Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
TWA's Slam Of The DC-10.... Based On What?  
User currently online727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5961 posts, RR: 17
Posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 19080 times:

On May 25, 1979, an AA DC-10 had a horrific crash jut after taking off from ORD bound for LAX. Shortly after, the FAA grounded the DC-10. TWA then started an advertising campaign basically saying that people preferred the widebodies that TWA flew, the L-1011 and 747.

I was curious, what was that based on? Surveys done after the DC-10 crash?

Could the survey have gone like this:

A DC-10 just crashed into a fireball, and Airbus...who the hell are they, they've never built planes before.....and.that's foreign anyway! TWA flies the L-1011 and the Boeing 747. Which widebodies do you prefer????? Hmmmmmm????

Were they trying to imply something?




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Udo K. Haafke
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rudy Chiarello




Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
77 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3434 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 19077 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):
I was curious, what was that based on? Surveys done after the DC-10 crash?

The DC-10 brand was trashed after that accident. Douglas stopped branding their aircraft as "DC". AA stopped calling them "DC-10 Luxury Liners" etc.

TWA didn't need a survey.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently onlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9978 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 19055 times:

Kind of a tacky advertising campaign, if you ask me.


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 496 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 19067 times:

As I've always understood it, the public perception of the DC-10 in the late '70's was that it was a death trap...partially from AA 191 and partially from TK 981 (the DC-10 that suffered the door failure out of ORY). Whether that reputation was deserved is a matter of debate, but from what I gather, TWA was trying to capitalize on that perception. TWA was one of my favorite airlines growing up, but in retrospect, I don't think the ads in question were really in good taste...


ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
User currently offlinedlramp4life From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 913 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 19019 times:

I have heard many former mechanics saying that the DC-10 was ahead of its time. I have never heard of TWA slamming the DC-10 into the ground before but in the end they merged with AA. Also being the son of a retired United F/A, she said the DC-10 was a very enjoyable aircraft to work on.


PHX Ramp, hottest place on earth
User currently offlinepeanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1420 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18945 times:

Quoting warden145 (Reply 3):
it was a death trap

I remember hearing " Death Cruiser", as a DC-10 nickname back then. Fair? Of course not.
Great planes, both the DC-10 and the L-1011.

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 1):
Douglas stopped branding their aircraft as "DC".

Huh? Based on 1979?



Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
User currently online727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5961 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18832 times:

Quoting dlramp4life (Reply 4):
I have never heard of TWA slamming the DC-10 into the ground before

It was deinately on their timetables. Newspaper ads, I'm not sure.



Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlinen9801f From Samoa, joined Apr 2004, 332 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18811 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 2):
Kind of a tacky advertising campaign, if you ask me.

Strongly agreed!

Quoting peanuts (Reply 5):
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 1):
Douglas stopped branding their aircraft as "DC".

Huh? Based on 1979?

Actually, I think ZANL is correct, and that this was a reason the DC-9-80 was called the "Super 80" and/or "MD-80".

Quoting dlramp4life (Reply 4):
the DC-10 was ahead of its time

At the end of the day, the DC-10 (446 ships built) far outsold the L-1011 (250 ships).

If you add in the MD-11 (200 ships), then the margin gets bigger (646 DC-10/MD-11 ships built).

Personally, I thought both the DC-10 and L-1011 were great planes, though as a passenger, I preferred the DC-10.


User currently offlinejaybird From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18745 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't think it there was a slam - that's overly dramatic. After several incidents/accidents and the grounding, the public was aware of the DC-10 problems and some people simply would not fly on one - ever. The public was either aware of the name and specifically said "I will not fly a DC-10" or referred to it as the plane with problems.

And where are you pulling the advertising campaign from "basically saying" ?

Airlines that flew the DC-10 just didn't mention it in their advertising. Airlines that didn't fly the DC-10 just mentioned the equipment they were flying. Airlines typically don't get into negative safety campaigns - that's a very sensitive issue for all of them and to start slinging mud at other airlines over safety is something I've never seen and probably never will. We fly faster planes? sure .. our seats our more comfortable? sure .. our planes don't crash? never.

