Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?  
User currently offlineGREATANSETT From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 508 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10818 times:

Hello all,
I was just wondering why the MD-11 in comparison to the 777-200, failed when the data avaliable seem to indicate that the MD-11 is a better aircraft. NOTE:If I remember off memory, The MD-11 burnt .2L less in terms of Km.
777-200
Range-9537Km
Capacity-Flightcrew of two. Passenger seating for 305 in three classes or up to 440. Underfloor capacity for up to 32 LD3 containers
Producton-452
MD-11
Range-12,633km
Capacity-Max single class seating for 410, can seat 298 in three classes, 323 in two (I think that the MD11 has greater container capacity)
Production-200










SORRY IF THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE


Ron Paul 2012
51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6474 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10783 times:

You should be comparing the MD-11 to the 777-200A, but to the 777-200ER. The MD-11 did not meet promised performance, and was introduced at the wrong time as there were already widebody twinjets - the 767, A300, and A310. The 777 was released only five years later. Trijets are considered more difficult in terms of maintenece.


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineMah584jr From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 509 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10783 times:

I have heard that plane maintenance cost a lot for the MD-11. Engine parts were harder to come by. Production was halted because Boeing swallowed up Douglas and hence had no use for the plane, when they already had the 777.

User currently offlineGREATANSETT From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 508 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10775 times:

Yet the 767,A300 and A310 did not directly compete with the MD11. Had the MD11 met its preformance targets would it still be in production today?


Ron Paul 2012
User currently offlineBohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2688 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10745 times:

The MD-11 is not a failure. Ask Fedex, UPS, Gemini, etc. They are killing each other for every one that becomes available. The MD-11 might not be the most successful plane for passenger ops, but they are for cargo ops.

User currently offlineGREATANSETT From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 508 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10739 times:

Then if they are that popular why are the MD11F's not being produced anymore?


Ron Paul 2012
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13073 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10729 times:

With 452 frames and with only a few not flying, it is a failure? While very few are in service as pax a/c, they have become very successful as freighers.
The MD-11 wasn't the most successful aircraft, in part due to bad timing. It had disappointing performance in comparision to the then avilable 2 engine a/c. Engine and airframe engineering with twin engine mid and large a/c was more up to date. The MD-11 was a 1960's basic design from the DC-10 and was difficult to improve in comparision to the 747 and other newer a/c from both A & B, without enough frames to cover the costs of more extensive engineering improvements. That 3rd engine is a PITA to access to work on it and of course, 3 engines would normally burn at cruse more fuel than 2 larger engines. Another issue is the growth of Airbus, with the A-310, A-340, as well as the Boeing 767 with improved variants taking some of the market of the MD-11 series. Many airlines also wanted to stick to one brand of a/c or another for their larger a/c, and despite the quality of engineering of MD's the were one too many brand of a/c, with it's own mx requirements.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10699 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 6):
With 452 frames and with only a few not flying, it is a failure?

Exactly 200 MD-11 were built, and there have been several losses


User currently offlineTango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3805 posts, RR: 29
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10699 times:

Quoting GREATANSETT (Thread starter):
MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

The condensed version: The MD-11 was an overweight underperformer.

Quoting Mah584jr (Reply 2):
Production was halted because Boeing swallowed up Douglas and hence had no use for the plane, when they already had the 777

IIRC, production was halted because all (or very nearly all) MD-11 pax version orders had been built by the time Boeing acquired McDonnell-Douglas. Many of the MD-11s in the order book were cancelled and never built when performance failed to meet the numbers represented or when the airlines by whom they were ordered went out of business before their MD-11 orders were built. Also, sales of the reasonably popular pure cargo version of the '11 were hindered by the premature retirement of many pax '11s, which were converted to freighters.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 2 days ago) and read 10689 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 6):
With 452 frames and with only a few not flying, it is a failure?

Only 200 MD-11's were built.


User currently offlineBohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2688 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10541 times:

Quoting GREATANSETT (Reply 5):
Then if they are that popular why are the MD11F's not being produced anymore?

When Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas, Boeing discontinued building them. It is not cost effective to keep a production line open just for new MD-11F's. When passenger airlines were selling their MD-11's it was cheaper to convert one to cargo than buy a new one.


User currently offlineCf6ppe From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10457 times:

Quoting Mah584jr (Reply 2):
I have heard that plane maintenance cost a lot for the MD-11. Engine parts were harder to come by

Please rest assured that parts for the GE CF6-80C2D1F and PW 4462 (4460 & 4458) powerplants installed on MD11's are currently in sufficient quantities that engines are not delayed in the repair process in the various engine shops.
The reason being (that parts are available) is that although the MD11 configurations of these engines aren't being produced, similar models of these engines (i.e., GE CF6-80C2 and PW 44xx) used on Boeing and Airbus are being produced using those families of engine parts. Also, spare parts manufacture is a very big business.

