IFlyADesk From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 309 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 981 times:
JAT and AOM were in fact early MD-11 customers. However JAT was in turmoil, didn't have any money, and the Slavs were too busy shooting eachother to worry about airlines and aircraft purchases/leases. AOM was a shaky deal from the start, as they were in the process of absorbing Minerve, and also probably ran out of money.
USAfrica did lease two AA M11s in the 90s fying IAD-SID-JNB (and later CPT). I don't think they even lasted a year, as their load factors were horrible and they couldn't make the lease payments.
Notarzt From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 642 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 961 times:
McDonnell Douglas also lost orders from Aero Lloyd and Singapore Airlines (the latter being the most prestigeous MD-11 order and a big loss for the whole program, of course). A340 and B777 killed the MD-11.
IFlyADesk From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 309 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 939 times:
Yes, the SQ deal was a ball-buster, especially when it happend so early in the program. However, SQ wormed-out of the deal rather easily as they had not put any money down on the order, so they walked-away with no money out of their pocket.
Strange enough that their A340 order coincided with the opening of extra landing slots at CDG. Go figure...
Conair From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 196 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 927 times:
As I remember it the SQ deal collapsed because the MD11's did not match up to the performance that MDC said they would, mostly fuel burn. American Airlines were also very unhappy with the performance of the aircraft and when they got their first deliveries refused to accept delivery of any more aircraft until the problems were sorted out.
IFlyADesk From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 309 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 921 times:
AA did in fact have a lot to do with the MD-11's early demise, in the beginning. Early on the MD-11 did have performance shortfalls, which could be blamed on both the airframe and the GE engines.
AA badmouthed the aircraft big time and their complaints created a lot of bad press. However, AA also did not implement the performance improvement packages offered, including drag improvements and higher takeoff weights. AA's ex-MD-11s are some of the most backward MD-11s that were ever built.
AA started it, and the Boeing "merger" ended it...
Flashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2863 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 885 times:
DL also had some complaints with the avionics and some of the new flight controls, up to the point where they demanded that a MD (or was it Honeywell or Rockwell or some other avionics producer) engineer ride on every flight.
Trintocan From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 3191 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 864 times:
MD11's story is a long sad one, posted several times before. In a nutshell it amounted to struggling MD issuing a derivative design quickly in order to snare orders from its loyal customer base (who had bought DC10s before) in anticipation of the A340 and of a Boeing competitor, which became the 777. Alas, the initial disappointments of AA proved a major blow and, even though MD improved the design and offered upgraded versions, the all new A340 and 777 quickly captured the market and killed the MD11. The final rites were performed by Boeing when initial optimism of freighter sales faded, largely because new freighter sales are generally small and, in any case, MD11s were being rapidly sold off for freighter use, especially to FedEx.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7695 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 824 times:
I think what really killed off the MD-11 was simple: ETOPS 180-minute certification.
When the 767 and 777 achieved ETOPS 180 certification, there was no longer a need to fly the MD-11, given that the 767 and 777 had lower seat-mile costs than the MD-11.
Besides the success of ETOPS-certified 767/777's, the Airbus A340 series also contributed much to the demise of the MD-11. The reason is simple: the A340 maintained much commonality with the A300/A310 series, so it sold well, particularly in Europe.
FDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 38 Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 801 times:
I fail to see how AA contributed to the MD11's demise. Being that they bought and took delivery of the aircraft and it didn't perform as promised, they had every right to put the screws to MDD. Airlines depend on an aircraft to perform as advertised. In order to run a successful business, you've got to be tough, thats why I'm not a businessman.