PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Economy of older and current turboprops versus old and current jetliners
Old 24th Jun 2013, 08:28
  #11 (permalink)  
tornadoken
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So: 1955. Pax then as now do not flatly prefer jet to turboprop. They prefer a convenient schedule at a sensible fare. See, today, Dash 8/ATR well able to compete with 146/ERJ/CRJ on sectors upto say 150 mins. It was entirely sensible in 1955 for Vickers Ltd. to assign Corporate funds to do a Viscount Major to build upon spectacular V.700 market performance, V.800 market interest. It was entirely sensible for the 2 launch customers to welcome big belly cargo capacity, to extend utilisation into pax-unfriendly nights. So: Q: why did such Viscount customers as Ansett/TAA, KLM take L.188, and Capital/United, Indian A/L take Caravelle?

As JF infers, the A is not a simple number like fuel burn per seat-mile. Nor is it some politico-conspiracy as often favoured by those seeking to explain Brit business "decline": clearly in US boardrooms L.188 would have advantage v.some alien product...but only a bit: if an import makes bottom-line sense, it will fly. When pitching 707-100 v. DC-8/20, Boeing's civil reputation was hugely inferior to Douglas': Pan Am's launch orders were for 20 707, 25 DC-8. But the market found greater customer-care in Seattle. And greater in Toulouse, Burbank, than in Weybridge. This was the secret of F27 success over Herald: perception that the Supplier cares for his customer.

In 1978 HAECO in Hong Kong had in for heavy maintenance an ancient Vanguard and an ancient 707, both second, was it third operator, long out of any new build warranty. Parts and repair advice: from Weybridge: slow or worse; from Seattle: 24/7 (expensive; but Aircraft on Ground would be moreso). Here is the reason Qantas rejected Britannia:
(A negative impression during QF’s 7/55 visit) to assess Bristol(’s ability to meet schedule and to demonstrate) an organisation adequate to service the aircraft”. J.Gunn,High Corridors,QUP,1988,P69.

Vickers took a loss of £16.7Mn. on Vanguard. I submit the reason for customer flight was their perception that it would be just too hard to capture the attention of prime and/or vendors when a tyre blew in Timbuktu. Vickers' attention would be on Valiant and on stroking the man in Whitehall about to award the next big thing. That is why Aer Lingus (then a BEAC Associate Co.) launched F27 in preference to playing second fiddle to Victor at Radlett.

Last edited by tornadoken; 24th Jun 2013 at 08:32.
tornadoken is offline