Now what I do agree with from your statement is the fact that engine and airframe parts are quite expensive. A lot of you would gasp if you had to support the parts cost for repair of an engine from you annual earnings.

Replacement of only the HP Turbine blades and vanes runs the bill up well over a million dollars. Life Limited parts replacements of the various disks, shafts, spools, and hubs makes will make you think that you are in the wrong business (i.e., maybe you should be on the selling end instead of being on the purchasing side).


User currently offlineGeo772 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10255 times:

When Boeing bought out McDonnell Douglas it marked the end of the MD11. Also the MD 80/90 line was closed when the 717 ceased to be built this year.

Boeing had a real winner with the 777 as it was a more capable airplane than either the MD11 or the A340 series aircraft due in part to the lower operating costs. Also with the soon to be introduced freighter version a true successor to the DC10/MD11 freighter will round off the family.



Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
User currently offlineAussieItaliano From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10041 times:

What I don't understand is why several airlines ordered them, and then got rid of them (sometimes in less than 10 years). This just doesn't seem like the best financial decision to be ordering planes and then dumping them off to cargo carriers soon after at a much lower price than that originally paid.

Maybe someone else knows the reasoning here. Anyone?



LHR - The Capital of the World
User currently offlineMalpensaSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9779 times:

The MD-11 program was far from a failure..

American Airlines
Delta Airlines
World Airways
VARIG Brazilian Airlines
VASP Brazilian Airlines
USAfrica Airways
Swissair
Swiss International
Alitalia
Alitalia Cargo
Sabena
CityBird
Martin Air
Martin Air Cargo
LTU
KLM
Lufthansa Cargo
Finnair
Saudia Airlines
Saudia Airlines Cargo
Thai Airways
China Airlines
Mandarain Airlines
China Eastern Airlines
Garuda Indonesia
Philippine Airlines
Japan Air Lines
Korean Airlines
Fedex
Gemini
UPS

The only thing that killed the MD-11 program were more fuel efficient planes. The same thing that killed off the DC-8, 707, 727 and so forth..


User currently offlineBigB From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 596 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9686 times:

Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 14):
The MD-11 program was far from a failure..

American Airlines
Delta Airlines
World Airways
VARIG Brazilian Airlines
VASP Brazilian Airlines
USAfrica Airways
Swissair
Swiss International
Alitalia
Alitalia Cargo
Sabena
CityBird
Martin Air
Martin Air Cargo
LTU
KLM
Lufthansa Cargo
Finnair
Saudia Airlines
Saudia Airlines Cargo
Thai Airways
China Airlines
Mandarain Airlines
China Eastern Airlines
Garuda Indonesia
Philippine Airlines
Japan Air Lines
Korean Airlines
Fedex
Gemini
UPS

The only thing that killed the MD-11 program were more fuel efficient planes. The same thing that killed off the DC-8, 707, 727 and so forth..

With only 200 built and a lot of these airlines got rid of thing quite quickly. Doesn't look like a success.



ETSN Baber, USN
User currently offlineBALandorLivery From UK - England, joined Jan 2005, 360 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8969 times:

Discussed in detail many times before.

User currently offlineFLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 462 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8878 times:

When the MD-11 was conceived, ETOPs was in its infancy. But when the 180 minute ETOPs was granted to the 767, by the time the MD-11 entered service, the 767 was on its way to dominating the North Atlantic market.

The cancelled Singapore order for the MD-11's early lack of range/payload performance also hurt.

Then came strong competitors like the A330/340, and ultimately, the B777, that finished the MD-11 off. These planes all offered superior technology and performance at similar prices.


User currently offlineFXMD11 From Thailand, joined Aug 2004, 184 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8581 times:

Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 8):
Also, sales of the reasonably popular pure cargo version of the '11 were hindered by the premature retirement of many pax '11s, which were converted to freighters

One of the greatest midsize freighters ever manufactured.Excellent Feeder
for Integrators like us, FDX. Quick to turn around, low in maintanence, long
range, hence great for hub connections ie. Subic Bay to Los Angeles / Memphis-Paris. The freighter version was definately a success and still continues to be one. TG had no problems selling their 4 x Elevens to UPS.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8514 times:

Not as a Freighter. bigthumbsup 
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineBA787 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 2596 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8423 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 9):
Only 200 MD-11's were built.

Of which 195 are still in service, including the first one to be built OH-LGA which flies with Finnair.

Quoting BigB (Reply 15):
With only 200 built and a lot of these airlines got rid of thing quite quickly. Doesn't look like a success.

Yes but many still operate them especially cargo. KLM, Finnair and many cargo airlines but to name a few.

I also know for a fact that Finnair are very pleased with their MD-11's and liked them so much that they ordered more which meant that they recieved the last production aircraft, OH-LGE.