I think you're really over exaggerating the subject and the information in your post.


User currently online727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5961 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18669 times:

Quoting jaybird (Reply 8):
And where are you pulling the advertising campaign from "basically saying" ?

It was on the cover of their timetable.



Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18663 times:

There was that old "fake" TWA ad that read Fly TWA's L-1011's, we take our engines with us".

I worked for both McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed. At MD there were posters throughout the plant with big DC-10 logos and the words "beat 8-70". They did everything they could in getting the DC-10 to fly before the L-1011.

The DC-10 was basically a scaled up DC-8/DC-9. Just look at the leading edge slat system of the DC-9 and the DC-10, the same basic design just larger! At Lockheed the philosophy was completely different the L-1011 was state of the art, design started with a clean sheet of paper they were not afraid to take chances, things like flying stabilizer, DLC and Autoland.

MD was a great place to work but there was absolutely no chance of advancement. They were a strict union shop, the only way to get a promotion is if someone with higher seniority retired or died. At Lockheed while also a union shop was easier to get promotions and/or change career fields.


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18639 times:

Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):
Could the survey have gone like this:

A DC-10 just crashed into a fireball, and Airbus...who the hell are they, they've never built planes before.....and.that's foreign anyway! TWA flies the L-1011 and the Boeing 747. Which widebodies do you prefer????? Hmmmmmm????

I think you're looking at this through 2011-colored glasses... and honestly I'm surprised to see that we're around the same age, because you should remember how things were back then.

In 1980, nobody had to tell the public what had happened. The DC-10 type certificate had been suspended - that had never happened before in the US. Both the crash and the type suspension were huge news, and every flyer knew about it. I was eight and I knew about it. There would have been no need to say anything on a survey other than "given the choice, which plane would you fly - a DC-10, 747 or L-1011?" It's pretty clear that the winner in that survey would not have been the DC-10.

Similarly, Airbus probably wouldn't have even been mentioned on a survey at all. They just weren't a big player in the US at that time. A300's were basically it, and they were still seen as kind of an oddity, and mostly were used by European airlines. If there was a survey done by TWA, I doubt Airbus would have even been on it.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlinebrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2991 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18648 times:

Quoting jaybird (Reply 8):
After several incidents/accidents and the grounding, the public was aware of the DC-10 problems and some people simply would not fly on one - ever. The public was either aware of the name and specifically said "I will not fly a DC-10" or referred to it as the plane with problems.

I was on a NW DC-10 MEM-AMS in September of 2004 and when the FA's doing the preflight announced "we're going over some safety features of our DC-10 aircraft", some older guy a couple rows over exclaimed "THIS IS A DC-10?!?!".

Obviously, we made it in one piece   Great flight in fact. The plane was not as noisy as I was expecting from all the trip reports on a.net. And I sat in the back middle, pretty much right under the tail engine.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlinejaybird From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18607 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

You're correct in that sense: http://www.airtimes.com/cgat/usc/twa/gal/twgal80.htm

The 747 was THE preferred airplane at the time. And the DC-10 was having such horrific problems that anything other than a DC-10 was preferred.

But you're still overstating - that's my point. There was leeway in marketing areas - but never in safety areas. TWA didn't need to do a poll. It was on the news for everyone to see.


User currently online727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5961 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18582 times:

For all too see:




Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently online727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5961 posts, RR: 17
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 18514 times:

The survey I wrote at the top was pure sarcasm,

Quoting jaybird (Reply 13):
But you're still overstating - that's my point

I state NOTHING, I'm asking a question.



Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3434 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 18355 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting peanuts (Reply 5):
Huh? Based on 1979?

Yes - at least in part if not totally. Airlines were removing the "DC-10" brand from advertising, from the side of the aircraft, etc. The DC-10 was grounded for a period of time. It was bad.

IMHO, no way McDonnell Douglas would scrap the "DC" brand without the accident - merger be damned. It would be like Boeing giving up the "7_7" brand, it isn't going to happen unless they've got no choice.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlinespartanmjf From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 18284 times:

Just remember that the DC-XX commercial aircraft designation included such famous aircraft as the DC-3, DC-8, and DC-9. It is interesting to note that the DC-10 was introduced into commercial service after the McDonnell merger in 1966/1967 and the 'brand' was DC. However, once we got to the 1980's, the 'brand' became MD with the rebranding of the DC-9 Series 80 as the MD-80.

[Edited 2011-08-08 18:10:38]

[Edited 2011-08-08 18:11:37]


"Nuts to the man in 21D!"
User currently offlinemaxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 1035 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 18176 times:

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 14):
For all too see:

Is that what all the hoopla is about? It's just advertising hype - I think your reading way too much into this. If they came out with the same cover before the DC-10 grounding, would you view it as a slam?


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3067 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 18040 times:

I have to agree this is way overblown.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 15):
The survey I wrote at the top was pure sarcasm,

Quoting jaybird (Reply 13):
But you're still overstating - that's my point

I state NOTHING, I'm asking a question

Within your question, you STATE this, sarcastic or not:

Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):
A DC-10 just crashed into a fireball, and Airbus...who the hell are they, they've never built planes before.....and.that's foreign anyway! TWA flies the L-1011 and the Boeing 747. Which widebodies do you prefer????? Hmmmmmm????

Were they trying to imply something?

Well yes, duh! But I doubt there was any survey, it was simply advertising. Choosy mothers choose Jiff. Gentlemen prefer Haines. You know?
TWA was not the first airline to ever emphasize their choice of fleet as preferred. It happened with or without accidents upon which to capiltalize.
"Fly the comfortable new Trimotor!"
"Travel in style on the new DC-3... DC-4... DC-7..."
"Concorde. Need we say more?"

I'm making these up. But comb the old advertisements, you'll easly find what I'm talking about. And comb more and you'll find a proximate air crash from a competitor... or from the same airline in which they use the new airplane added to the fleet to quickly move on.

-Rampart


User currently offlineTomassjc From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 796 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 17971 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I worked for TWA at LAX during the DC10 grounding. It was the beginning of the first summer after deregulation and a busy one. I remember we flew extra sections with 1011s AND 707s to accommodate the folks affected by the DC10 cancellations. It was major, and the public was well aware of what was going on.

I do believe that TWA took adavantage of the situation in their advertising of the 1011s and 747s, but I don't think it was viewed as "slamming" the DC10.

Personally, I'd take a DC-10 over a noisy, vibrating, smoky L1011 any day!

Tom SJC



When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your eyes turned skyward -Leonardo DaVinci
User currently online727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5961 posts, RR: 17
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 17874 times:

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 18):

Nope, but then again, the timing is suspicious.

OK, maybe SLAM was the wrong word....



Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlineNWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1012 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 17819 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There were two different engine manufactures that had engines on the DC-10. The DC--10-10, the -15 and the DC-10-30 all came with General Electric CF6 engine of various models. Most DC-10s came with the General Electric engines.
Northwest Airline ordered the DC-10-20 which was later changed to the DC-10-40 at the request of Northwest Airlines. Japan Air lines also order the DC-10-40. The DC-10-40 came with Pratt and Whitney engines. Northwest Airlines used the JT9D-20 engine. JAL used the JT9D-59A engine. Northwest Airlines ordered Pratt an Whitney engines in order to maintain commonality with Pratt and Whitney Engines on their 747s. I assume JAL ordered the Pratt and Whitney engines for the same reason.
The reason the engine came off the American Airlines DC-10 was due to the failure of a monoball in the engine pylon which was cracked. The failure of the monoball allowed the engine to power itself off the aircraft and flip over the main wing of the aircraft tearing loose the cable flight controls of the aircraft which caused it to crash. American Airlines would remove and reinstall the wing mounted engines with a fork lift truck, usually removing the engine and pylon as a unit. Doing an engine change with a fork lift truck was a questionable method. If the engine and pylon were NOT properly aligned pressure would be placed on the monoball which could cause it to crack and ultimately fail allowing the engine to power itself off the wing. Northwest Airlines never used a forklift to change a wing mounted engine. They always use an overhead hoist to change a wing mounted engine. Using an overhead mounted hoist never put any lateral pressure on the engine pylon and monoball so cracking of the monoball was never a problem. Northwest Airlines always removed the engine separate from the pylon. The DC-10-40 was never faulted , as a result of this accident. American Airlines and any other airlines that used a fork lift to change engines had to modify their engine change maintenance practices. This accident did not leave a warm and good feeling with the traveling public and may have slowed the sales of the Douglas DC-10.
Even though the DC-10 was a rushed aircraft as Douglas wanted to stifle the Lockheed L-1011, the DC-10 was NOT the major reason for the failure of Lockheed to produce the L-1011. Rolls Royce had an exclusive engine agreement with Lockheed and nearly went bankrupt, thus NOT being able to supply sufficient engines for Lockheed to produce L1011s in the quantity needed to satisfy aircraft orders at the time. Also, Douglas came out with the DC-10-30 which was a larger and somewhat more superior aircraft than the L1011. Lockheed did much later try to sell L1011s to Northwest Airlines with Pratt and Whitney engines, but Northwest Airlines never took the offer seriously.
  


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5111 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 17816 times:

The DC-10's reputation was affected for some time.

Between 1984 and 1994 (age 8 to 18 for me), I made a solo transatlantic round trip twice a year. My mom, who knew nothing whatsoever about aircraft, never liked it when my trip included a DC-10 leg (which it often did, between SK and NW). She had a vague idea that the DC-10 was a "dangerous" airplane and preferred to see anything else, whether 747, 767, or L10.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 17776 times:

I'm looking at the 10/1/80 timetable right now, which has a slightly different version of the text, "The only widebodies TWA flies across the Atlantic and in the U.S. are the 747 and L-1011...The widebodies people prefer most."

I can't see the date on the one in the .jpg above, but my version is also on the 4/1/81 timetable at airtimes.com, so this campaign ran for a while.

I don't recall it being a slam on the DC-10 at all. We all were aware of what had happened to the '10 in Chicago and Paris. In this immediate era there were a lot of changes going on inside the planes. Business Class was being rolled out, Coach sections were being reconfigured to add an extra seat in each row on the widebodies, and deregulation had just happened. The airlines had just left behind an operating model where service was about the only thing they could advertise to differentiate themselves. Perhaps this is what initiated that campaigns, the comfort/service aspects, rather than any "our planes haven't fallen out of the sky ... yet" sort of thing that could easily backfire.



International Homo of Mystery
25 jackhi : I agree. TWA had, since its introduction tried to differentiate the L-1011 from the DC-10. It's a strategy TWA employed with the intro of the aircraf
26 Drerx7 : I much preferred the L10. The DC10 scarred the $h%! out of me...I was one of those people in the late 80s early 90s that got spooked away from the ty
27 CALPSAFltSkeds : For what it's worth according the Wikipedia DC10 , 56 incidents, 31 hull losses, 1,261 fatalities (in this thread it states 446 built) L1011, 56 incid
28 jetjack74 : Well, the 1970s on through to the late 1980s, irrationality was the rationale. Unfortunately, we didn't have the means of getting out the facts follo
29 mayor : I doubt if there are many incidents for either a/c type that can be purely attributed to a fault in the a/c design. As for another airline slamming a
30 maxpower1954 : Wow, Mayor I know AA had a reputation for playing hardball (as with Braniff) but that's almost unbelieveable! And worse than just in bad taste.
31 mayor : Now, I don't know if DL did anything about it or if they even knew. I think a f/a I knew showed it to us.
32 type-rated : Nope, the engine didn't tear the flight control cables. It tore off the leading edge slats which caused an out of balance situation with the right wi
33 mayor : Well, it was an operational problem, actually. Since the bulk bin door was on the opposite side of the fuselage from the others, when the door was sh
34 milesrich : The DC-10 was a good aircraft but had three bugs. One was the cargo door which caused the AA incident over Detroit/Windsor, and the Turkish Airlines c
35 jonathanxxxx : Well they only have 797 left... I actually don't think its so much of a slam as it is an allusion. Its not so much insulting the aircraft but really
36 Max Q : Well, the 747 and L1011 were the finest widebodies of their time, and in many ways still are. The Tristar was far more advanced technically than the D
37 Post contains links and images blueshamu330s : I couldn't agree more. I was part of a school trip to the USA back in 1979. I vividly remember my childhood plane spotter excitement of travelling do
38 huxrules : So back in the day my family would go see my grandparents in San Jose. We lived in New Jersey at the time and we would fly EWR-SFO on a United 747. My
39 ATLTowerboy : Also I read where the first officer was doing the flying at the time and the stick shaker was an option for the right yoke and American didn't pay fo
40 q120 : The L1011 losses were mostly human factors. Funny, I heard the DC-10 was a pile and defiantly not ahead of anything except being unserviceable. I als
41 n9801f : Actually, I would call it a design problem. The door could appear fully closed when it was not. Suggest reading the books /The Last Nine Minutes/ or
42 type-rated : Actually the problem with the door handle on the bin door cover was that even though the door appeared to be closed, it wasn't; the hooks that hold t
43 Drerx7 : SMH, I guess I did have legitimate reasons to be scarred every time I flew the DC10. I logged just a few flights on them anyway. DEN-SFO UA ORD-IAD U
44 isitsafenow : The black eye on the TEN started in the early 70's when MD ground tested pressure in the cargo doors and one blew out. This was before the first TEN w
45 type-rated : Even after all the controversy over the DC 10 there are pilots who think it's a marvelous plane to fly. While I have never flown one, pilots who have
46 beechnut : Still not 100 % correct. The LE slats on the DC-10, were operated by a cable/drum mechanism. If hydraulic pressure was lost, there was nothing to pre
47 TrnsWrld : Well there is absolutely no denying that the DC-10 had severe design flaws. And the MD11.....not even going to get into that. I have never flown on a
48 type-rated : Thank you for the additional information. I knew that the slats and the speed reduction were the reason the aircraft crashed.(besides the obvious) I
49 maxpower1954 : A common misconception. The Electra was never grounded after the whirl-mode crashes. The max speed was reduced to 225 knots during the investigations
50 Post contains links type-rated : Please read this: http://www.ijme.us/cd_06/PDF/ENG%20204-005.pdf and this http://www.adastron.com/lockheed/electra/vh-tlb.htm and The Electra Story b
51 Post contains images dash500 : Let's put things this way: TWA didn't pretend that the DC-10 was a bad aircraft; the B747 and L-1011 were just really good (and better)
52 DUSdude : The RR effect on L10 sales was mainly on the loss of initial customers (which admittedly is a biggie). In the long run, what hurt the L10 much more w
53 golftango : That timetable does not slam the DC-10, it states the facts. As far as wide-bodies, the 747 was the king at that time. The L1011 had a better seat pi
54 SWA737800 : Having been on and worked many DC-10 Flights, they were WONDERFUL and SAFE airplanes that continued to fly on for many years. It was pretty much compa
55 474218 : The L-1011 leading edge slats are extended and retracted by a hydraulic power drive unit (PDU) located in the left hand wing root. From the PDU a tor
56 474218 : What about the Court Line 30" seat pitch That Lockheed did not have the money to develop additional models. Remember without the government $250,000,
57 isitsafenow : There was a chapter in a book...it may have been Electra Story....not sure,.....the chapter went to say that the lone US Airline president that wante
58 dash500 : Because of the lower galley of standard lenght models?
59 JFKPurser : I worked on DC10s during the majority of the time between 1986 and 2000, when they were finally retired from my AAirline. I never experienced any mech
60 contrails : Just my opinion, but I think TW saw an opportunity and jumped on it. TW knew that people were leary of the DC-10, and used it to their advantage. I sa
61 Tan Flyr : The times I took a DL 1011 from ATL to various Florida points and TWA from STL to LAX, I noticed the vibration on take-off and climb out. They might
62 474218 : Correct, -500's can accommodate up to 20 LD-3's. The -1/-100/-200 and -250's, 16 LD-3's. There were six (6) BA L-1011-200 that had the lower galleys
63 rwessel : Probably no more or less than Virgin's "4 engines 4 Long Haul" campaign.
64 maxpower1954 : I happen to own a copy of this book; do you? Read pages 53 through 75 of the Bantam 1991 edition. Here's a summary - after the second in-flight wing
65 ADent : I remember flying LAX-ITO on a DC-10 within a day or two of the lifted grounding. I think 26 pax were on board. I also recall someone asking if it was
66 tothestars : I was a f/a at TWA for 17 years....I can truly say that it was not in our culture to worry about what other airlines where doing (other than Pan Am) o
67 jimbobjoe : I seem to recall hearing that the L1011 titles on TWA aircraft were increased in font size after the Chicago DC-10 crash. (Perhaps they added the Tris
68 Viscount724 : I agree. I flew on many L-1011s and DC-10s but preferred the DC-10 (and MD-11) due to the much larger windows which made the cabin seem more spacious
69 Post contains images 474218 : That's why I pointed out Court Lines! Actually the government load guarantee was to save the L-1011 program. Lockheed its unions had thousands of the
70 richierich : I'm sorry, but the basis for this thread is ridiculous. By TWA putting a slogan on their timetable saying their widebodies are preferred is not a spec
71 milesrich : Nyrop not only wanted to ground the plane, he demanded that Lockheed take his airplanes back, and return the Stratocruisers he traded in on them. NW
72 AirCalSNA : While air travel was perhaps not significantly more dangerous in the 1970's, statistically speaking, it was almost predictable back then that there wo
73 milesrich : I think AA 191 got more media play too, probably because it took place at the beginning of a three day holiday weekend.
74 Post contains images dash500 : - I've been an L-1011 flight attendant. It was a wonderful aircraft. Although you could notice the attitude angle, It was not that hard to push heavy
75 747400sp : I remember in 1985, I visit my Grand mother and we flew to DFW on an AA DC10 and flew back to LAX on a DL L1011 TRISTAR. Both of them vibrate on take
76 contrails : Just my opinion, but I think TW saw an opportunity and jumped on it. TW knew that people were leary of the DC-10, and used it to their advantage. I sa
77 longhauler : The stick shaker could be felt by either pilot regardless of its placement, and regardless of who is flying. (the yokes are connected) The problem ar
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...
What Is The Seat Config Of A NW DC-10? posted Wed Mar 17 2004 10:45:39 by Chris78cpr
What Livery Looks Best On The DC-10? posted Wed Sep 19 2001 03:58:27 by NWA ARJ
Were any of UAL DC-10's repainted in the current livery? posted Mon Jan 10 2011 17:27:50 by B777UA
Why 3 Person Cockpit On The DC-10? posted Mon Nov 20 2006 01:51:59 by Warreng24
'human Fly' On Top Of The Dc-8 posted Mon May 24 2004 11:29:50 by Dufo
Why Does JAT Use The DC-10 On European Routes? posted Tue Mar 23 2004 21:24:45 by Vio
NWAs New Livery On The DC-10? posted Mon Jun 2 2003 10:07:46 by Jbmitt
What Do Ya'll Think Of The DC-9? posted Wed Jan 1 2003 07:29:01 by Douglas DC-9
What Was So Bad About The DC-10? posted Thu Jul 5 2001 19:15:09 by RonE
Rough Landings On The DC-10 posted Thu Jun 21 2001 03:00:56 by Duce50Boom