What's Wrong with Jets?

American Airlines' President C. R.

Smith, boss of the biggest U.S. airline,* this week threw cold water on the idea that U.S. domestic carriers will soon adopt jet transports such as the British Comet.

Said Smith: "The time for that is more distant than some are willing to believe." The basic trouble with the Comet, Smith told a transportation conference at Syracuse University, is that its tremendous fuel consumption (10,000 lbs. per hour) cuts down the space left for payload. Other drawbacks: "It is inefficient at low altitude and at reduced power . . .

[and] for short and middle-distance operation . . . It is very expensive to operate ... [and] is not now suited for very long-range operation due to high fuel consumption and limited weight-carrying capacity." U.S. overseas carriers, who must com pete with state-subsidized airlines, may be forced to buy jets for competitive reasons of prestige, said Smith. But the domestic industry will not be likely to adopt a plane that cannot earn its keep. Actually, he said, the next major step in U.S. transport will be to turboprop planes, which use the jet blast to turn propellers. Since the armed forces are now paying for development of several turboprop transports, Smith said, "there should be available within a few years turboprop power plants suitable in size and power output for some of the larger, faster transports of tomorrow . . ." Pure jets, said Smith, will not be flown in big numbers until they get their operating costs far below the present levels.

*American is the biggest both in revenue passenger miles and number of passengers flown, but Pan American has a bigger gross ($205 million last year v. $187 million for American).

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.