Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Did AA Buy The MD-11?  
User currently offlineBALandorLivery From UK - England, joined Jan 2005, 360 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 15990 times:

Wouldn't their 767's or 777's have done the job to a similar degree?

Did they buy the MD-11 just because it was a natural progression from the DC-10?

........

66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 1047 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 15975 times:

In the late 80s, when the MD-11 became available, AA was opening new routes to Asia in addition to expanding to Europe.

The DC-10-30, of which they had several, could make it to Europe from ORD and DFW, but did not have long enough legs for the new DFW-TYO service opened in 1987. AA needed a long range aircraft ASAP since the 747 SPs bought for that route (ex-TWA) were not the ultimate in economical operation, and the MD 11 was available for delivery by 1990 (in theory), well before the 777 (not even announced until OCt. 1990).

As it went, the MD-11 was plagued by range deficiencies and not delivered until 1991, and even then were payload restricted out of DFW as well as SJC to Tokyo. They were improved over the next couple of years, but by then the damage was done and the 777 was available, which has proved more suited to AAs needs.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11463 posts, RR: 61
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 15760 times:

Quoting BALandorLivery (Thread starter):
Wouldn't their 767's or 777's have done the job to a similar degree?

The MD11's range was (supposed to be) superior to the 767-300ERs that AA had purchased back in 1987. Ultimately, however, the "Death Star" (as the MD11 was lovingly called by crews) proved to be a complete technical and performance flop and frequently didn't meet its promised range or payload goals -- at least that was AA's experience. The planes used to make frequent tech stops on flights to London and Frankfurt in Iceland or Scotland, and were known to be quite unreliable.

As for the 777s, they were not available back in 1989-1990 when AA bought the plane -- and lucky for McDD too, because with the complete pieces of crap they sold to AA, the 777 would have gotten AA's order in a second had it been on the market at the time.

Quoting BALandorLivery (Thread starter):
Did they buy the MD-11 just because it was a natural progression from the DC-10?

They bought it because at the time it was really the only major, viable aircraft in its market segment that was (again, supposed to be) able to fly huge payloads over very long routes. AA needed the planes for their Tokyo routes, plus routes into deep South America and some longer, more premium, and/or higher-density markets in Europe like London and Frankfurt.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15728 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 4):
the "Death Star" (as the MD11 was lovingly called by crews)

Why that name?

Quoting Commavia (Reply 4):
As for the 777s, they were not available back in 1989-1990 when AA bought the plane

I wonder did AA ever seriously consider the A343?


Have to say I love the MD11, esp in AA colours, what an incredible sight.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15676 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 4):
Quoting BALandorLivery (Thread starter):
Did they buy the MD-11 just because it was a natural progression from the DC-10?

They bought it because at the time it was really the only major, viable aircraft in its market segment that was (again, supposed to be) able to fly huge payloads over very long routes. AA needed the planes for their Tokyo routes, plus routes into deep South America and some longer, more premium, and/or higher-density markets in Europe like London and Frankfurt.

Well, not exactly. The B-747-400 was available, but AA didn't want it.


User currently offlineAirbusA346 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 7437 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15628 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):

Why didn't they want the 744?

Tom.



Tom Walker '086' First Officer of a A318/A319 for Air Lambert - Hours Flown: 17 hour 05 minutes (last updated 24/12/05).
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15609 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Quoting Commavia (Reply 4):
Quoting BALandorLivery (Thread starter):
Did they buy the MD-11 just because it was a natural progression from the DC-10?

They bought it because at the time it was really the only major, viable aircraft in its market segment that was (again, supposed to be) able to fly huge payloads over very long routes. AA needed the planes for their Tokyo routes, plus routes into deep South America and some longer, more premium, and/or higher-density markets in Europe like London and Frankfurt.

Well, not exactly. The B-747-400 was available, but AA didn't want it.

They later admitted not going with 744 over MD-11 was a mistake on their part. AA's philosophy seems to be that they don't operate aircraft that large...



