?). Lockheed could re-invent itself by following the foot steps of Airbus; built a plane with a common fuselage and merely play tune to its fuselage length just like what Airbus did with the A300/310/330/340 and thus produce a family of aircraft.

The one advantage Lockheed might have over Airbus is that the Tristar already posses a body cross section that is wider than Airbus' current product.
It makes it simpler to stretch the aircraft to achieve its capacity goal without making it look like the 60 series DC-8. This could eliminate some ground handling problems just like what the 777-300 and A340-500/600 faces.

Lockheed tested EFIS (electronic flight instrument system) on its prototype in the early 80's and that could be used as a stepping stone towards a new derivative.

Tell me what you think.

3 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineBryanG From United States of America, joined May 1999, 453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (16 years 3 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 941 times:

In my opinion it was smart of Lockheed to get out of the commercial planemaking business. Look at Boeing and Airbus today: they're sometimes simply giving the planes away. Profits are slim at best.

Lockheed's concentrating strictly on the military market. As you can imagine, this isn't nearly as cutthroat as dealing with tightwad airline businesses. They're prospering comfortably while Boeing is struggling.

Sure, they made great commercial planes once, but their military products today aren't too shabby. F-22; enough said.

User currently offlineTrident From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 484 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (16 years 2 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 931 times:

I think that the last 40 years demonstrates that there is only room for two big airframe manufacturers in the world market place. Since the advent of jet airliners in the late 50's, the bulk of the world's airlines have found their needs satisfied by either Boeing or McDonnell Douglas or, since the late 80's, Boeing or Airbus. Other manufacturers only ever get a look in if they happen to come up with a design which fills a niche not already being filled by a product built by Boeing,Douglas/Airbus. If either of these come up with a design to fit that niche, they eventually move in and take over. Examples of the niche fillers would be the BAe 146, the Fokker F28/F100 family and more recently, the Embraer EMB145 and Canadair RJ100. If an aircraft is too close to a Boeing/McDonnell-Douglas/Airbus design in concept, then it will have a tough job selling itself (eg. HS Trident, BAC 1-11, Dassault Mercure)

When it comes to future products, the funding required may necessitate Boeing and Airbus getting together, as very nearly happened recently with the 600 seater airliner project.
The days of individual manufacturers deciding to launch a new project almost on a whim (like the 747) are long gone.

User currently offlineKLM 777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (16 years 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 927 times:

Actually, Lockheed's military aviation is also in the tank. If they don't win the order for the new Joint Strike Fighter, they are basically toast. I don't think a return to commercial aviation would even be possible now---they simply don't have billions to waste on start up and development costs.

BryanG, I don't understand your comment that Boeing is struggling in the military market. Exactly the opposite is the case.

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...
Airlines And Third Party Reference Checks posted Mon May 21 2007 06:20:46 by Flyboy80
Commuters Of US Legacies: Inhouse Vs. Third Party posted Mon Oct 9 2006 21:09:33 by HAJFlyer
A Third Party posted Thu Mar 2 2000 23:55:11 by Tripple Seven
Qantas Third A380 First Flight posted Sat Aug 2 2008 03:03:15 by AeroplaneFreak
LHR "could Get Third Runway" posted Mon Jul 14 2008 03:29:32 by BA6590
"Heathrow Needs A Third Runway" BAA Says posted Wed Jun 25 2008 06:49:26 by Talaier
Heathrow 'HAD' A Third Runway - 23/05 posted Tue Jun 24 2008 02:51:19 by Hypersonic
British Opposition Leader: No Third LHR Runway! posted Tue Jun 17 2008 04:24:06 by Kaitak
New London Mayor Opposes Third LHR Runway posted Sun May 4 2008 06:56:14 by SInGAPORE_AIR
MEX-DFW-MEX Mexicana's Third Frequency posted Fri Apr 18 2008 08:26:27 by DFWMEX