Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
McDonnell Douglas, If It Didn't Merge?  
User currently offlineGREATANSETT From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 508 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8726 times:

Im was just thinking, could MDC have survived if it didn't merge with Boeing? MDC had a strong military operation so why was the commercial division always second to Boeing? If it didn't merge, would the market have seen new versions of the MD90 or MD11 series, or even the MD12? Did the company have big plans that it was about to embark on?

Thankyou for replies in advanced.


Ron Paul 2012
59 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMagyarorszag From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8694 times:

Quoting GREATANSETT (Thread starter):
Im was just thinking, could MDC have survived if it didn't merge with Boeing?

No! MDC was simply loosing its share of the cilivian aircraft market as their last all new plane was the DC-10, compared to what Airbus and Boeing were and are still offering. On the military side, it wasn't that bright either. They lost the JSF contract to their competitors. To stay in the air, MDC would have needed a huge injection of billions of  dollarsign  Would have any financial institution been ready to lend them that money ?


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7062 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8659 times:

There were plans of a "twin" engine plane similar to the 767/A310 which could have been a good airplane for MDD.
Also the MD 95 maybe would have seen more customers as the step-child 717 because MDD would have offered a "717-300" version. But I doubt that they would have gained much market share in comparison with Airbus and Boeing.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineLat41 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 470 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8594 times:

$$$ is what it's all about. The MD-11 would have needed a costly modernized wing designed from scratch,, not a DC-10 updated wing, in order to compete and fulfill the range and performance promised during development. The MD-90 also needed a new, larger high tech wing design to improve range and ceiling capabilities. Then perhaps, the MD-95 or 717 with other horses in the stable, might have it's own development fleshed out including the 200 series which would have been the 717-300. The funds were not around at that time.
MD still might have been eclipsed but might have had a lot more life and sales before that happened.


User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8488 times:

How did MDC get into this situation?
I mean ... the DC-9/MD-80 and DC-10 series was extremely successful ... I think?!?
And the MD-11 was not a disaster ... was it?
And as far as I remember the DC-8 series did quite well.

How did MDC fall behind on the commercial market?


Now I only wait for a Chinese manufacture to start building big planes, but not until at least 2015.


User currently offlineMagyarorszag From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8432 times:

Quoting Chiad (Reply 4):
How did MDC get into this situation?
I mean ... the DC-9/MD-80 and DC-10 series was extremely successful ... I think?!?
And the MD-11 was not a disaster ... was it?
And as far as I remember the DC-8 series did quite well.

How did MDC fall behind on the commercial market?

We may say that everything started at the time of transition from propliners to jetliners. Then Boeing was well ahead with its 707. Douglas had to rush to fill the gap, helped in it by the order from Pan Am.

The DC-8 is a good plane as we can still see it around in commercial services. But, the last one was built in 1972 while the 707 lastest up to the '80s in its commercial version. (corect me if wrong). And, the DC-8 wouldn't have been produced that long if MDC didn't went ahead with the Super 60s version, which accounted for about half the production.

At the time of the DC-10 maiden flight, MDC expected to sell something like 1000 of them. When the production line closed in 1988 or 89, only 446 DC-10 & KC-10A were built. About 300 of them were ordered druring the 1970s, and what helped to keep the production line open was the USAF order for 60 KC-10A. The DC-10 was plagued by some designing problems and a lot of very bad advertisment from the medias, even when the aircraft wasn't at fault, i.e. American crash at ORD in 1979.

The DC-9/MD-80/MD-90 line was the most successful jet product for the company. in all, 2287 were produced. In that case, MDC took the lead over Boeing, when it produced the MD-80 from then end of the '70s, while the 737-300 came a while later. MDC tried to do it a second time when they decided to do the MD-90. But compared to the A320 family and B737NG, it was too little too late, and only 100 plus were built.