Still operators:

World Airways:7 MD11, 2 MD11ER, 2 MD11F: 11
Alitalia: 1 MD11 Combi, 4 MD11F:5
MArtinair: 4 MD11CF, 3 MD11F: 7
KLM: 10 MD11: 10
Lufthansa Cargo: 19 MD11F: 19
Finnair: 6 MD11, 1 MD11ER: 7
Saudi Arabian Airlines: 4 MD11F: 4
THAI: 4 MD11: 4
Fedex: 1 MD11, 49 MD11F: 50
Gemini: 4 MD11F: 4
UPS: 1 MD11, 19 MD11F: 20
Shanghai: 1 MD11F: 1
Transmile Air Services: 4 MD11F: 4
Air Namibia: 2 MD11: 2
Eva Air: 11 MD11F: 11


Stored: Saudi Arabian Government: 2
Delta: 3
Varig: 13
Fedex: 8
UPS: 1


2 crashed, Swissair 111, Korean Air

Total 188, 5 Broken up = 193

Dunno about the rest, someone shed some light?

Tom


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7802 times:

Well, to paraphrase Cato, every third word out of Seattle was "Douglas delenda est" for a long time before this happened.

You guys insist on comparing aircraft on relatively narrow indices of merit. That's not looking at the big picture.

The reality is this. What Boeing bought was a monopoly position in the commercial aircraft industry.

The Long Beach plant was offered to Taiwan, which studied the setup for about six months before getting cold feet. I think it was going to be too much for them, and maybe their nerve failed them. Who knows?

There was also a brief, under the radar flirtation with Airbus which came to nothing. Wanna bet that if it was an Airbus plant today that the "next air tanker" issue would be solved forever? But it was not to be.

Boeing bought the facility for one reason and one reason only. It was to keep anyone else with a mind to take a flyer out of the trade by upping the ante.
See, it's like a lot of other businesses that are capital, labor, and knowledge intensive. It is a lot easier to get into a business like that by buying up a facility that is already in existence, even if it's not doing real well.

In buying up Douglas and letting the product lines bleed to death, Boeing made damn sure to plant a stake in the heart of the hated Californians and make sure that, in the future when commercial aircraft were to be built in the United States it would be by Boeing, north of the Columbia River and not by some bunch of pezzonovante upstarts.

We see that here in the midwest. Large meatpackers buy up and idle productive capacity. It is always there as a threat to keep people in their place when they get to thinking they'd like to capture some of those dollars. I had a client in a specialized metalworking trade buy up all the assets of a failed competitor to keep anyone else from going into that trade on the cheap.

And that is why marketing of the Douglas product lines post Boeing came to nothing. It had little to do with merit. It also explains why the Chinese will never get to buy the type certificates.

And it also explains why, when the last C17 rolls off the line, there won't be any choices or alternatives for anyone in the market for an American made commercial jet. There is no more competition.

They'll shutter the C17 plant and climb into the limos with a big assed smile because the building and all the tooling in it belongs to Uncle Sugar-you heard right. Sugar owns the C17 plant and the tooling, and Boeing doesn't have a nickel in it.

And they'll have the perfect patsy-they'll blame the government.

And that, my friends, explains the moral bankruptcy of the last two administrations and the excessive amount of influence that Boeing wields in Washington.

It explains the incredibly piss poor efforts of Feinstein and Boxer to see this train wreck and run up the track with a lantern-hell, we're 2.5 million here in Iowa and we have more horsepower in DC than California with Harkin and Grassley.

It also explains why, in a larger sense, there was no massive effort of the EU to intervene like they do in so many other affairs affecting global trade that are rooted in this country-Microsoft and Apple, to name two.

They kept their noses out of it because it was one less competitor for Airbus. Boeing, in a sense, was doing their dirty work for them.

I wonder what they think of their decision today?

Now....you might wonder how I came to know all this. Simply, I along with a couple of other people here at a.net was there.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7642 times:

Quoting GREATANSETT (Thread starter):
SORRY IF THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE

Are you really? A search would have turned up plenty of answers to your question.

"This user is temporarily banned due to repeated violation of our forum rules. The account will be activated again as soon as the user confirms that he/she will adhere to the rules in the future. "

Hmm...

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
And they'll have the perfect patsy-they'll blame the government.

Sounds like YOU'RE blaming the government.

If what you're saying is true, then it would have immense anti-trust consequences. That simply doesn't seem to be the case. The answer to this question is simple: the MD-11 went away because Airbus and Boeing offerings were far superior.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineTeixeim From United States of America, joined May 2005, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7597 times:

Woof - after that last post, mine will get lost, but here goes:

to the a.netters who want to discuss a failure airliner set, why not discuss the Convair 880/990 line? Those were certainly failures, even though there's fans of those aircraft who'll swear they weren't. Another failure would be the Vickers VC-10.

