Why In The World Did Lockheed Martin Stop Producing Commercial Planes?

In the annals of aviation history, few companies have left as indelible a mark as Lockheed Martin. From pioneering record-breaking flights in the early 20th century to producing iconic aircraft like the Vega, Electra, and Constellation, Lockheed quickly became synonymous with innovation in commercial air travel, capturing the imagination of a world eager to conquer the skies.

Yet, by the mid-1980s, Lockheed had abruptly withdrawn from the commercial airplane market, shifting its focus to military and defense contracts. The question of why Lockheed stopped producing commercial aircraft is multifaceted, rooted in financial turmoil, intense competition, technological setbacks, and strategic realignments. So let’s take a closer look at how a once-dominant player in commercial aviation pivoted to become a defense-centric powerhouse.

Lockheed’s Rise In Commercial Aviation

Wikimedia Commons

Lockheed’s origins trace back to 1912 when brothers Allan and Malcolm Loughead (later anglicized to Lockheed) founded the Alco Hydro-Aeroplane Company in Santa Barbara, California. By 1926, the Lockheed Aircraft Company was officially established, and the company’s breakthrough came with the Lockheed Vega, a single-engine monoplane introduced in 1927. It became a favorite among adventurers, with Amelia Earhart flying a Vega across the Atlantic in 1932, and Wiley Post using one for his around-the-world solo flight in 1933, feats that not only boosted sales but also established Lockheed as a leader in commercial aircraft design.

In the 1930s, Lockheed saw further success with the Model 10 Electra, a twin-engine all-metal monoplane that could carry 10 passengers and was used by carriers like Northwest Airlines and Pan American World Airways. After the war, the company returned to the civilian market with the L-049 Constellation, which entered service in 1946 and boasted a pressurized cabin and the ability to fly nonstop from New York to London in about 13 hours. It revolutionized long-haul travel, with over 850 units produced across variants like the Super Constellation and Starliner, becoming the symbol of luxury air travel in the 1950s.

By the 1960s, Lockheed was a key player alongside Boeing and Douglas, with a reputation for engineering excellence. However, the industry’s evolution toward widebody jets would test the company’s mettle.

The Jet Age And The TriStar Gamble

Wikimedia Commons

As air travel boomed in the 1960s, airlines demanded larger, more efficient aircraft for transcontinental and international routes. In 1966, American Airlines approached Lockheed and Douglas with specifications for a 250-passenger wide-body jet. Lockheed responded in 1968 with the announcement of the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar, a trijet design featuring three Rolls-Royce RB211 high-bypass turbofan engines—one under each wing and one in the tail with an S-duct intake.

The TriStar’s development was ambitious, incorporating cutting-edge technology like auto-land capabilities, advanced avionics, and a direct-lift control system for smoother landing. From the outset, Lockheed aimed to differentiate itself by emphasizing technological advancements and passenger comfort. The prototype first flew in November 1970, and Eastern Air Lines took delivery of the first unit in April 1972. Lockheed would go on to ultimately produce 250 examples across four main variants:

However, the program was marred by setbacks from the outset. Rolls-Royce, the sole engine supplier, encountered severe development issues with the RB211, including blade failures and cost overruns. In 1971, Rolls-Royce entered receivership, halting engine production and delaying the TriStar by over a year. This allowed the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, which used General Electric or Pratt & Whitney engines, to enter service first in 1971, and get a jump on Lockheed in capturing early market share. Lockheed’s decision to stick with Rolls-Royce, partly due to a lucrative contract that included engine exclusivity, would prove very costly in the long run.

Financial Turmoil And A Government Bailout

Wikimedia Commons

The TriStar’s delays compounded Lockheed’s broader financial woes. The program required over $1 billion in development costs, far exceeding initial projections. Supply chain issues, including higher-than-expected weights for structures and engines, necessitated redesigns and further expenses. By 1971, Lockheed teetered on the brink of bankruptcy, with debts mounting to $1.4 billion and 60,000 jobs under threat.