The MD-11 could have been a success if produced earlier with a lot more money for its designing. In ten years, only 200 of them were built when LH Cargo received the last one at the beginning of 2001. Compared to the 570 B777 delivered in eleven years or the 740 A330/340 in fourteen years, he numbers speak for themself!

MDC bosses were mostly from McDonnell, the military company, and lacked of commercial vision. During the 1970s, the CEO would have said about the DC-10: "Take of leave it!" to an airline asking for some kind of discount. If true, is that a way to be economically successful ?

[Edited 2006-08-07 15:30:36]

User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1596 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8399 times:

Look, this may cause a A vs M war....

But the subsidies that A was getting pretty much bankrupt the MD commerical business. Very good example of market manipulation by governments at its best. But the US was at fault, as they agreed to Airbus getting loans.

Airbus just had money to spend on R&D where MD did not. MD did neglect its commercial division to some degree. But it's hard to face a competitor that gets pretty much free loans for new products. So Boeing purchased their defense business, which happen to include the commerical airplanes.

Cheers,



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8366 times:

Quoting Magyarorszag (Reply 5):
The DC-9/MD-80/MD-90 line was the most successful jet product for the company. in all, 2287 were produced.

The funny thing was...the then Douglas Aircraft Company originally thought the DC-9 would be a flop.

History would have it otherwise, the Great Douglas company went bankrupt because of too much demand...too little resources (can you believe that?), and then merged with the McDonnell company in 1968 to form McDonnell Douglas. Hence the DC-1,2,3...10 and then to MD-11, MD-80 series (DC-9-80), MD-90...


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8361 times:

This would have happened:



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineKSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8298 times:

Did the different aircraft configuration after the DC-8 have an effect on MD as well? Boeing and Airbus stuck to the wing mounted engines for the most part (727 is an exception), however, most MD aircraft were t-tailed aircraft with tail mounted engines or tri-jets.

Boeing dumped the tri-jet after the 727, however MD held on longer. While the tri-jet design mades the DC-10 and MD-11 interesting aircraft, I wonder what would have been had they used your everyday twin-jet configuration.

The aircraft that would have seen the largest benefit from MD staying alive would be the MD-80/90/95 line. I believe we would have seen more efficient engine options for the MD-80 (thus keeping AA MD-80s alive a bit longer) We would have seen an MD-95 stretch that AirTran and AA might have been interested in.

The battle that I would have loved to see is over the narrow-bodies.
Imagine in 2008 when Boeing and Airbus start gearing up their narrow replacement programs if you had MD thrown in and let's throw Embraer in there for good luck as well.

Boeing: 737-RS
Airbus: Airbus NSR (New Short Range)
Embraer: E-200
MD: MD-XX (maybe 98? We're talking a composite, super-efficient, T-Tailed rear mounted aircraft, 787 shaped fuselage, maybe they'd even dust off the MD-94X UDF technology)


User currently offlineKSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8273 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 8):
This would have happened:

I wonder how that would have fared against the A380 and the 747-8I. If both Airbus and MD were coming out with superjumbos, I think Boeing would have to look into a superjumbo of their own. Boeing is doing well against just Airbus, however, had there been two superjumbos, that would have left them in third place.

And here is the biggest tragedy of the MD-Boeing merger. It killed all the competition. We have already shown here that if MD were still around we would have had a 3 way battle for a Superjumbo, and a 3, possibly 4 way battle over the narrowbody market as well.


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8257 times:

I have posted this before, but this diagram shows how the consolidation panned out except for one merger that was to happen but did not, that being the Northrup Grumman - Lockheed Martin merger. This merger was killed because LM was already #1 in military contracts by a substantial margin and just two biggies was not seen as ideal IIRC.

I believe that if Boeing did not scoop up MD, Northrup would have. MD civil was financially crippled but they had a few first rate military assets and contracts.

MDs fate was sealed, BUT if Northrup would have taken it would Northrup have juiced up the civil side and become a solid third player in the civil market? That is the question I wonder about.