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineSevenHeavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1156 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15585 times:

IIRC the most widely used nickname by AA for the MD11 was the "scud". It was named after the Iraqi missile used in the first gulf war. The notion was that both took off ok but you never knew where they would land!

Once the payload issues were ironed out the MD11 proved to be a good aircraft for AA for a few years. It was pretty well suited for their route system but ultimately could not compete with the vastly superior B777.

That said I used to love flying the MD11. Very stable, huge windows and a lot more character than many of the latest generation of aircraft.

I am glad that they seem to have found a successful niche as a freighter.

Regards



So long 701, it was nice knowing you.
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15561 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 8):
They later admitted not going with 744 over MD-11 was a mistake on their part.

Was that due to the MD11s performance shortcomings, or because they felt they would be better off with a larger aircraft?


User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7561 posts, RR: 43
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15543 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 4):
The planes used to make frequent tech stops on flights to London and Frankfurt in Iceland or Scotland

From DFW? Wow, that is terrible! A very uncapable plane.



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11463 posts, RR: 61
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15544 times:

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 11):

From DFW? Wow, that is terrible! A very uncapable plane.

Indeed, from DFW, and from Chicago and elsewhere, and yes, at least AA's models were extremely uncapable aircraft.


User currently offlineAlbird87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15486 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 5):
Quoting Commavia (Reply 4):
the "Death Star" (as the MD11 was lovingly called by crews)

Why that name?

Hmmm maybe they blow up from the inside????  duck 
hmmm it was a shame about the MD-11s not being up to performance. Does anybody know what were the problems with it? Underpowered? Overweight?


User currently offlineSevenHeavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1156 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15434 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 4):
The MD11's range was (supposed to be) superior to the 767-300ERs that AA had purchased back in 1987. Ultimately, however, the "Death Star" (as the MD11 was lovingly called by crews) proved to be a complete technical and performance flop and frequently didn't meet its promised range or payload goals -- at least that was AA's experience. The planes used to make frequent tech stops on flights to London and Frankfurt in Iceland or Scotland, and were known to be quite unreliable.

As for the 777s, they were not available back in 1989-1990 when AA bought the plane -- and lucky for McDD too, because with the complete pieces of crap they sold to AA, the 777 would have gotten AA's order in a second had it been on the market at the time.

It is true that for the first couple of years the MD11 had serious payload issues (and AA was extremely unhappy with them). However to say they were "complete pieces of crap" is unfair and untrue. From about 1992-1993 I cannot think of more than a handful of diversions with technical problems. By this time they had received a number of upgrades which met most of MDD's claims, and their dispatch reliability was comparable to other aircraft in the fleet.

The fact that they are snapped up by the cargo airlines says that they are not the dog you make them out to be. I can't recall many (if any) being scrapped because there was no demand for the airframe. Bearing in mind that most are 15+ years old thats not bad going.

Regards



So long 701, it was nice knowing you.
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11463 posts, RR: 61
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15392 times:

Quoting SevenHeavy (Reply 14):
However to say they were "complete pieces of crap" is unfair and untrue.

Sorry, but from the people I know at AA (flight crews, cabin crews, M&E), they have all -- and I mean every single one of them -- described the MD11 as one of the biggest pieces of crap they ever came in contact with. They hated the plane -- flying it, working it, maintaining it, etc. -- and their opinion never changed.

You are certainly correct that the plane did get a lot of mod work once in service that fixed many of the initial performance problems, but the rapidity with which AA disposed of the planes once they had a meaningful (and, with hindsight, incrediblely attractive) alternative in the 777, is telling. AA's MD11 fleet -- of 19 aircraft, less than half of the initial plan -- lasted for ten years in revenue service. Further, it is certainly true that the planes have found an excellent after market with cargo operators, but it doesn't change the fact that at least with the early passenger models, and at least in the experience of AA, the planes were horrendously inefficient and unreliable.


User currently offlineSevenHeavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1156 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 15171 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 15):
Sorry, but from the people I know at AA (flight crews, cabin crews, M&E), they have all -- and I mean every single one of them -- described the MD11 as one of the biggest pieces of crap they ever came in contact with. They hated the plane -- flying it, working it, maintaining it, etc. -- and their opinion never changed.

