Why did the Mercure fail?Why did the Ju-87 Stuka have a siren?How much did Avgas cost in 1940?Why did the Junkers Ju-52 have corrugated external surfaces?Why didn't the Boeing 757 share the 767 fuselage?Why does it take so long to develop modern military jets?Why did the turbojet replace the piston engine?Could Mach 1.4 be a better design point for SST?Why is there still a preference for turboprop airliners over the new regional jets?Why aren't there any widebody propliners for the high-density short-haul markets?Why did Lockheed abandon the Constellation II?

Not using 's' for he/she/it

Can Legal Documents Be Siged In Non-Standard Pen Colors?

Why did the Mercure fail?

What was this official D&D 3.5e Lovecraft-flavored rulebook?

What does chmod -u do?

How can Trident be so inexpensive? Will it orbit Triton or just do a (slow) flyby?

How do I color the graph in datavisualization?

Electoral considerations aside, what are potential benefits, for the US, of policy changes proposed by the tweet recognizing Golan annexation?

Why Shazam when there is already Superman?

How can "mimic phobia" be cured or prevented?

Why electric field inside a cavity of a non-conducting sphere not zero?

How do you make your own symbol when Detexify fails?

Creepy dinosaur pc game identification

What does "Scientists rise up against statistical significance" mean? (Comment in Nature)

What are the purposes of autoencoders?

Terse Method to Swap Lowest for Highest?

dpdt switch to spst switch

Travelling outside the UK without a passport

Does a 'pending' US visa application constitute a denial?

Closed-form expression for certain product

Loading commands from file

Melting point of aspirin, contradicting sources

250 Floor Tower

How do you respond to a colleague from another team when they're wrongly expecting that you'll help them?



Why did the Mercure fail?


Why did the Ju-87 Stuka have a siren?How much did Avgas cost in 1940?Why did the Junkers Ju-52 have corrugated external surfaces?Why didn't the Boeing 757 share the 767 fuselage?Why does it take so long to develop modern military jets?Why did the turbojet replace the piston engine?Could Mach 1.4 be a better design point for SST?Why is there still a preference for turboprop airliners over the new regional jets?Why aren't there any widebody propliners for the high-density short-haul markets?Why did Lockheed abandon the Constellation II?













1












$begingroup$


The Dassault Mercure was a French regional jet that first flew in 1971 and received its type certificate in February 1974; it resembled an enlarged, shorter-range 737-200, and was designed to serve higher-capacity short-haul routes. The Mercure was an abysmal failure, with only eleven aircraft ever sold, all to French domestic carrier Air Inter. Wikipedia states, citing Dassault’s own website, that the killer was its short range, only 2,080 km (1,125 nmi) with a typical payload, and reducing to 1,700 km (920 nmi) at maximum capacity.



Except... that doesn’t actually explain the Mercure’s failure to sell!



Sure, it didn’t have the range for long transcontinental or transoceanic crossings, but you don’t need that much range to be successful as an airliner, as evidenced by the profits made by regional-jet manufacturers. The Mercure’s Wikipedia article - citing Dassault - admits as much, even as it makes the claim that the aircraft was doomed by its short range:




This lack of interest was due to several factors, including the devaluation of the dollar and the oil crisis of the 1970s, but mainly because of the Mercure's operating range – suitable for domestic European operations but unable to sustain longer routes; at maximum payload, the aircraft's range was only 1,700 km. [emphasis added]




1,700 km is plenty of range for European routes, and there are numerous other markets for high-capacity, short-range aircraft. Japan, land of the 747 regional jet, comes immediately to mind, along with the other dense areas of East, Southeast, and South Asia and the Middle East. Even infamously-spread-out North America should have been fertile ground, what with the multitudes of short routes (and even not-so-short ones; the Mercure would have had enough range to comfortably fly between New York and Chicago in a typical passenger configuration, although not in all-up sardine mode) in the northeastern and midwestern United States, eastern Canada, parts of the South, the West Coast, and the Caribbean. As a point of comparison, the earlier Sud Caravelle - the fourth jetliner to enter revenue service,1 and the first-ever regional jet - had an even shorter range (1,700 km was its maximum range), and it was riotously successful, to the tune of 282 aircraft (some of the very last of these, ironically, going to Air Inter at the very same time they were contemplating the Mercure), despite also having a smaller passenger capacity.