MD just wasn't viable on its own anymore, just like most of the others on this chart, without huge cold war contracts to provide stability. My point being that you cannot ignore the driving force of the military sides of these companies and how it affects the civil side with regard to mergers and acquisitions.

Big version: Width: 432 Height: 384 File size: 69kb
American Aircraft Companies Family Tree



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7776 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8201 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 11):
I have posted this before, but this diagram shows how the consolidation panned out except for one merger that was to happen but did not,

What he said. The Boeing/MDC merger was part of a longer pattern of consolidation in the American (and global) aerospace industry. Which was hastened by the end of the Cold War and reduction in military sizes by the US and other major powers.

Basically over the span of 5 decades you have an industry w/ several dozen players (probably a good 5-10 major ones) to an industry dominated by 5-6 firms (Boeing, L-M, Northrup-Gruman, Raytheon, and Honeywell).



If the merger didn't happen, I agree that somebody else would have scouped MD up, and even then I doubt the commercial side would have lasted very long. The main weakness of the final MDC product was a lack of money to invest in the designs... hence the underperformance of the MD-11 and MD-90. Both Airbus and Boeing had the $$$ to develop new product and to market/sell their aircraft. As large as the commercial aviation market is, it doesn't seem to be big enough to have more than 2-3 major players.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8195 times:

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 6):
But the subsidies that A was getting pretty much bankrupt the MD commerical business. Very good example of market manipulation by governments at its best. But the US was at fault, as they agreed to Airbus getting loans.

Airbus just had money to spend on R&D where MD did not. MD did neglect its commercial division to some degree. But it's hard to face a competitor that gets pretty much free loans for new products. So Boeing purchased their defense business, which happen to include the commerical airplanes.

Airbus really did not "bankrupt" the MD commercial business. That happened pretty much in house. Th original mistake was Douglas sitting on it's hands while Boeing developed the 707. Once the McDonnell and Douglas merger occurred it was the lack of will by the folks in St. Louis to invest in the commercial side that put the nails in the coffin.

There is case after case of where MD could have put money into the commercial side but instead choose to put it back into the military side, fat bonus checks for executives etc. When MD launched the MD-11 they could have spent the extra money and put a new wing on it. Instead they went the cheap route and put winglets on it instead. We all know the end result. Imagine if they had put a new wing on the eleven and it met performance goals. Maybe airlines like Singapore would not have cancelled their orders. Or if they had gone through with the plan to make a twin out of it.

When time came to replace the MD-80 MD could have come out with an entirely new design. SInce they did not want to pound the pavement for financing instead they came out with the lemon with wings, the MD-90. Then there were the facilities in Long Beach. While MD sunk money into the defense side Long Beach was forgotten. By the time I went to work there in the late nineties the place was practically falling apart. When I first showed up I thought it was going to be a high tech marvel. Instead it was like working in a ship yard.

So it's more than a case of neglecting to "some" degree. It was a case of neglect to a large degree.

[Edited 2006-08-07 16:56:33]

[Edited 2006-08-07 16:58:57]

User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1596 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8195 times:

The question is now whether Boeing realized a gain or a loss of its MD investment.

I bet it was a huge loss.



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8153 times:

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 14):
I bet it was a huge loss.

Define loss.

What were the opportunity costs involved? How much effort and money would it have taken to develop a Boeing version of Phantom Works? Could Boeing have secured a larger share in the F-22 and F-35 without MD assets? Smaller?
What about the Super Hornet, a highly profitable program as is the F-15 and C-17.

This was not about civil aviation, it was about making Boeing more of a player on the military side in the areas that still exist. They lost the lion share of the F-22 and F-35 due to their weakness in the modern fighter arena, now they look to dominate the sixth generation UAV fighter market.

Without MD I think their share of military contracts would erode, and LM and Northrup would dominate. It is a lot more complicated than a simple did they make more money last year because of the MD acquisition.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7519 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8030 times:

Quoting KSUpilot (Reply 9):
We would have seen an MD-95 stretch that AirTran and AA might have been interested in.

