At 09:55 AM 5/27/02 +0200, KONSTANTIN.VONWEDELSTAEDT@DLH.DE wrote: >Which aircraft programs do you think have been successful from a >commercial standpoint? > >I've grouped them in three categories - failure (less than 150 sales), >marginal (150-300 sales), success (more than 300 sales). There are some >bordercases, for example 250 sales but over a long perios (like the >L1011). Please feel free to comment or add to the list. It seems like >there is only a 50% success rate... > >JETS: >B737 success I'd break this down further: the three generations of 737 all have been successes, but some models have been more marginal than others. For example, is the 737-600 a success or merely marginal? Does it gain the benefit of the doubt because it enabled some -800 sales? Did the -100 really sell, or was it dead upon arrival? >B747 success I wonder if the -300 was successful or not. My perspective is probably skewed because no North American carriers bought them, and those are the carriers I'm most familiar with. >B757 success The jury is still out on the -300, right? >B767 success I'm not sure if this was a success or not. Certainly the 767s revolutionized traffic between North America and Europe, leading to more direct routes and frequencies instead of fewer 747s flying between NA hubs and European hubs. But something about the way airline fleets developed makes me think they didn't work out as well as was expected. (Regardless, as a passenger, I love their 2-3-2 coach configuration!) It might be interesting, too, to looked at how different models have retained their value in the used aircraft markets. This may also point out which engines were better accepted and which engines lost in the eyes of the executives paying for fuel and maintenance. Just a thought, Nick