What am I missing? Why wasn’t the Dassault Mercure successful in the short-haul market?




1: Preceded by the Comet, the Tu-104, and the 707, in that order.










share|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Enough range for domestic flights, in Europe. But only 1700 km range is barley enough for Hamburg to Palma de Mallorca. The short range makes the plane unflexible. And trains were likely better during that time in Europe for just domestic. And trains would be probably still the first choice, if reliable.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    36 mins ago
















1












$begingroup$


The Dassault Mercure was a French regional jet that first flew in 1971 and received its type certificate in February 1974; it resembled an enlarged, shorter-range 737-200, and was designed to serve higher-capacity short-haul routes. The Mercure was an abysmal failure, with only eleven aircraft ever sold, all to French domestic carrier Air Inter. Wikipedia states, citing Dassault’s own website, that the killer was its short range, only 2,080 km (1,125 nmi) with a typical payload, and reducing to 1,700 km (920 nmi) at maximum capacity.



Except... that doesn’t actually explain the Mercure’s failure to sell!



Sure, it didn’t have the range for long transcontinental or transoceanic crossings, but you don’t need that much range to be successful as an airliner, as evidenced by the profits made by regional-jet manufacturers. The Mercure’s Wikipedia article - citing Dassault - admits as much, even as it makes the claim that the aircraft was doomed by its short range:




This lack of interest was due to several factors, including the devaluation of the dollar and the oil crisis of the 1970s, but mainly because of the Mercure's operating range – suitable for domestic European operations but unable to sustain longer routes; at maximum payload, the aircraft's range was only 1,700 km. [emphasis added]




1,700 km is plenty of range for European routes, and there are numerous other markets for high-capacity, short-range aircraft. Japan, land of the 747 regional jet, comes immediately to mind, along with the other dense areas of East, Southeast, and South Asia and the Middle East. Even infamously-spread-out North America should have been fertile ground, what with the multitudes of short routes (and even not-so-short ones; the Mercure would have had enough range to comfortably fly between New York and Chicago in a typical passenger configuration, although not in all-up sardine mode) in the northeastern and midwestern United States, eastern Canada, parts of the South, the West Coast, and the Caribbean. As a point of comparison, the earlier Sud Caravelle - the fourth jetliner to enter revenue service,1 and the first-ever regional jet - had an even shorter range (1,700 km was its maximum range), and it was riotously successful, to the tune of 282 aircraft (some of the very last of these, ironically, going to Air Inter at the very same time they were contemplating the Mercure), despite also having a smaller passenger capacity.



What am I missing? Why wasn’t the Dassault Mercure successful in the short-haul market?




1: Preceded by the Comet, the Tu-104, and the 707, in that order.










share|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Enough range for domestic flights, in Europe. But only 1700 km range is barley enough for Hamburg to Palma de Mallorca. The short range makes the plane unflexible. And trains were likely better during that time in Europe for just domestic. And trains would be probably still the first choice, if reliable.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    36 mins ago














1












1








1





$begingroup$


The Dassault Mercure was a French regional jet that first flew in 1971 and received its type certificate in February 1974; it resembled an enlarged, shorter-range 737-200, and was designed to serve higher-capacity short-haul routes. The Mercure was an abysmal failure, with only eleven aircraft ever sold, all to French domestic carrier Air Inter. Wikipedia states, citing Dassault’s own website, that the killer was its short range, only 2,080 km (1,125 nmi) with a typical payload, and reducing to 1,700 km (920 nmi) at maximum capacity.



Except... that doesn’t actually explain the Mercure’s failure to sell!