If that were the case, one of FL's bragging advertising slogans would have been having the youngest All McDonnell-Douglas fleet.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1596 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8000 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 15):
Define loss.

A return on it's investment. Not, too sure if they reached that yet. anyone know?

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 15):
Boeing version of Phantom Works? Could Boeing have secured a larger share in the F-22 and F-35 without MD assets? Smaller?
What about the Super Hornet, a highly profitable program as is the F-15 and C-17.

Oh, so that is why they bought MD? I mentioned that in my first post. The commercial lines came with what they really wanted to buy.

From your post, you agree with this merger?



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineLijnden From Philippines, joined Apr 2003, 564 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7916 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Cargo:
I still think that the C-17 modified as a civilian cargo hauler would have been a great success. This modern transporter must be one of the strongest and toughest planes around. Easy access and quick turn arounds are some of the strong points. I am not sure about the fuel consumption, but I always think of it as the T7 (B777) of the military transporters. Imagine one of these beasts in the c/s of FedEx, Lufthansa Cargo, KLM, Atlas, DHL or UPS!

On the civilian side I would liked to have seen Fokker and MD work together on making a 'family' from the F-100/MD-90. Seating ranging from 50 - 150 with ranges from 1500 NM to 3500 NM. Unfortunately Fokker was killed by DASA and MD became Boeing and lost all of its identity.



Be kind to animals!
User currently offlineGregtx From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7865 times:

MacDac never made a nickel on any commercial jet aircraft program.
If you have the tenacity, check the purchase agreement between Boeing--it's a huge document--but very telling.

Due to accounting methods used, most R&D expenses were allocated to airframes and not written off in the period incurred as done with 80% or more of development at Boeing, Airbus, etc(the rest being allocated to airframes). This is likely a holdover from the military programs when cost overruns were readily paid.

From a commercial standpoint they could never sell an aircraft above breakeven--which is pretty amazing when you consider the number of MD-8X's that were sold. However, the constant development of new models kept the debt servicing amounts increasing at alarming rates into the 90's.

I understand to a certain degree this is 'paper money'--not actual cash. However, the expenditure has to be accounted for---no aircraft (from the first DC-8 to the last MD-90) was ever sold above cost. The 717 could not be profitable since Boeing had to write off the previous MD-95 debt (which inherited a portion of the MD-80/90 debt)

This does not tarnish the great work they did---just a rather interesting accounting anomaly that may have accelerated their demise.

I was surprised as heck when I read about this.

Brgds,
Greg/


User currently offlineAirEMS From United States of America, joined May 2004, 684 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7852 times:

Quoting Lijnden (Reply 18):
I still think that the C-17 modified as a civilian cargo hauler would have been a great success

I thought they did offer the C-17 as the MD-17 and there were no takers due to high cost?

I have a question... Can you tie a A/C builder to their # 1 airline customer? (if their customer book is small) if that airline goes down will the builder also? example.. Lockheed



If Your Dying Were Flying
User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7776 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7832 times:

Quoting AirEMS (Reply 20):
Quoting Lijnden (Reply 18):
I still think that the C-17 modified as a civilian cargo hauler would have been a great success

I thought they did offer the C-17 as the MD-17 and there were no takers due to high cost?

I would say your thought is incorrect. For one the oversized air freight market is pretty small. You don't need an aircraft like the C-17 to haul envelopes or standard sized boxes like FedEx, UPS, DHL, et al do. Most oversized stuff gets moved around by rail, ship, truck. For the stuff that is time sensitive there are enough AN-124s, IL-76s, etc available to meet demand.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7793 times:

Well after the DC10 of 1970odd, MD launched no all new aircraft in the next 30 years, so it's perhaps not surprising that they struggled to compete, you can only get by on derivatives for so long.

Clearly there was a massive hole in their portfolio between the DC9/MD80 and the DC10, which Boeing filled very nicely with the 757 and 767 both of which sold about 1000 units - the Airbus rivals from the 70s, the A300 and A310 were far less successful. A modern MD plane in this category could perhaps have sold 500-1000 units?