As per my previous post I fully acknowledge that this was not an aircraft without its problems. However the opinion I have from an entire AA Maintainence team at LHR was that if you really got to know the aircraft it was actually fairly good to work with.

The AA maintainance team at LHR had some of the most experienced MD11 technicians around (a couple even left to work for FEDEX once they left the AA fleet, just so they could stay on MD11's!) who saw anything up to 8 aircraft every day and the aircraft gave them no more problems than the B767/DC10 that visited. Your previous statement that they frequently diverted with technical problems is simply untrue.

From a passenger perspective the aircraft was also extremely well liked. the cabin was spacious and airy thanks to its large passenger windows and the aircraft was particularly stable in turbulence.

From a pilot perspective the aircraft was challenging to land, particularly in rough conditions and had a tendancy to drop its tail on landing. However once mastered it was extremely rewarding.

I agree that the aricraft initially fell way short of its manufaturers claims. Hoever that does not mean that it did not evolve to become a capable and in many ways unique contributor to commercial aviation.

Regards



So long 701, it was nice knowing you.
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 14751 times:

When AA ordered the MD-11, the 777 did not exist.

AA was relatively late to the 777 party.

NS


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 14597 times:

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 1):
As it went, the MD-11 was plagued by range deficiencies and not delivered until 1991,



Quoting Commavia (Reply 15):
y, but from the people I know at AA (flight crews, cabin crews, M&E), they have all -- and I mean every single one of them -- described the MD11 as one of the biggest pieces of crap they ever came in contact with. They hated the plane -- flying it, working it, maintaining it, etc. -- and their opinion never changed.

I'm not entirely sure that a lot of this criticism adds up. I mean, I was there for the first fifty frames, American took them, they liked what they got, and they drove a damn hard bargain doing it.

Perhaps they ended up at Douglas because the management there would tolerate all sorts of crap to sell airplanes? I mean, two weeks before an MD11 was set to be delivered AA would send in a flying team of "quality inspectors"....their job was to write as many bogus defect reports as they could to get the price as low as it could be gotten. And they did, and they'd go into a close door meeting with the big heads and then the plane would get delivered at a discount, all of which Douglas tolerated because their money was good.

The 'performance flop' that everyone thinks they know everything about mostly stemmed from the Singapore Airlines order that got cancelled. As it happened, a certain amount of fine tuning the software and the pitch trim management got the range guarantees where they needed to be.

IIRC, that was the only order for MD11s that got cancelled. A few got reassigned like the two that were going to go to JAT...they ended up at AA after some bargain hunting.

Now....there IS a certain aerospace company that has racked up 10 cancellations and that's before the ships even get built. Douglas delivered 200 or so MD11s. So how come nobody's calling that certain company's product a performance flop?

It wasn't underpowered and it wasn't overweight.

If anything, it was more conservatively engineered than the competition's products and thereby did suffer a weight penalty. We used to say it was like the difference between a Ford Galaxie and a Volvo....the difference is not apparent until there's a couple hundred thousand miles on the odometer.

The DC10 got a bad rap for obvious reasons related to things that were designed that were not to 'fail safe' or 'fail neutral' principles. With the cargo doors, the effects of a blowout were catastrophic, and they could be basjed shut and look like they were locked. Likewise the hyudraulic routings and the lack of safety valves in the wing hydraulics-although that one was laid squarely at AA's door.

The flaws were fixed but the reputation of the aircraft never recovered. A typical example....my wife: "Oh jesus, I'd never fly on a DC10-they're unsafe! I saw it on teevee!" Me: "Errrrrrrrrrrr honey. Do you know what a DC10 looks like? Do you know you've been riding in one for six hours and you said how nice and quiet and smooth it is?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_MD-11


User currently offlineBDL2STL2PVG From China, joined Jun 2006, 150 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 14546 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 8):
Well, not exactly. The B-747-400 was available, but AA didn't want it.

They later admitted not going with 744 over MD-11 was a mistake on their part. AA's philosophy seems to be that they don't operate aircraft that large...