Sure, it didn’t have the range for long transcontinental or transoceanic crossings, but you don’t need that much range to be successful as an airliner, as evidenced by the profits made by regional-jet manufacturers. The Mercure’s Wikipedia article - citing Dassault - admits as much, even as it makes the claim that the aircraft was doomed by its short range:




This lack of interest was due to several factors, including the devaluation of the dollar and the oil crisis of the 1970s, but mainly because of the Mercure's operating range – suitable for domestic European operations but unable to sustain longer routes; at maximum payload, the aircraft's range was only 1,700 km. [emphasis added]




1,700 km is plenty of range for European routes, and there are numerous other markets for high-capacity, short-range aircraft. Japan, land of the 747 regional jet, comes immediately to mind, along with the other dense areas of East, Southeast, and South Asia and the Middle East. Even infamously-spread-out North America should have been fertile ground, what with the multitudes of short routes (and even not-so-short ones; the Mercure would have had enough range to comfortably fly between New York and Chicago in a typical passenger configuration, although not in all-up sardine mode) in the northeastern and midwestern United States, eastern Canada, parts of the South, the West Coast, and the Caribbean. As a point of comparison, the earlier Sud Caravelle - the fourth jetliner to enter revenue service,1 and the first-ever regional jet - had an even shorter range (1,700 km was its maximum range), and it was riotously successful, to the tune of 282 aircraft (some of the very last of these, ironically, going to Air Inter at the very same time they were contemplating the Mercure), despite also having a smaller passenger capacity.



What am I missing? Why wasn’t the Dassault Mercure successful in the short-haul market?




1: Preceded by the Comet, the Tu-104, and the 707, in that order.










share|improve this question









$endgroup$




The Dassault Mercure was a French regional jet that first flew in 1971 and received its type certificate in February 1974; it resembled an enlarged, shorter-range 737-200, and was designed to serve higher-capacity short-haul routes. The Mercure was an abysmal failure, with only eleven aircraft ever sold, all to French domestic carrier Air Inter. Wikipedia states, citing Dassault’s own website, that the killer was its short range, only 2,080 km (1,125 nmi) with a typical payload, and reducing to 1,700 km (920 nmi) at maximum capacity.



Except... that doesn’t actually explain the Mercure’s failure to sell!



Sure, it didn’t have the range for long transcontinental or transoceanic crossings, but you don’t need that much range to be successful as an airliner, as evidenced by the profits made by regional-jet manufacturers. The Mercure’s Wikipedia article - citing Dassault - admits as much, even as it makes the claim that the aircraft was doomed by its short range:




This lack of interest was due to several factors, including the devaluation of the dollar and the oil crisis of the 1970s, but mainly because of the Mercure's operating range – suitable for domestic European operations but unable to sustain longer routes; at maximum payload, the aircraft's range was only 1,700 km. [emphasis added]




1,700 km is plenty of range for European routes, and there are numerous other markets for high-capacity, short-range aircraft. Japan, land of the 747 regional jet, comes immediately to mind, along with the other dense areas of East, Southeast, and South Asia and the Middle East. Even infamously-spread-out North America should have been fertile ground, what with the multitudes of short routes (and even not-so-short ones; the Mercure would have had enough range to comfortably fly between New York and Chicago in a typical passenger configuration, although not in all-up sardine mode) in the northeastern and midwestern United States, eastern Canada, parts of the South, the West Coast, and the Caribbean. As a point of comparison, the earlier Sud Caravelle - the fourth jetliner to enter revenue service,1 and the first-ever regional jet - had an even shorter range (1,700 km was its maximum range), and it was riotously successful, to the tune of 282 aircraft (some of the very last of these, ironically, going to Air Inter at the very same time they were contemplating the Mercure), despite also having a smaller passenger capacity.



What am I missing? Why wasn’t the Dassault Mercure successful in the short-haul market?




1: Preceded by the Comet, the Tu-104, and the 707, in that order.







airliner aviation-history regional-jet






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 3 hours ago









SeanSean

5,33432667




5,33432667











  • $begingroup$
    Enough range for domestic flights, in Europe. But only 1700 km range is barley enough for Hamburg to Palma de Mallorca. The short range makes the plane unflexible. And trains were likely better during that time in Europe for just domestic. And trains would be probably still the first choice, if reliable.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    36 mins ago

















  • $begingroup$
    Enough range for domestic flights, in Europe. But only 1700 km range is barley enough for Hamburg to Palma de Mallorca. The short range makes the plane unflexible. And trains were likely better during that time in Europe for just domestic. And trains would be probably still the first choice, if reliable.
    $endgroup$
    – Peter
    36 mins ago
















