Well BAC 1-11 was first to market, followed by DC-9, then 737-the initial unsuccessful -100 quickly being superceded by the -200.
So 1-11 clocked up some impressive US orders for one, BAC must have thought they might replace the success of their predecessor companies Viscount.
But there was a bit of a snake in BAC's Eden, lack of stretchability, not the airframe, but the engine.
At this point, it is likely that the BEA directed 'shrink' of the HS
Trident, comes in to play.
Since the mooted R/R Medway engine, effectively a British counterpart to the JT
, was swapped for this now smaller airframe, for the Spey.
Hari-Kari for Trident sales, depriving an obvious engine for BAC -1-11, had the original Trident entered service with the Medway, it is likely that even if BAC 1-11 did not have it on early models, it would be ater-that BEA -500 order for one, for commilarity with Trident perhaps?
So BAC were constrained in offering newer, longer versions, to improve on noise and fuel burn, should they have adopted JT
Hard to say.
Fast forward a decade-BAe as it was by then, offered a 're-fanned Spey' to BA
, with a longer fuselage, the 737-200 competitive 1-11-700.
Later, this engine would be called the R/R Tay.
Sadly, almost scandalously when you consider how BA
's predecessor companies had buggered up previous aircraft with 'unique' requirements, changes of mind etc, they were allowed to buy the 737-200.
737-200 was a fine aircraft for BA
, engine reliability of the powerplant in the early 80's was much praised.
But while still nationalised, pressure should have been applied to buy the BAe -1-11-700.
How much taxpayers dosh had they had by then?
After privatisation, a good thing for BA
, the industry and wider economy, well they could go and buy what they wanted.
What after that?
BAe proposed a longer still 1-11-800, 737-300/400 and MD
-80 competitive, two CFM-56 engines.
brought that, like the -700, it is likely other sales would have followed.
BAe would also have had a big bargaining chip with A320 workshare, 'we'll stop selling BAC 1-11-800 after say 1986/7, if we get A320 final assembly'.
But this is Britain, joined up thinkers on government, often in industry too, need not apply, so the above could not have come to pass.
DC-9 had a huge home market, a well respected company building it, stretchability to die for, (maybe too much, was it really worth doing DC-9-20, or -40, to keep one or two customers happy?), a good engine.
Whilst Boeing's entry started out the runt of the litter, the poor selling, not performing as advertised -100, then the -200.
As we know, when Boeing was in dire straits with the cost and effort of getting the 747 in service then working realiably (things don't change then-a revelation to many on here I bet!), the 737 was briefly considered to be up for sale, the whole line that is, to Japan.
Instead, Boeing instituted small, but rolling improvements to the 737-200, clocking up sales, eventually becoming a best seller.
Then onwards to CFM-56 power and the rest is history.
were not so lucky, despite the major success of the MD
-80 series, other parts of the commercial division were not performing as well, then the sprial of upgrade over new aircraft, no money for new aircraft, fewer customers meaning less prospect of new aircraft.