Thank you Mechta and old,not bold for your greement!
Originally Posted by
pr00ne
BOAC/BEA were not "quite disgraceful in their actions" in their choice of aircraft types, they simply didn't want the totally uneconomic British types, which makes sense as they had a commitment to turn a profit. They had to be either subsidised or compensated by the Government to buy Super VC10's, Tridents and BAC111's when they would have preferred to have bought Boeing 707's, 727 and 737's.
The VC10 was a delightful looking aircraft but was an economic disaster built for a requirement that didn't exist.
I stand by my "disgraceful" comment, and take issue with your comments about economies. Giles Guthrie was chairman of BOAC in the early 60s, and seemed to take delight in rubbishing the VC-10 publicly, whereas in fact it was profitable on the North Atlantic routes because it achieved a higher load factor than 707s - remember BOAC's "VC-10derness" adverts? Guthrie ignored the fact that the VC-10 was designed specifically for BOAC's African routes at BOAC's specific request. The fact that life moved on was hardly Vickers' fault! Guthrie seemed to take his cue from his predecessor Gerard d'Elanger (who had found extra fault with the Brittania, delaying it by another 18-24 months after a very long development). All this was well-publicized at the time and has been well documented.
As I posted earlier, BEA mucked up the Trident by insisting on a smaller aircraft that the one DH proposed, and which then proved to be too small (as DH knew well it would). This also is well documented. So between the two airlines they really screwed the British aircraft industry at a critical time, which is basically why we are where we are now.
If only Peter Masefield had gone to BOAC as chairman, rather than Bristol's...