AA did actually reach an agreement with Canadian Airlines to take 2 744s in anticipation of being awarded an ORD - NRT route during the route award process in the late 80s. In the end, the ORD route was awarded to UA, CO received the SEA route and AA was given the SJC - NRT route that they asked for. While getting that first Tokyo route was better than nothing, the range and capacity of the 744 was not required and Canadian kept those 2 744s.


User currently offlineColeplane From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 14444 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 18):
management got the range guarantees where they needed to be.

Just to add to this, I read that by the time all modifications had been completed the MD11 was "exceeding" it's original design range.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 15):
They hated the plane -- flying it

Hmmmm. I had the opportunity to visit with both a DC10 and MD11 captain from two separate airlines and each stated these were excellent aircraft.

I won't dispute the aircrafts initial shortcomings.



"About a nine on the tension scale there Rupe."
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 14344 times:

I have to agree that the md11 bashing is way out of line.

The MD11 failed because it was economically upstaged when the 777 and even the A340 moved quickly onto the market. The 777 was an all new design while the MD11 was a Dc10 variant. There have been former McDonnell Douglas execs that said that MD had to invest money in a new wing in order for the MD11 to succeed but MD didn't have that kind of money so they basically made minor modifications - with the result that the aircraft was never a commerical success.

The 777 wasn't available when AA and DL - the other large US passenger operator - had to move up to a longer range aircraft.

Also, twins were not accepted as being viable over the Pacific in the late 80s and early 90s. DL and AA both were large operators of trijets and knew the value of that type. ... yes, DL operated the DC10 in addition to the TriStar.

While the MD11s did not perform as intended, it was capable of regularly making 6800 mile flights like DL's ATL-NRT even if it didn't do it economically. The MD11s limits became obvious when DL tried to push the MD11 to LAX-HKG.

DL's MD11s rarely diverted - and the only real difference between DL and AA's models was the engine type - DL went w/ PW engines while AA went w/ GEs. And both of those engines were comparable to other engines in the carriers' fleets, including with the 763ERs.


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 14181 times:

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 21):
Also, twins were not accepted as being viable over the Pacific in the late 80s and early 90s. DL and AA both were large operators of trijets and knew the value of that type. ... yes, DL operated the DC10 in addition to the TriStar.

Wasn't the time when DL operated the DC-10 just shortlived? They inherited the DC-10 from the merger with Western, plus I believe they never operated the Intercontinental Series 30, only the domestic Series 10.


User currently offlineNYCAAer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 692 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 14180 times:

I worked as a F/A aboard AA's MD-11s on JFK-ORY, JFK-LHR, JFK-SDQ and ORD-LHR. I don't ever recall the "Death Star" nickname, but do remember it being called the "Scud" or my personal favorite, the "MD-Lemon." There was another joke that we were going to paint them blue so they would match our ground equipment. Most of that came from being one the MD-11's first customers and there were teething pains when we first got them in 1991 and 1992. After a while things smoothed out and it flew just fine. It did have a very passenger and F/A friendly cabin- no complaints there. It's not the 777, but it was a good plane for its time and it was fairly popular with flight attendants.

User currently offlineOrdpark From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 574 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 14118 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It seemed like a good idea at the time!

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 14064 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 4):
They bought it because at the time it was really the only major, viable aircraft in its market segment that was (again, supposed to be) able to fly huge payloads over very long routes.

MD was first to market. If they had delivered the goods, who knows what might have happened. But they didn't take advantage of their position (building a new wing, getting the bugs worked out before hand, etc.)

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Well, not exactly. The B-747-400 was available, but AA didn't want it.

It didn't suit them at the time, but then they soon expanded via route authorities where the 744 may have made sense, but it was too late. And it is much bigger than what AA had flown since they got rid of their original 747s.

Quoting NYCAAer (Reply 23):
There was another joke that we were going to paint them blue so they would match our ground equipment.

ROFL. One of the funniest things I ever read here on a.net.

Quoting NYCAAer (Reply 23):
It did have a very passenger and F/A friendly cabin- no complaints there.