Reminder to flamers: we're discussing commercial failure/success here -- not anything else!


User currently offlineWSOY From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7524 times:

Quoting BA787 (Reply 20):
Finnair: 6 MD11, 1 MD11ER: 7

All are now standard MD-11, with an MTOW of the -ER version.
They are likely to see service beyond 2012 as the A350 will be late.


25 1011 : As a pax I loved the M11. Huge windows! Comfortable cabin. And it made a really cool sound. Not as cool as the L10 though. Long live the tri-jets. I g
26 Jetset7E7 : It failed to meet its targets for range and fuel burn, and American Airlines in particular was unimpressed; as was Singapore Airlines, who cancelled t
27 WSOY : With twice the capital cost, I believe.
28 Da man : OH-LGA was the first MD-11 delivered, the first one to be built was an MD-11F for FedEx - N601FE.
29 CosmicCruiser : This wasn't the fault of the jet.
30 Nosedive : FX lost one in EWR and one at Subic Bay. Mandarin (yes?) lost one as well.
31 Post contains links and images AirEMS : I have a book that shows a KC-11 I think it looked great but the USAF never bought it though. Even though it may have failed on what ever level I thin
32 MTY2GVA : Along with why Northwest hasnt retired the DC-9s this is a record braking thread.
33 DfwRevolution : A new-build 777 did not cost twice what a new-build MD11 cost when both aircraft were in production. This may now be the case since the MD-11 is rest
34 FLALEFTY : Aha! Another progressive! Yea! However, given the importance of the C-17, and the fact that the USAF is putting heavy flying hours on the current fle
35 Mig21UMD : Australia decsided on 5 C17 as well.
36 CosmicCruiser : In the context of this and all the previous similar posts regarding the reasons of the MD-11 "failure" I think it's reasonable to state, when speakin
37 FireFly : Are you saying I should give a second thought to my imminant purchase of a 748 when it rolls off the assembly line??
38 Padster : ..have we forgoten about varig so soon .. were they not the largest passenger operator of the md11?
39 MalpensaSFO : Dont forget Mandarin Airlines from Taipei to Hong Kong..
40 Olympicbis : From a passenger point of view, I did fly several times on the Swissair / Swiss MD11s. It was one of the finest aircraft to fly on : very quiet, espec
41 LMP737 : Douglas was where I got my start in the commercial aircraft business. Naturally I'm saddened to see the end of commercial aircraft production there.
42 S12PPL : Especially in the wavy gravy scheme!!
43 Myt332 : Air Namibia actually now only have one MD11 left which is going to be replaced soon by A343, D-AIMF. However, until that is ready they are going to b
44 Post contains links DeC : What about this? http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19980902-0&lang=en
45 Post contains links WSOY : The fire most likely originated from wires belonging to the in-flight entertainment system, a later customer installation. The insulation blankets of
46 Post contains images Socal : The MD-11 was not a failure, my
47 FlyDreamliner : A340 had a hard enough time competing against the 777, can you imagine if MD11 and A340 had to fight for the airlines which for some reason or anothe
48 Thering : I love(or loved) to fly RG's MD-11s, I think this is a great plane... But, even thought, nobody can say that the MD-11 is better than the 777-200 when
49 Padster : or loved ?? they are not gone yet ... I just saw a beuitiful Varig MD 11 take off tonight fron LHR , they still look great !!
50 AMSSFO : Added (source:http://www.ch-aviation.ch/aircraft.php?&search=search&operator=AND&ac_ac=MD-11&start=0: China Cargo Airlines/China Eastern Airlines Car
51 Pulkovokiwi : I wonder if it was not for Erebus NZ would have had any interest?
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...
Beechcraft Starship..Why Was It A Failure? posted Thu Jul 28 2005 19:32:52 by A5XX
MD-11-was It Failure Or Success posted Thu Oct 28 2004 21:44:31 by Daddad525
EMB-123 Vector: Why Was It Cancelled? posted Wed Jul 14 2004 16:42:22 by Qb001
Urgent - New Cls DL MD-11 Where Is It Now? posted Sun Dec 16 2001 09:33:43 by LGW
Why Was The MD 90 Family A Failure? posted Mon Oct 24 2005 02:47:18 by Georgiabill
Summary Of Why The MD-11 Is A Failure posted Fri Jan 18 2002 14:45:36 by Hkg_clk
Attn SAN Spotters: World MD-11 On It's Way! posted Sun Sep 10 2006 18:51:48 by San747
KLM: Why No MD-11 Combi? posted Tue Aug 15 2006 15:42:13 by A342
Why Was An AC A320 At Garett Ramp At LAX 11/23? posted Sat Nov 26 2005 18:15:29 by Unitedtristar
Finnair MD-11 HEL-JFK Video - Download It Here posted Wed Jun 22 2005 10:23:09 by Antiuser