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7778 times:

Magyarorszag ... thank you!
 bigthumbsup 


User currently offlineD950 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7741 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 16):
Quoting KSUpilot (Reply 9):
We would have seen an MD-95 stretch that AirTran and AA might have been interested in.

If that were the case, one of FL's bragging advertising slogans would have been having the youngest All McDonnell-Douglas fleet.

Joe Leonard begged Boeing for a 717-300, and the deaf ear kept leaning toward the 737-700's we now see, I believe a technically advanced MD90 or 717-300 would have sold decently, especially among LCC's.



Resting on your laurels is a synonym for flirting with disaster
25 DeltaDC9 : Disagree, the commercial lines came with what they really wanted to snuff out. Absolutely, look at what it has done on the military side, and it remo
26 PHLBOS : The original MDD designation for the proposed-but-never-built 717-300 was the MD-95-50, I believe. The current 717-200 was originally the MD-95-30. O
27 Magyarorszag : My pleasure. Cheers.
28 LMP737 : Boeing secured it's place with the F-22 before the merger. As for the JSF they don't much of a share to speak of anymore.
29 DeltaDC9 : Quite true, my mistake. I guess the question is do they think they might have actually won the lion share if it happened after the acquisition? My im
30 Lehpron : Might I ask what do 747 freighters haul then?
31 DeltaDC9 : All 250 or so of them.....
32 OzarkD9S : I'm surprised no one mentioned the DC-10/L-1011 rivalry, which effectively drove Lockheed out commercial aircraft production and basically neutralized
33 Post contains images MD80fanatic : It's really simple, MD was not willing to build cheapazz tinfoil airplanes like it's competitors. The same way cheaper, flimsier Chinese goods have p
34 LMP737 : It's simple as MD not willing to spend the money on their commercial line. End of story. This coming from an MD fan and someone who used to work in L
35 Post contains images MD80fanatic : AWWWE, you're ruining all the fun. You are implying that the MD product was somwhow not up to par with it's competition. This is clearly not the case
36 Bohlman : I fail to see how there would have been a three way battle for a Superjumbo. Boeing does not feel there is enough of a market demand to warrant the f
37 RC135U : Didn't Boeing have some real concerns about a possible Airbus interest in MD, thus buying MD so Airbus couldn't?
38 AirbusA6 : MD and Airbus were pondering at one stage coordinating their A330 and MD11, this was dumped when Airbus went ahead with it's MD11 rival A340... Would
39 Greasespot : That is just it.....a B747F carries the standard freight... A C-17 or MD/BC-17 is designed for oversized freight.....The collapse of the USSR has pro
40 KSUpilot : I'm talking about today and the next 6 years. Say if MD were still around when it comes time for the Narrow-Body battle. And there is your four-way b
41 MD80fanatic : Fuel burn and sound were not such big matters back when these babies (10s and 11s) were being built. The 330 and T7 are not FAR more efficient (fuel
42 LTU932 : Here's a question to think about: we're all discussing what could have happened if McDonnell Douglas didn't merge with Boeing. But what could have hap
43 Aerodog : No one has mentioned the mediocre management at the very top of M-D. You may be the major shareholder but that does not mean you are qualified to lead
44 Baron95 : I still think that if a company produces the right product at the right time for the right price they can ahd probably will be successful. Look at Em
45 MasseyBrown : One thing Douglas taught everybody: how to build rubber airplanes. From the DC-4 on, everything was stretchable. The DC-8 60 series caused huge frustr
46 707lvr : Boeing bought out a struggling competitor, that's all. How many years has it been now with all those potential billions of new revenue and profit? It
47 DeltaDC9 : This is the opportunity costs that people forget about. What would it have "cost" Boeing if Airbus got MD civil and someone else got MD Military?(bec
48 DesertJets : That's a lot of ifs to be honest. What the past 10 years has shown is that in order to be competitive and win major orders both Airbus and Boeing had
49 Texfly101 : This is very true. I know that while working there, the bean counters were definitely in charge, making all the decisions about planning and programs
50 DeltaDC9 : I DID! 5 posts after yours though....
51 Areopagus : And yet it was Mr. Mac who forced Douglas to prematurely discontinue the DC-8, and refused to allow Douglas to negotiate DC-10 price with customers,
52 Magyarorszag : Thus, you're confirming what I said in one of my earlier post on this topic.
53 TheCheese : But remember, in the early 1970s when the DC-8 was cancelled, the SST was just around the corner, and everyone thought that subsonic jetliners were g
54 Post contains images Bmacleod : Here's one possibility McDD could have looked at...get out of commercial airliners as Boeing and Airbus had over 90% of that market; and concentrate o
55 Areopagus : Boeing 2707 SST cancellation: 1971 Douglas DC-8 line shutdown: 1972 I don't believe many people in 1972 expected the subsonic fleets to be replaced b
56 Magyarorszag : According toa book I've already mentionned in another thread, during the last three years of prodution, only a few DC-8 were sold. Fourteen in 1969,
57 Post contains images ContnlEliteCMH : Yeah, those 727's... they never lasted. Those rotten 737's... a few thousand cycles and you can trash them. All those 747-200's *still* cranking out
58 N231YE : That was the intention before the oil embargoes of the early 1970's and the "environmentalist revolution" took over. The Concorde was expected to sel
59 LMP737 : Douglas made a fine product in it's day. However aircraft like the MD-80/90 could not compete with aircraft such as the 737NG or A320.
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...
ETOPS-Did It Kill McDonnell-Douglas And Lockheed? posted Tue Jul 12 2005 09:12:43 by SHUPirate1
McDonnell Douglas DC 8 -- A Tribute By Wings. posted Sat Nov 25 2006 09:55:44 by WINGS
If It Wasn't For The A380 Where Would Airbus Be? posted Wed Jun 28 2006 16:49:57 by Art
If It Was'nt For The A320 Where Would Airbus Be posted Tue Jun 27 2006 14:32:01 by Malb777
Staying On An A/C If It Is An Ongoing Flight. posted Mon Apr 3 2006 10:53:36 by Joffie
Douglas Or McDonnell Douglas? posted Fri Oct 28 2005 18:40:18 by C172heavy
Boeing's Takeover Of McDonnell Douglas posted Wed Oct 19 2005 10:24:38 by Propman
Create Your Own Aircraft And See If It Flies posted Sat Jul 16 2005 09:13:37 by SonOfACaptain
Why Did McDonnell Douglas Fail? posted Tue Jun 7 2005 08:40:05 by Avalon
World's Most Loyal McDonnell Douglas Customer? posted Wed Apr 27 2005 20:50:02 by AirEMS
Would TWA Still Exist If It Hadn't Been For Ichan? posted Sat Mar 8 2014 06:25:36 by TriL1011star
If It Weren't For AS Would SEA Have A Hub? posted Tue Feb 25 2014 21:38:04 by cosyr
If Stansted Didn't Exist, Would Cambridge Be Bigger? posted Wed May 22 2013 07:10:18 by 8herveg
If AA/US Merge What Happens To UA Codeshare posted Mon Apr 1 2013 01:32:59 by B377
What Would The 747 Be If It Was Designed Today? posted Sat Dec 15 2012 21:56:43 by cosyr
Would Airbus Have Made The A380 If EK Didn't Buy? posted Sun Sep 30 2012 08:48:06 by American 767
McDonnell Douglas 90 Days Program posted Wed Jun 6 2012 16:08:44 by GREATANSETT
McDonnell Douglas Turbo Prop? posted Fri Dec 24 2010 11:31:58 by falstaff
BA's 77Ws - How Do You Tell If It Is? posted Tue Sep 7 2010 23:18:41 by alitaliadc10