GREATANSETT From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 506 posts, RR: 4 Posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2009 times:
I was watching a program last night and it got me thinking about McDonald Douglas. I have a few questions so please bare with me for a moment.
These questions are:
1. Why did McDouglas merge with Boeing (or was it bought out)?
2. Why wasn't the MD11 line successful?
3. Why didn't many airlines buy the MD90 series of aircraft?
4. Why didn't McDouglas produce the MD12, it would of been years ahead of its time?
5. When Boeing continued the MD90 series by creating the 717, it claimed that it was continuing the MD95 series. My question is, why did Boeing create the 717 with such short range and capacity (2645km/117 pax compared to the MD95 5003km/187 pax)?
6. My last question is, if McDouglas never merged with Boeing, would it have survived?
Pl4nekr4zy From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 465 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1998 times:
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1969 times:
Quoting GREATANSETT (Thread starter): Why didn't McDouglas produce the MD12, it would of been years ahead of its time?
Ahead of its time yes, probably by too much time, such that there would be viturally no profit or enough sales near-term to justify the R&D. IMO, even A380 is a bit early (by about 5 years) but I am guessing those that purchased her know that and are planning ahead.
Quoting GREATANSETT (Thread starter): My last question is, if McDouglas never merged with Boeing, would it have survived?
No clue. I do not know their plans prior to the buy out, if they had lost all faith. Maybe if they saw the an emerging market for something else or if they had better motivation from management to design something truly unique; but I think the MD-11's had something to do with their demise, from what I read in here.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
MD11LuxuryLinr From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1385 posts, RR: 16 Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1946 times:
It would've been more successful of McDD had spent more money on the design instead of using, say, a modified DC10 wing. The plane couldn't meet promised performance specs conjured up my Douglas. Airlines got pissed and cancelled orders. I should also mention that the A330 and 777 were also nails in the coffin.
Caution wake turbulence, you are following a heavy jet.
VS74741R From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 272 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1896 times:
Why didn't there military line save them? They had the F-15E, FA-18C,D,E,F, the AH64, and the C17. Couldn't that have helped them out when the MD11 dropped them in the deep end?
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1887 times:
VS74741R, that is why Boeing bought them. They wanted the military and space divisions. Some argue that it was also to reduce competition in the commercial area, but that is probably incorrect. MD's commercial line was hurting bad, not selling much, and no real "saving graces" on the horizon. They probably would've shut down the entire commercial division by now if they had continued to exist.
The term Success is relative here but the plane wasn't has succesfull it would need to sustain a line production, has already said the 777 and A340 lines where aloso a nail in their plans.
Well in fact MD-90 was under heavy competition by Airbus (A319/320) and by Boeing (737) also from McDonnell Doulglas products (MD-80) hence many Douglas users where stuck with the MD-80 deritatives intead of the MD-90.
Quoting GREATANSETT (Thread starter): 4. Why didn't McDouglas produce the MD12, it would of been years ahead of its time?
Exactly it was too ahead of its time and no airlines showed interest at all.
Quoting GREATANSETT (Thread starter): 5. When Boeing continued the MD90 series by creating the 717, it claimed that it was continuing the MD95 series. My question is, why did Boeing create the 717 with such short range and capacity (2645km/117 pax compared to the MD95 5003km/187 pax)?
Boeing never created the MD-95 Boeing only took the plane and putted a name on it the rest is 100% McDonnell Douglas desing, remember that Boeing already got the desgin of their product on the same market line that is the 737-600, the main problem is the when Boeing bougth MDD Boeing got a compromise to keep the MD-95 line so that was why the 717 lived a little more from the merger, i shame the 717 never did like it could do.
Quoting GREATANSETT (Thread starter): 6. My last question is, if McDouglas never merged with Boeing, would it have survived?
Very difficul answer, nobody (except God of course) could give you an answer with 100% credibility on this answer, istrue the MDD made excellent planes but it failed on making airlines stick with their products, anyway you also have to take in count that Boeing or Airbus are not easy competitors and MDDD lost much money on the MD-11 lines, my tougth is that it wouldn¡t have survived that much alone but maybe if on the end the made a turn and an agressive marketing and developmnt of their products (specially the MD-80/90) they could survived a lot but has said before is only an hypotesis.
Gus
SKBO
Colombian coffee, the best...take a cup and you will see how delicious it is.
GREATANSETT From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 506 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1822 times:
If MDD managed to get the X-plane defense contract (or at least compete for it) would that of ultimately saved MDD, because that same contract saved Lockheed?
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 80 Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1715 times:
Quoting GREATANSETT (Thread starter): 1. Why did McDouglas merge with Boeing (or was it bought out)?
Contrary to what has been said in this thread, this was actually a merger. While Boeing was the larger of the two partners and its name stuck, the original merged name of the company was Boeing McDonnell Douglas and MDC got several seats on the board of the merged company. In fact, it was an MDC guy who was at Boeing's head (Harry Stonecipher) until recent improprieties. Boeing Commercial Aircraft is actually a merged company of The Boeing Airplane Company and Douglas Aircraft
Well, success is relative. Initially, the MD-11 was the best seller of the 3 competitors (A340 and 777) and boasted the most range (about that of the 772ER). Also, it is probably the best cargo craft of the three with an excelent weight to lift ratio. The problem was that they missed range expectations and lost major orders (including SQ). This can mainly be contributed to the failure to more thoroughly redo the wing as well as engine issues. After they fixed these problems, it really was too late. Remember though that the MD-11 was relatively cheap to design, certainly cheaper than its competitors.
The main issue is the fact that the aircraft is a MX hog. Not that it is unreliable but that when something does go wrong it is very expensive to fix. Additionally, it does not quite have the range of its competitors. Finally, it is not on the same TC as the MD-80 series and so you lose commonality that you don't with 737Classic to 737NG
Quoting GREATANSETT (Thread starter): 4. Why didn't McDouglas produce the MD12, it would of been years ahead of its time?