Afraid of the impact on the US economy, the Nixon administration passed the Emergency Loan Guarantee Act, providing Lockheed with a $250 million federal loan guarantee. Lockheed ultimately repaid the loan by 1977, plus $112 million in fees, but the episode tarnished its reputation. Compounding the crisis were bribery scandals uncovered in 1975. Lockheed admitted to paying $22 million in bribes to foreign officials to secure military aircraft sales. The revelations led to resignations and fines, further eroding investor confidence and distracting from commercial efforts.

Despite resuming production and attracting orders from large carriers such as Delta, Eastern, and TWA, the TriStar never recovered commercially. Lockheed needed to sell 500 units to break even, but managed only 250 by 1984. The program incurred $2.5 billion in losses (equivalent to about $9 billion today), draining resources and forcing Lockheed to subsidize it with military profits.

Competing With The DC-10

Wikimedia Commons

Competition played a pivotal role in Lockheed’s struggles. The market for widebody trijets proved to be too small for two similar aircraft, and the Douglas DC-10 and TriStar ultimately cannibalized each other’s sales. However, the DC-10 had a couple of key advantages. Due to the Rolls-Royce delays, it was able to leapfrog the TriStar and be first to market, allowing it to pick up key orders with American Airlines, United Airlines, Continental Airlines, and Northwest Airlines, and establish the early momentum that Lockheed was ultimately unable to recover from.

Just as importantly, while Lockheed pursued engineering excellence, resulting in higher development costs and a premium price tag, Douglas prioritized cost control and reusing proven parts and designs. As a result, the DC-10 cost less than the TriStar, and Douglas was able to produce its longer-range variants six years before Lockheed, eroding the potential success of the L-1011-500. Douglas eventually produced 446 DC-10s, nearly 200 more units than the TriStar, and because of its lower costs, far exceeding its much lower break-even point of 300 aircraft.

There was even worse competition on the horizon for Lockheed. Widebody twinjets were starting to emerge, the first being Airbus and its A300, which promised significantly lower operating costs just as the world was reeling from multiple fuel crises. When Boeing announced the development of the 767 and the prototype first flew in September 1981, it really was the final nail in the coffin for Lockheed’s commercial operations.

The Exit: Strategic Shift to Military Focus

Wikimedia Commons

In December 1981, Lockheed announced it would cease TriStar production after the 250th delivery in 1984, effectively exiting the commercial airplane market. Financially, the losses had become unsustainable, and Lockheed could no longer afford to compete in a market where development costs for new aircraft ran into billions, with razor-thin margins, long payback periods, and the boom-and-bust cycles tied to fuel prices, economic downturns, and airline bankruptcies.

The exit was also made easier because Lockheed had a genuine alternative to focus on: the higher profits and stability of government contracts. Military contracts allowed for higher margins and cost-plus pricing, where overruns could be absorbed by the government.

The timing was right, too, as the 1980s saw a defense boom under the Reagan administration, and Lockheed was able to ramp up production of fighters like the F-16 (acquired through the General Dynamics merger) and stealth aircraft such as the F-117 Nighthawk. The shift proved prescient; by the 1990s, defense spending surged amid the Gulf War, while commercial aviation faced recessions and fuel crises.

Could Lockheed Return To Commercial Aviation?

Wikimedia Commons

Lockheed’s departure from commercial planes was not a sudden whim but the culmination of decades of challenges. From the financial hemorrhages of the TriStar program to unrelenting competition and strategic pivots toward defense, the company chose survival over persistence in a cutthroat market. The $2.5 billion loss on the L-1011, coupled with bailouts and scandals, underscored the perils of commercial aviation for a firm better suited to government-backed innovation.

Today, Lockheed Martin thrives in defense, which yields higher profit margins of 10-15% versus 5-7% in commercial, and without the same volatility. The company attained revenues of over $70 billion last year, and there is occasionally speculation that its strength could see it return to commercial aviation. But the Boeing-Airbus duopoly, estimated $10-20 billion in development costs for new aircraft, global regulatory hurdles, and established supply chains, all present significant barriers, which make that highly unlikely.

Instead, we are left with a commercial legacy that endures in museums and occasionally the skies via aging TriStars converted for cargo or research. The Lockheed story serves as a reminder that in aviation, ambition must align with economic realities, or risk grounding even the mightiest flyers.