As did the DC-10 as well. I always loved being a pax on that plane on AA.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePiedmont767LGW From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 13923 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 22):
Wasn't the time when DL operated the DC-10 just shortlived? They inherited the DC-10 from the merger with Western, plus I believe they never operated the Intercontinental Series 30, only the domestic Series 10.

DL operated DC-10's on at least two separate occasions.

Once was, as you mention, when the Western merger occurred, and the other was in the early 70’s while awaiting L1011 deliveries. The DC-10s used in the early 70’s were leased from UAL, and were brand new at the time the lease occurred, if I am remembering this all correctly.

Without doing some research, I can’t tell you how many were leased from UAL, or for how long.

Piedmont767LGW


25 UAL777 : I know some UA pilots who "lovingly" called the DC-10 the "flying coffin."
26 Post contains images TrijetsRMissed : AA wanted a long haul smaller than a 744 but larger than a 763. At the time the MD-11 was the best option. Not to mention AA was the biggest Douglas c
27 Post contains images WesternA318 : Umm, wasnt it since like, the 1930's?
28 Kappel : Wow, to think that KLM now flies them to SFO from AMS. I guess KLM's bird are different than AA's? IIRC KLM was a bit late (as usual) in ordering the
29 Post contains links and images September11 : Delta had MD-11s as well. Anyone notice larger "American" font size and space on MD-11s? View Large View MediumPhoto © Allan Rossmore
30 Ikramerica : Yep. "American" font size, type and spacing seemed to differ on all their widebodies. I never got it, as it really didn't look good the way they did
31 Post contains images EI321 : Maybe because the stripes seem to vary in thinckness from type to type in the AA fleet. For aesthetic reasons, the entire logo must look straight fro
32 WSOY : As an aside, the launch customer of the MD-11 will be flying them until somewhere around 2013. From 1990 that'll make some 23 years of scheduled inter
33 KC135TopBoom : I believe that DL's B-767-300ERs have GE CF-6s. But, the DL MD-11s were powered by PW-4000s.
34 Post contains links and images Dougloid : I will tell ALL you a.netters the secret of the reason why the MD11 failed. It was not because the airplane was 'the death star' or the 'flying coffi
35 Coa747 : When McDonnell's people took over at Douglas that was the beginning of the end. They didn't want to spend the money on the commercial line and by the
36 Post contains links TommyBP251b : Hi Guys! 1. Here are the Fotos! http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...truecount=false&engine_version=6.0 2. In one of the picture it is mentioned th
37 N328KF : The MD-11s operated by SwissAir must have been better units. I rode one from JNB to ZRH with no hiccup, and that's longer than the problem legs some p
38 CroCop : well, not a whole lot. The fact cargo carriers dont want to spend 150million on a brand new jet, so they buy a dog like the MD-11 and save a buck.
39 APFPilot1985 : Gee surprising then that there are orders for A380F's and 777F's
40 American 767 : I think it's Finnair. I don't know if Finnair was the only launch customer, Swissair and Alitalia were among them too, but Finnair definitely was the
41 WorldTraveler : DL flies both GE and PW powered 767s. Their original ERs are PW powered. They switched to GE engines later. Also, DL flew the DC-10 as protection beca
42 Jfk777 : AA being anti-747 in 1990 meant the only plane to fit the bill was the MD-11. Had they ordered 744 to fly to Brazil, Argentina, LHR and NRT life would
43 WesternA318 : AA wasnt just anti 747. Bob Crandall made it AMR's operating policy to not operate 4-engine transports, as they were "far too many engines for what w
44 Post contains images Garri767 : source? exactly. It was a remake of the DC-10 while the 777/340 were new technology. i dont get it! tell that to KLM who plans to keep them through (
45 WSOY : Agreed. Here's what I wrote in another old CivAv thread: "Finnair A343 (Ex-VS) Arrived At HEL ": "As for the operating costs of the MD-11, Finnair's
46 Elbarto6975 : Maybe now: There was another joke that we were going to paint them blue so they would match our >>other
47 Post contains images TrijetsRMissed : Did AA ever order DC-8's? I don't think so.. someone please correct me if I'm wrong. They did have large fleets of Convairs and 707's though... The K
48 WSOY : The original "1st gen." MD11 - A350 phaseout was to take place around 2011. With the "2nd gen." A350 schedule still in flux, a 2013 date is a hopeful
49 Post contains images CroCop : Gee, I never thought of that When the MD-11 was being courted as the choice for AA the A380 nor the 777F's were even on paper, or designed. Name the
50 Magyarorszag : On the production list, only five airframes were built as MD-11ER. Two for WO and three for GA. The three GA frames went to RG, one is now with JJ, a
51 Post contains links and images WSOY : No problem. It's the 285 990 you mentioned above. From: http://www.ilmailuhallinto.fi/files/...Ilma-alukset/Rekisteri1-1-2007.pdf - (page 24 on the d
52 NYCAAer : You don't get it? Come on, you must. The joke that we were going to paint the MD-11s blue to match our ground equipment was because they spent too mu
53 American 767 : I don't think BA ever showed an interest in the DC-10 or MD-11, even though they did fly the L-1011. It is BCal that has ordered those in the late 80
54 FlyingColours : I believe they did order 2 of them prior to going under. Never got to go on the MD11 but it sure is a great looking aircraft. Phil FlyingColours
55 Post contains links and images Nosedive : Fedex.... and the MD11   View Large View MediumPhoto © AirNikon[Edited 2007-02-02 14:26:54]
56 Post contains images CroCop : They got them brand new? I stand corrected.
57 LMP737 : Or as some called it Time to Quit and Move too Seattle.
58 Dougloid : Yeah, I heard that too. Only thing is it wasn't John McDonnell's brainchild, the Pentagon mandated it. As a point of information Boeing did a recruit
59 AA61Hvy : Not to question your opinion, but do you have evidence to back that up. I had never heard that before. How was it possible for it not to make it to F
60 Bmacleod : This was 1990. The 777 did not become available until 1995. The 767 didn't have the capacity or range AA needed on their Asian routes. The MD-11 was
61 Cba : Not true. AA was one of the original airlines that helped Boeing design the aircraft. As I recall, AA wanted a folding wing option so that the 777 co
62 Post contains images TrijetsRMissed : Does anyone know of the five ER's built, are any of them still in ER configuration? And these delivery positions were then given to AA. Some of the M
63 Post contains links Magyarorszag : Unless something has been changed, N277WA & N278WA are still in ER configuration.
64 APFPilot1985 : and UPS with the 757PF's and LH with the MD-11.
65 D L X : I seem to remember that too, but AA was at least involved in the "Working Together" project to create the 777. The folding wingtips option initially
66 Magyarorszag : AA ordered the B772ER in late 1997, while UA, as the launch customer ordered the B772 October 15th, 1990.
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...
Why Did Boeing Stop The MD's After Merge? posted Wed Sep 1 2004 15:39:17 by BoeingPride800
Why Did Nobody Buy The ATP? posted Sat Jan 31 2004 21:17:47 by Applepie81
Did CO Operate The MD-11 posted Mon Jan 26 2004 17:55:51 by Cmckeithen
Why Did AA Cancel The EWR-LHR Run? posted Tue Aug 12 2003 02:51:57 by Tommy767
Why Did American Buy The A300-600R? posted Fri Nov 23 2001 20:21:11 by TranStar
Why Do People Like The MD-11 So Much? posted Mon Oct 29 2001 05:19:17 by JALBOY
Why Did AA Wait So Long To Buy The 737? posted Thu Dec 21 2000 15:39:00 by CathayPacific
Why Did AA Stop Flying Those Ex. Reno Air MD-90's posted Tue Jul 18 2006 05:11:48 by Usair320
Did The MD-11 Cause The Demise Of MDD? posted Wed May 17 2006 07:41:29 by TWAtwaTWA
Did The MD-11 Get A Nose Job? posted Tue Sep 28 2004 01:50:59 by Cheshire