Maybe it would have been, but MDC definately did not have the capital to put in to the MD-12 project. Remember, the A380 initially was a joint Airbus/Boeing effort and Airbus had a lot of external aid to the project
Quoting GREATANSETT (Thread starter): 5. When Boeing continued the MD90 series by creating the 717, it claimed that it was continuing the MD95 series. My question is, why did Boeing create the 717 with such short range and capacity (2645km/117 pax compared to the MD95 5003km/187 pax)?
The MD-95/717 was never designed as a 180 passenger aircraft, it was always intended as a DC-9-30/40/50 replacement. MDC saw the large market for 100 seat airplanes and the fact that the niche was not adequately filled by the too heavy 735/6 or the F100. Boeing allowed short-sightedness get in its way
Quoting GREATANSETT (Thread starter): 6. My last question is, if McDouglas never merged with Boeing, would it have survived?
It didn't, it merged with Boeing.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
SkyexRamper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1670 times:
And to sum it all up.... in the end the cheaper item that is cheaper to run will always win. The market will decide the fate of everything related. If boeing is having a hard time to keep up with airbus, how was MDD suppose to fit in? And now with the RJ battle going on between brazil and canada, MDD would've eventually lost anyhow.
As for the military contracts, I'm sure the money they got off those lines was only enough to keep that side of things going. You can't support a failing commercial brand with slow military orders. Especially when MDD was going against Boeing and Lockheed. Though it was nice to see them crank out a few successful helicopters before going under.
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3081 posts, RR: 12 Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1570 times:
If you look at the current state at Boeing, STL is really the only location that hasn't been hit by massive layoffs. The reason, the F-15, F-18, Phantom works, and the JDAM program nearby. As mentioned, that is why Boeing purchased MDD. The demise can be linked to a few things that have been mentioned. Douglas was very good at just taking existing designs and stretching them. Hence, the MD-80 and MD-11.
Interesting to note, the MD-12 was a program that MDD was woring on jointly with Airbus. Gee, no wonder it looks like the A380.
AeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1600 posts, RR: 52 Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1335 times:
> 1. Why did McDouglas merge with Boeing (or was it bought out)?
As others have said, it was a merger. The basic reason is that McD had played its hand commercially and was dying. Their military wing still was of value and Boeing wanted them. McD has lost ATF and the downselect on JSF and felt weak. The reason that Douglas (the commercal arm) merged with McDonnell in the late 1960s is still debated. The best I've heard is that Douglas spent too much money customizing aircraft for customers and didn't make enough money doing this. Everytime the DC-9 came close to making money, they stretched it. Plus, while Boeing had military work (especially the KC-135) to help support their overhead, Douglas didn't have much of this. After the Douglas-McDonnell merger, the McDonnell family looked at the books and decided that they would fund the DC-10, but after that, there would be no new designs. The McDonnells preferred the low-risk world of developing aircraft for the US military.
> 2. Why wasn't the MD11 line successful?
It was a dervitative that burned 7% more fuel than the spec, competing against the already announced A330/340 and 777. McD had very little money to develop the MD11, so they didn't audit the P&W and GE engine performance prediction decks. They just believed them. Boeing audits the decks. The decks were optimistic and the MD11 suffered. McD did work like hell and managed to gain back a lot of the 7% in aero fixes.
> 3. Why didn't many airlines buy the MD90 series of aircraft?
This was too little, too late. The A320 and NG offered more of a family of capacity and killed it.
> 4. Why didn't McDouglas produce the MD12, it would of been years ahead of its time?
No money. They tried to sell half of the commercial part of McD to the Taiwanese to raise the money to build the MD12, but the deal fell through. The McDonnell family still controlled the board and they refused to take the risk.
> 5. When Boeing continued the MD90 series by creating the 717, it claimed that it was continuing the MD95 series. My question is, why did Boeing create the 717 with such short range and capacity (2645km/117 pax compared to the MD95 5003km/187 pax)?
The 717 is the MD95. It was always intended as a large regional airliner. I think the 187 pax aircraft you are looking at was the MD90.
> 6. My last question is, if McDouglas never merged with Boeing, would it have survived?
The commercial wing would probably have withered and died. The military stuff would have survived. The C-17 in Long Beach, F-18 and T-45 in St. Louis are going strong. The F-15 and AV-8 are dribbling away. However, there is a lot of money in parts...
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4553 posts, RR: 17 Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1286 times:
For what it's worth, however, Donald Douglas (Donald Wills Douglas Sr.)(1892-1981) was the President of the Douglas Aircraft Company from 1921 to 1957, Chairman of Douglas Aircraft Co. until 1967, and the Honorary Chairman of McDonnell Douglas from 1967-1981. (Donald Douglas, Jr. took over as president of DAC in 1957.) In 1967, Donald Douglas, Sr. merged Douglas Aircraft Co. with McDonnell Aircraft Company to form McDonnell Douglas and retired from day-to-day involvement, though remaining honorary chairman of the merged company until his death.
Given that there were Donald Douglases at McDonnell Douglas, there is some room for confusion.
Levg79 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 989 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1203 times:
I remember watching a History Channel documentary about AA191. They claimed that when FAA suspended DC-10's airworthness certificate, most airlines began cancelling their orders. That was the beginning of the end for McDonell Douglass.
As for MD-11, it's a derivative of the same DC-10 and not as efficient as originally promised. Although a nice aircraft, it turned out to be the economical failure as a passenger plane.
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 506 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 465 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 272 posts, 
From Colombia, joined Jul 2001, 833 posts, 
From Czech Republic, joined Feb 2005, 540 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
