RootsAir From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2005, 4085 posts, RR: 41 Posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1832 times:
As many know, airlines outphased their DC-10's and replaced them with other A/C.
Some obviously replaced them with MD 11's although this was not the best solution(e.g Swiss)
Others like Iberia replaced them with A340-300's and Northwest for example, with A330's .
AA had MD 11's for a while but took them away and replaced them with 777's.
Now with all those DC 10 replacements there must be one that has revealed more efficient than others. So which has been the best one?
777, A330 or A340-300 ?
Regards
[Edited 2005-05-09 11:02:26]
A man without the knowledge of his past history,culture and origins is like a tree without roots
Mrniji From India, joined Feb 2004, 5594 posts, RR: 56 Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1816 times:
Before I forget.. thread will be in Polls and Prefs soon
I personally LOVE the MD11.. an amazing plane! Took it with AZ and thought it was one of my lovliest journey.. all other planes you listed are amazing, but there is sth romantic about trijets
"The earth provides enough resources for everyone's need, but not for some people's greed." (Gandhi)
HT From Germany, joined May 2005, 4439 posts, RR: 20 Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1775 times:
The best replacement of the DC-10 was the MD-11.
Best take-off performance I´ve ever experienced was on a MD-11 operating a (almost sold-out) HKG-BKK flight while a/c was painted in "Mandarin" colours.
But of you need to upgrade now:
A332/A333!
Or A343 if you want to rely on 4 engine and you can live with its bad take-off performance.
B777 only if you can fill it with pax.
Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ...
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 5131 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1758 times:
For the German market I can only say that LH is very satisfied with the A340-300 as a DC 10 replacement as well as LTU is satisfied with the A330 as a replacement for their L1011s.
LH Cargo is also very satisfied with the MD 11 as cargo hauler but this has not been a DC 10 replacement but a DC 8-73F and 747-200F replacement.
�Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans� John Lennon
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 5566 posts, RR: 36 Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1744 times:
Actually I think the best direct replacement for the DC-10-10 was the B-767-300. Then the replacement for the DC-10-30/40 was the B-767-300ER. That is, until you load the cargo.
If cargo carrying is considered, along with the pax, the B-777 is the choice.
Quoting HT (Reply 4): Or A343 if you want to rely on 4 engine and you can live with its bad take-off performance.
In the hot summer time at DFW, that and 12,000'+ of a 13,400' runway will get you airborne. LOL
Monteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2074 posts, RR: 24 Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1738 times:
Quoting RJpieces (Reply 3): Not in all cases. If I remember correctly, United's 772As proved to be too large of a replacement on some of United's domestic DC10 routes.
Before or after 9/11? The 772A carries 305 in three class by memory and the DC-10 around 270? Was 30 people really that big of a difference or was it just being done inefficiently?
Quoting HT (Reply 4): The best replacement of the DC-10 was the MD-11.
Best take-off performance I´ve ever experienced was on a MD-11 operating a (almost sold-out) HKG-BKK flight while a/c was painted in "Mandarin" colours.
Well the MD-11 is regarded by many as commercially unsuccessful. If you are basing it on take-off performance, sure, the MD-11 is awesome... but was it really a good DC-10 replacement. Not many major DC-10 operators such as UA ever bought the MD-11.
HT From Germany, joined May 2005, 4439 posts, RR: 20 Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1722 times:
Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 8): Not many major DC-10 operators such as UA ever bought the MD-11.
Maybe the MD-11 was on the market too early as it could become a replacement for still young DC-10-30/40 ?
The MD-11 was/is a long-haul a/c (i.e. for intercontinental operations), while the earlier DC-10-10 was designed for coast-to-coast service, so the MD-11 IMO was not its primary replacement on these routes (too heavy for regular sectors of 5 hours ?!).
Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ...
Monteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2074 posts, RR: 24 Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1696 times:
Quoting HT (Reply 9): Maybe the MD-11 was on the market too early as it could become a replacement for still young DC-10-30/40 ?
Possibly, but McDD claimed the specifications for each jet were different and that the MD-11 could deliver better performance... which in reality never truly materialised!
