Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Or McDonnel Douglas?  
User currently offlineJet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (16 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2260 times:

The survey about 4 of the top 5 performing airlines operating all Boeing fleets (which incidentally I feel is both wrong and misleading) raised an interesting question,
What is a Boeing and what is a McDonnel Douglas (or just Douglas for that matter)?

First of all, I think there is no question that all the DC-X products are Douglas aircraft, they were all designed and produced long before Boeing started eyeing up the company.

As for the MD- prodcut range, I feel the only aircraft that should carry the Boeing name, if any, are those which were built after the Boeing takeover. Even then I'm not sure, although they were built by "Boeing," they were ordered from McDonnel Douglas - the customers didn't order Boeings - it was just incidental that they were taken over. Was TWA the only airline to order MD- aircraft after the takeover? Maybe the aircraft should bare the name of the company that designed them (MD) rather than the company that screwed together the last few of the thousands of aircraft produced?

The MD aircraft produced before the takeover are definately not Boeings. They were designed and built by McDonnel Douglas, and the airlines were odering McDonnel Douglas. Boeing had nothing to do with these aircraft.

If you rename MD/DC aircraft Boeing, History doesn't make sense. The Boeing 707 and it's arch rival the Boeing DC-8. The Boeing 247, which was thrashed by the Boeing DC-3. Or more recently, the Boeing MD-80 and Boeing MD-11 losing sales to the Boeing 737 and Boeing 777!!!!!!

I think we should stick to keeping Boeing and MD aircraft separate, if it aint in the 7_7 range, it aint Boeing.

This also differentiates the 717/MD-90, this is the only aircraft Boeing wanted and the only one they took into their own numbering range.

I'd be interested to know what everyone else thinks

Look forward to reading your responses 

6 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (16 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2180 times:

DC-9 and below, Douglas. DC-10 and MD series (including MD-95), McDonnell Douglas.

User currently offlineSammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1702 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (16 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2174 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Wasn't the DC-10 built during a merger transition time, just like the MD-95? Or was the DC-10 designed and built after the merger?


User currently offlineYaki1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (16 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2172 times:

Boeing gets all the disadvantages of the merger with MD (such as liabilty, witness the Alaska Air tragedy) I think its fair to give them credit for the positive news. It was truly a joining of two companies, many people I deal with came from the MD side of the company. Only because it was such a recent merger do we would question if it's one company. As for the survey being a valid study one can only say "it's marketing". Boeing has sufferred a lot of bad press recently (disclosures on huck bolt collars, AD and D rivet mixup in Wichita, improper flammability testing for insulation, improper heat treat of wing spars on the767, underestimating the SPEEA strike, etc.etc. etc.) they need to grab all the good press they can get. Does anybody believe everything your car salesman or his marketing department says?

User currently offlineTrident From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 484 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (16 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2167 times:

Does it matter? Single aircraft types these days tend to have such long production lives that their manufacturers merge, change names, are taken over (often all of these) before production ceases. Look at the situation in the UK. The 1-11 began life as a Hunting project, was built by BAC and finally BAe. The Trident was originally De Havilland and then Hawker Siddeley. The 146 started life as Hawker Siddeley, then BAe and is now "badged" as an Avro, even though the Avro company name disappeared in the Government enforced mergers of 1962.

I argue that no "real" new airliner project was ever initiated by Mc Donnell Douglas following the merger in 1967. The DC-9 was already in production and the DC-10 design was being finalised. All subsequent airliners built by the company were derivatives of these two aircraft. In fact, I can't think of any new aircraft (apart from the F-15 Eagle) built by Mc Donnell Douglas after 1970. The AV-8 Harrier is British as is the Hawk. The F-18 Hornet was based on Northrop's F-17. Was the company too busy coining it in on lucrative defence contracts in the 1980's to pay attention to the market place?

User currently offlineJet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (16 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2161 times:

Trident, I suppose you're right, but the 1-11 is always still refered to as the BAC1-11, never the BAe1-11. As for Avro, that's just a marketing name - any connection to the orginal Avro is coincidental!

I have the JP Airlines fleet lists, entries are like this;
Boeing (Douglas) DC-3 etc
This is the best I've found, others just say things like,
"the Boeing MD-80"

I just feel aircraf should be listed under the company that built them, otherwise it just makes nonsense of history and the great sales wars like 707/DC-8 and 737/DC-9.

Maybe I'm just a purist - I just think it's misleading to say an MD-80 built in 1988 is a Boeing. After all, when Ford took over Jaguar, they didn't retrospectively re-brand all Jaguars as Fords did they?   


User currently offlineTrident From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 484 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (16 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2152 times:

Jet Setter,

I actually agree. I always prefer to use the original designation where appropriate eg;, BAC1-11, Avro Vulcan, Vickers VC-10.

However, it gets tricky when a type's manufacturer changes name early in its history eg; the Avro 748 became the Hawker Siddelely 748 early on. The De Havilland Trident and De Havilland DH125 also became HS types early in their lives. What I find totally nonsensical is renaming a type long after production ceased eg; McDonnell Douglas DC-3, BAe Trident etc.

I even have difficulty calling DC-9 Srs 80's MD-80's. And I will never call anything that looks like a DC-9 a Boeing.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing Or McDonnel Douglas? posted Sat Apr 15 2000 17:37:13 by Jet Setter
Why Did Boeing Takeover McDonnel Douglas? posted Sat Jan 19 2002 23:43:42 by Airplanetire
Better Fly By Wire Philosophy: Boeing Or Airbus? posted Mon Oct 2 2006 22:14:40 by Tangowhisky
NRT-Boeing Or Airbus? posted Wed Jan 11 2006 04:51:39 by Fly_yhm
Qantas Pilots Split On Boeing Or 'bus posted Mon Dec 12 2005 04:07:18 by UALMMFlyer
Douglas Or McDonnell Douglas? posted Fri Oct 28 2005 18:40:18 by C172heavy
McDonnel Douglas - MD-80 Series Help Please posted Sat Jul 23 2005 13:41:40 by B742
Boeing Or Airbus For Malaysian posted Tue Feb 22 2005 00:17:49 by Aviationhack
Why Boeing Bought McDonnell Douglas? posted Wed Feb 2 2005 18:18:01 by Aseem
Will Dba Order Boeing Or Airbus? posted Sun Jan 2 2005 18:09:10 by Berlinflyer