🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8XpBody00XomQ0fFNY@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
>The delay in securing the landing permission wasn't justified by any reason...
>American manufacturers had lobbied very hard to
>get that plane conmercially killed. They succeded !

The delay was from court battles over the noise issue.  Suppose you tell us
what US manufacturers did to kill it.  I think what killed it were high
fuel consumption and limited range.  No subsonic jet would be successful if
its usefulness were limited to the North Atlantic run (London/Paris to
NY/Washington).*  And its fuel reserves on arrival to New York would be
considered impermissibly low on another plane.

>Fortumately they couldn't do that with Airbus Industrie.

I'm surprised you're not moaning about the resistance La Guardia put up to
letting Airbuses land.  It seems that Airbus Industrie didn't consult much
with airports over their landing restrictions.  They built their plane
(A300/A310) with the main gear legs too close together, violating La
Guardia's preexisting rules on weight concentration (which were intended to
safeguard the runways, which were built over soft landfill).
"Fortumately", a little friendly gov't-to-gov't arm twisting got La Guardia
to relent.

* OK, so they fly to Bahrain.
-- 

			David R. Smith, HP Labs
			dsmith@hplabs.hp.com
			(415) 857-7898