Quoting HT (Reply 9): The MD-11 was/is a long-haul a/c (i.e. for intercontinental operations)
And that is where it failed to gain a sufficient audience... it just never made the grade.
Quoting HT (Reply 9): , so the MD-11 IMO was not its primary replacement on these routes (too heavy for regular sectors of 5 hours
Which is why I said that it was not a real DC-10 replacement. The 772A was specifically designed for that shorter range medium to high capacity mission.
TriStar500 From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 4605 posts, RR: 38 Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1673 times:
I don't think there is an easy answer to this rather placative question.
While airlines have bought the DC-10 for a certain kind of mission, this mission most likely changed over the years/ decades, so when the time for a replacement was due, the mission definition for the replacement was at least in some aspects different from the mission the old DC-10 was pressed into and was was performing at that time.
Therefore you have a variety of replacement options, each suiting their respective customer in the best way, and not a single "best replacement" - a nonsensical "superlative", which is out of the place in such a complex matter.
While e.g. LH has replaced the DC-10 with the super-longhaul A340, which actually opened markets, which were never served (or could be served) by the LH DC-10 before, other Airlines like e.g. NW opted for a replacement which came close to the specification of the DC-10 (i.e. in this case the A333).
Homer: Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
Orion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (3 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1639 times:
The 767-3 has less capacity than the DC10 in terms of both freight and passengers. It also has a much narrower cabin than the DC10. I suspect that the 777 is a good DC10 replacement aircraft, although the DC10 will always be my favourite.
EA CO AS From United States, joined Nov 2001, 9377 posts, RR: 69 Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1342 times:
It's so interesting to see that everyone assumes that the DC-10 must naturally have been replaced by a bigger widebody - but domestically, both NW and CO have used their B-757-300s where DC-10s were once operated.
On longhaul markets once flown by the DC-10, CO also uses B-767-400 aircraft - the plane they ordered from Boeing specifically as a DC-10 replacement.
And lest we forget, the DC-10's main competitor the L-1011 was replaced at DL by the 764 as well - again, specifically ordered for that task.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
MD11junkie From Argentina, joined May 2005, 2622 posts, RR: 55 Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1088 times:
Quoting Carpethead (Reply 16): JL has used the mix of 772ER & 763ER to replace its DC-10s. Domestic DC-10s (now long gone) were replaced by 772 & 763 too.
Carpethead,
What about J-Bird? Was the MD-11 (retired in October 2004) replaced by 773s in a 1 to 1 basis? I think the best replacement for a DC-10 is an MD-11. (sorry, biased. Look at my username )
On another note or question: Was the real issue with AA's MD-11s that they couldn't take off from SJC or that they would not meet "fuel consumption" expectations on the DFW-NRT route? (I believe, the earlier versions ARE able to make this trip without refueling stops).
Any info on this?
Thanks!
Cheers!
Gastón - The MD-11 Junkie
There is no such thing as Boeing vs Airbus as the queen of the skies has three engines, winglets and the sweetest nose!
Dandy_don From United States, joined May 2000, 198 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 990 times:
Remember NWA purchased 757-300s as DC-10 replacements. I don't think it is comfortable enough to be a good DC-10 replacement but nevertheless that is what NWA bought them for.
That is correct. The DC-10 was a classic. Classics are irreplaceable...End of discussion...
However..Since airlines do not operate on nostalgia....
If one were to look at the last remaining stronghold of DC-10 operations; Northwest....and at the routes in transition...
It's fairly clear the role, at least for NW, is being assumed by the A330.
Doesn't the 757-300 though come up short in capacity? I'm sure it's comparable in range and short-field performance.
The DC-10 was built to AA's specifications to go out fully loaded MDW-LGA? No? or was it ORD-LGA?
Sponsor Message: 
From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2005, 4085 posts, 
From India, joined Feb 2004, 5594 posts, 
From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2074 posts, 
From United States, joined Nov 2003, 6899 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2005, 4439 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined May 2005, 169 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2201 posts, 
From Argentina, joined May 2005, 2622 posts, 
)
From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts,