mia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 320 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 12 months 17 hours ago) and read 8263 times:
Hi everyone I'm new here so bare with me if this question has been asked.
If 9/11 never happened & the economy never went down hill would airlines
like AA, DL, UA, US (NW & CO pre merger) would still have kept the 727's
and DC10's still flying. If not when would they have retired them. I believe
they would've kept them longer.
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3749 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (1 year 12 months 17 hours ago) and read 8190 times:
You're talking about three-pilot three-engine planes in a two-pilot two-engine market. Economically it just didn't make sense and wouldn't have regardless of 9/11. I do think 9/11 hastened the demise of the 727 but not by much. They were already being phased out... 9/11 just meant that with the capacity reduction, they were easier to get rid of.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
I disagree. I think the DC-10 would've outlasted the 727, albeit a few years. Keep in mind, NW had theirs for a few years after 9/11 and I think CO would have kept theirs a while longer and maybe even had a larger 767 order. AA and UA had dumped theirs before 9/11.
The only way I could see the 727 outlasting the DC-10 is because there were simply more of them, and even then the DC-10 still won out in the passenger market, and it's still going strong in the cargo market since even FX is dumping the 727.
I even think DL would've kept the L1011 for a little while longer.
However, if we didn't have these huge spikes in oil prices, we wouldn't have designers pushing for more efficient aircraft.
A landing EVERYONE can walk away from, is a good landing.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (1 year 12 months 16 hours ago) and read 8166 times:
Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 3): I disagree. I think the DC-10 would've outlasted the 727, albeit a few years.
The question was essentially would the airlines have kept these models flying longer.
I doubt the DC-10 would have lasted much longer, if at all, in the fleets where they were active, hence I said "no". The big DC-10 fleets were pretty much gone already by 9/11.
The 727 had three things going against it, the 3-man cockpit, its fuel bill, and the economic downturn. If 9/11 hadn't had happened, the economic downturn wouldn't have happened as it did, thus keeping a need for the aircraft to stay around in the fleets longer. Hence I said "yes", but it was actively being replaced already by 9/11, so its days were numbered as well.
darksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1474 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (1 year 12 months 16 hours ago) and read 8053 times:
Quoting mia305 (Thread starter): Hi everyone I'm new here so bare with me if this question has been asked.
Welcome. And don't worry about it. As you may already know, a lot of our most interesting threads (sometimes even with new facts being brought to light) stem from these "basic" questions. It's nothing to apologize for.
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
727s, yes, but only for a few more years. It was already falling victim to the 2-pilot 737-800 vs. the 3-man 727 cockpit by the time 9/11 came around.
Right. If we look over the last two decades, we see that the 737 really isn't just the 737 anymore, but performs enough different missions with enough variants that it has become the "new" 727, 737, & 757 in the Boeing line up. In fact, I dare say it's really just the new 727 & 757, as the 700 variant doesn't sell like it used to, and the 600 is, well... We know what those sales have been like!
Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 4): I don't know how it was in the US, but in the rest of the world they were dead way before 9/11. Even in the 90s you barely could have seen them flying around.
Mostly, yeah. I think BA hung onto theirs almost as long as AA & UA. But in any case, the American market is just different that way it seems. Even now; we see 757s all over the place here to the point that you really can't get away from them. But it seems that's pretty much the opposite of just about all of the rest of the world.
Be a Perfectionist. You're Nothing if You're Just Another...
DouglasDC10 From Germany, joined Feb 2000, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 12 months 12 hours ago) and read 7734 times:
Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 3): I disagree. I think the DC-10 would've outlasted the 727, albeit a few years. Keep in mind, NW had theirs for a few years after 9/11 and I think CO would have kept theirs a while longer and maybe even had a larger 767 order. AA and UA had dumped theirs before 9/11.
Agree with you.
If 9/11 has not weakened the economy, the demand for new aircraft would have stayed pretty high and delivery slots for A330/340-300 and 777-200ER partly far away. This came from a high demand for these aircraft as L-1011s and DC-10s all over the world have been reaching retirement age while replacement aircraft on the used aircraft market were not available (MD-11s were picked up by freight carriers as soon as they were thrown on the market). That would have given the DC-10 an extended life with CO and NW - I mean NW even picked up four used DC-10s as late as 1999/2000.
For the 727, the situation around 2000 was different. The airlines have been phasing out their 727s for more than a decade by then, replacing them with 757, 737-400, MD-80 and later A320 and 737-800. The used aircraft market for aircraft of this size offered more choices as European airlines have started to phase out their oldest MD-80s. Here, 9/11 just seems to have accelerated what was not too far away.
SpaceshipDC10 From Canada, joined Jan 2013, 2260 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (1 year 12 months 12 hours ago) and read 7706 times:
Quoting DouglasDC10 (Reply 12): I mean NW even picked up four used DC-10s as late as 1999/2000.
Those were amongst the last dozen built. They dated from 1988, were obviously very young and with all the updates compared to their DC-10-40s from 1972-74. The -30s replaced the -40s on international services while the -40s were replaced by B757-300s and parked in 2002.
ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5388 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 12 months 5 hours ago) and read 7161 times:
Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 11): AA originally had them gone by year end 2004------then I was hearing late 2002-------after 9/11, they were getting rid of them at a rate of 8 per month until April 30, 2002
I had heard from a friend who flies for AA that the retirement date was 2004 or 2005, but that was subject to additional orders for the 737-800s.
Let's assume that 9/11 didn't happen. There would have still been a mild recession due to the collapse of the tech and dot.com sectors. Depending on how quickly the economy recovered, my assumption is that AA would have ordered additonal 738s. That would have sped up the retirement process, probably going towards 2003.
Considering that oldest MD-80s turned 20 years old in 2003, the question remanins if AA would have started replacement of that fleet with 737-700s in the middle of the decade.
Cargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1284 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (1 year 12 months 3 hours ago) and read 6980 times:
Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 3): The only way I could see the 727 outlasting the DC-10 is because there were simply more of them, and even then the DC-10 still won out in the passenger market, and it's still going strong in the cargo market since even FX is dumping the 727.
Nobody is seeking DC-10 lift in the cargo market, and FE is likely to begin parking the -10 once the 763ERFs arrive, beginning with the MD-10-10s.
Due to their age, noise, crew requirement, and fuel consumption, I doubt many more 727s or DC-10s would be flying in passenger operations today even if 9/11 had not happened. These planes were on their way out even in 2000, with the lion's share of 727-200adv's being 20 years old or older at that time.
I love these aircraft - in particularly the 727-200adv, but they are yesteryear's machines and it was showing even then.
FlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 1059 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 12 months 3 hours ago) and read 6901 times:
Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 3): I disagree. I think the DC-10 would've outlasted the 727, albeit a few years. Keep in mind, NW had theirs for a few years after 9/11 and I think CO would have kept theirs a while longer and maybe even had a larger 767 order.
CO DID have a larger 767 order (about double what they received). But after 9-11, the aircraft that hadn't already been started were cancelled (rather than postponed). Later CO added to it's 777 fleet.
I knew CO's V.P. of Flight Ops and in late 1999 (October, IIRC), he told me that he had been spending a lot of time working on how to best end the DC-10 leases.
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 13): CO had already decided to retire their DC-10s by 2002 before 9/11 happened. Without 9/11, they wouldn't have decided to extend them past that date with deliveries of new aircraft coming.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
NWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1196 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (1 year 12 months 2 hours ago) and read 6822 times:
The twin engined and two man cockpit aircraft were the aircraft of choice to replace the three engine and three man flight crew cockpit. The DC-10 and 727 were rugged and reliable aircraft, but they were from a previous generation of aircraft when Jet A (fuel) was cheap. The MD-11 was a failure as a passenger jet, failing to bring the performances that Douglas had promised. The MD-11 along with the DC-10 and 727 could no longer compete with the new generation aircraft. They all made great freighters and some are still soldiering on. But they are beginning to get long on the tooth and are starting go away also. The twin engine DC-9 continued on, especially with Northwest Airlines, as they were a reliable two man crew aircraft. The twin engined 737 has morphed from a 1960s aircraft into a new generation aircraft, but Boeing is going to have to come up with a new aircraft to replace the reborn 737.
Polot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2465 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 12 months 1 hour ago) and read 6644 times:
Quoting mia305 (Reply 23): If freighters can do so can pax. I know the frames were against them and costs
were high, in the right market where demand is high I think it could work.
One can only wish.
Most Freighters operate on a completely different business model than a passenger airplane. With airlines it is all about keeping the plane in the air flying making money as long as possible. Traditionally Cargo airlines bought their planes secondhand so constant utilization was not as much of a priority. This has kind of been changing in recent years as stronger Cargo airlines (i.e. FX) are seeing the value of more capable new freighters, while smaller Cargo airlines are getting squeezed out.
Biman Bangladesh has been the only DC-10 passenger operator for several years, I'm not sure if they are still flying them.
: Freighters aren't used the same way passenger planes are. A WN 737 might fly 11 hours and six cycles in a given day - implying several short segments
: Really? I remember an Airliner World from just before 9/11 which had a feature on BAs 742s as they were scheduled for retirement, a couple were alrea
: The DC-10 was on its way out, as was the L-1011. They would have been replaced by the B-767-400ER had the economy not tanked. But it did and no one or
: United's DC-10s were already on their way out by the time 9/11 happened we only had a few left in the fleet. I think the 727 retirement had just start
: The DC-10 and the 727 were both great aircraft when they were built, but as the 707, DC-8, CV 880, 990, L1011 and BAC 1-11, the economics of running t