$begingroup$
Enough range for domestic flights, in Europe. But only 1700 km range is barley enough for Hamburg to Palma de Mallorca. The short range makes the plane unflexible. And trains were likely better during that time in Europe for just domestic. And trains would be probably still the first choice, if reliable.
$endgroup$
– Peter
36 mins ago





$begingroup$
Enough range for domestic flights, in Europe. But only 1700 km range is barley enough for Hamburg to Palma de Mallorca. The short range makes the plane unflexible. And trains were likely better during that time in Europe for just domestic. And trains would be probably still the first choice, if reliable.
$endgroup$
– Peter
36 mins ago











1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

Mainly because the short haul market needed to wait for the deregulation of the late 70s into the early 80s that resulted in the creation, by the early 90s, of the hub and spoke concept with small regional jets feeding hubs where the mainliners were.



The CRJ200 was the main pioneer of this market, as an up to date rendition of a smaller regional feeder jet. At the time it was expected to sell maybe a couple hundred units, even within Canadair.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "528"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61537%2fwhy-did-the-mercure-fail%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2












    $begingroup$

    Mainly because the short haul market needed to wait for the deregulation of the late 70s into the early 80s that resulted in the creation, by the early 90s, of the hub and spoke concept with small regional jets feeding hubs where the mainliners were.



    The CRJ200 was the main pioneer of this market, as an up to date rendition of a smaller regional feeder jet. At the time it was expected to sell maybe a couple hundred units, even within Canadair.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$

















      2












      $begingroup$

      Mainly because the short haul market needed to wait for the deregulation of the late 70s into the early 80s that resulted in the creation, by the early 90s, of the hub and spoke concept with small regional jets feeding hubs where the mainliners were.



      The CRJ200 was the main pioneer of this market, as an up to date rendition of a smaller regional feeder jet. At the time it was expected to sell maybe a couple hundred units, even within Canadair.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        Mainly because the short haul market needed to wait for the deregulation of the late 70s into the early 80s that resulted in the creation, by the early 90s, of the hub and spoke concept with small regional jets feeding hubs where the mainliners were.



        The CRJ200 was the main pioneer of this market, as an up to date rendition of a smaller regional feeder jet. At the time it was expected to sell maybe a couple hundred units, even within Canadair.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Mainly because the short haul market needed to wait for the deregulation of the late 70s into the early 80s that resulted in the creation, by the early 90s, of the hub and spoke concept with small regional jets feeding hubs where the mainliners were.



        The CRJ200 was the main pioneer of this market, as an up to date rendition of a smaller regional feeder jet. At the time it was expected to sell maybe a couple hundred units, even within Canadair.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 2 hours ago









        Sean

        5,33432667




        5,33432667










        answered 2 hours ago









        John KJohn K

        22.7k13166




        22.7k13166



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61537%2fwhy-did-the-mercure-fail%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Are there any AGPL-style licences that require source code modifications to be public? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Force derivative works to be publicAre there any GPL like licenses for Apple App Store?Do you violate the GPL if you provide source code that cannot be compiled?GPL - is it distribution to use libraries in an appliance loaned to customers?Distributing App for free which uses GPL'ed codeModifications of server software under GPL, with web/CLI interfaceDoes using an AGPLv3-licensed library prevent me from dual-licensing my own source code?Can I publish only select code under GPLv3 from a private project?Is there published precedent regarding the scope of covered work that uses AGPL software?If MIT licensed code links to GPL licensed code what should be the license of the resulting binary program?If I use a public API endpoint that has its source code licensed under AGPL in my app, do I need to disclose my source?

            2013 GY136 Descoberta | Órbita | Referências Menu de navegação«List Of Centaurs and Scattered-Disk Objects»«List of Known Trans-Neptunian Objects»

            Button changing it's text & action. Good or terrible? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are Inchanging text on user mouseoverShould certain functions be “hard to find” for powerusers to discover?Custom liking function - do I need user login?Using different checkbox style for different checkbox behaviorBest Practices: Save and Exit in Software UIInteraction with remote validated formMore efficient UI to progress the user through a complicated process?Designing a popup notice for a gameShould bulk-editing functions be hidden until a table row is selected, or is there a better solution?Is it bad practice to disable (replace) the context menu?