Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
727 & DC10 Question  
User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 320 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8067 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.

46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20783 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8050 times:

Welcome to a.net!

My take on it:

DC-10s, no, United had already retired its fleet by Feb 2001.

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.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3649 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7994 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!
User currently offlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 2325 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7994 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
DC-10

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.



Go coogs! \n//
User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7973 times:

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.


Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20783 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7970 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.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7945 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 5):

The 727 had three things going against it, the 3-man cockpit, its fuel bill, and the economic downturn.

And fourthly, even with hush kids they were too loud. (the main reason, why they not longer were allowed in the EU)

[Edited 2013-03-04 23:31:38]


Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7938 times:

Thanx, I know for several airlines the 727 was a work horse and freight hogs. I just figured they'd
probably still be around.


User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7911 times:

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 6):
the main reason, why they not longer were allowed in the EU

A real pity. The 727 is one of the best looking aircraft around.

[Edited 2013-03-04 23:37:10]


Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7897 times:

Your right about the dc10's being. Just looked at an AA timetable from 2000 they were gone. If oil prices never rose airlines would still have the 727's flying now albeit far and few.

User currently offlinedarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1391 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7857 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.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6557 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7698 times:

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 3):

DL retired L10s on July 31, 2001 so 9/11 had nothing to do with




Boeing 727

US were gone in 1995, although not sure in Shuttles were gone before 9/11

DL had originally slated the 727 to last until 2008-----this was eventually upped to 2005----after 9/11 -----to late 2003-----then upped to April 2003

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

CO were gone in November of 1999 (not sure about Micronesia
TW were gone in October 2000



Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlineDouglasDC10 From Germany, joined Feb 2000, 173 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7538 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.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20783 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7510 times:

Quoting DouglasDC10 (Reply 12):
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.

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.

Continental Will Suspend DC-10 Service (by Sotomayor Sep 17 2001 in Civil Aviation)



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineSpaceshipDC10 From Canada, joined Jan 2013, 1984 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7510 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.



I wish I was a glow worm.
User currently offlinesomeone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 3473 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7474 times:

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
If 9/11 never happened & the economy never went down hill would airlines

The oil price would then probably have been even higher, and it was this, combined with high costs (esp. maintenance) that killed them. Not a decrease in air travel demand


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5293 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6965 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.


User currently offlineshuttle9juliet From UK - Scotland, joined Jul 2010, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6839 times:

As another topic the other day about classic 747 ops, BA if 9/11 had not happened had a retirement date of late 2006 for the 742 fleet.

User currently offlineCargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1277 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6784 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.


User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 945 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6705 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.
User currently offlineNWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1127 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6626 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.   

User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6584 times:

Your right the 727 was a beautiful plane and a joy to fly.
It's still good to see them fly for freighters. I really think they
still would be good in today's market.

The DC10's were nice as well. Still nice to see them flying. As mentioned
they're time was up by the 767's.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20783 posts, RR: 62
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6550 times:

Quoting mia305 (Reply 21):
I really think they still would be good in today's market.

As a passenger jet? Where and how?

Not only would the airframe still have everything going against it we've listed above, maintenance costs would be spiraling up for frames which saw anything more than cargo levels of utilization.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6509 times:

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.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2313 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6448 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.


User currently offlineCargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1277 posts, RR: 8
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6663 times:

Quoting mia305 (Reply 23):
If freighters can do so can pax.

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 - while an FE 722 may only fly 2-4 hours and one or two cycles. I've personally seen that there's sometimes an FE 722 at EWR that arrives early in the morning and doesn't leave until late at night. That's really only two cycles a day. Use the 722 at the rate of the 737 and you'll quickly rack up big maintenance and fuel bills because you'll be working it alot harder.


User currently offline1stfl94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6408 times:

Quoting shuttle9juliet (Reply 17):

As another topic the other day about classic 747 ops, BA if 9/11 had not happened had a retirement date of late 2006 for the 742 fleet.

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 already gone pre 9/11 and I think it only sped their retirement up by a few months


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6407 times:

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 ordered the B-764 except DL and CO because the econmey did tank, in fact very few new airliners were ordered between 2002 and about 2005 (compared to what should have been ordered).

The same with the B-727. It could have been replaced by the B-757-200, which was also in production at the time, but suffered from almost no orders between 2002 and 2005.

The economy of the 2000s decade was so bad, it eventually killed off the B-757-200/-300, A-300-600, A-310-300, and B-717-200.. It slowed the B-767-400ER to a stand still and is only offered today because the B-767 is still being ordered and is in production.


User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1014 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6067 times:

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 started or was about to begin when 9/11 happened and their retirement at first was supposed to happen over a period of years but when UA went into bankruptcy the scheduled retirement of the 727 went from a few years to a matter of months.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
The economy of the 2000s decade was so bad, it eventually killed off the B-757-200/-300, A-300-600, A-310-300, and B-717-200.. It slowed the B-767-400ER to a stand still and is only offered today because the B-767 is still being ordered and is in production.

I think you are correct and I wonder how would the U.S. aviation industry look if the last decade (economic downturn) had not happen? How would the regional jet industry look if it had not happen because by the second half of the last decade RJ's had completely taken over the entire U.S. aviation industry?

It is amazing that we have gone from DC-10's and 727's to RJ's and E170's ( I know that last statement is a bit dramatic)  


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4389 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6006 times:

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 these aircraft made them redundant once the likes of the 757,767, and 777 the newer versions of the 737, et al. were available, the these aircraft days were numbered. 9/11 really happened coincidentally to the demise of these aircraft. If 9/11 dd not happen the development of the aviation industry would have still continued. 9/11 may have even delayed the retirement of these aircraft as the airlines did not have the financial means to replace the aircraft as well as the cost of increased security and other associated costs depleting their financial reserves of the airlines.


Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5765 times:

Thanx for all the info.

User currently offlineSpaceshipDC10 From Canada, joined Jan 2013, 1984 posts, RR: 3
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5760 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 28):
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.

No, they were already gone. Last passenger flights were UA700 LAS-ORD and UA44 HNL-ORD on February 14, 2001 with N1857U and N1858U respectively, both DC-10-30CF. Cargo DC-10s were gone just a couple of months before that.



I wish I was a glow worm.
User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1723 posts, RR: 7
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5618 times:

Welcome to a.net!

I think by now you have gotten the drift of your question. The 727 was already on its way out as fuel prices increased. The DC-10, an incredible aircraft, made it until the late 2000's but it lacked the amenities passengers wanted. No in seat video especially. NW kept theirs until they were due for major checks and then flew them for the last time down to Mississippi where they were scrapped (the DC-10-40's) in the 90's and the -30's to other desert scrappers. It is sad to see pictures of an airplane that flew you safely for thousands of hours chopped up as scrap metal.

The first generation of 777-200's and the 747-400 are on their way out right now. The 767-200's are mostly gone and some of the 767-300ER's as well.

At DL they say they intend to fly the -400's until 2019 or so but no idea as to a replacement.



Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently offlineNWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1127 posts, RR: 3
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4927 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 32):
I think by now you have gotten the drift of your question. The 727 was already on its way out as fuel prices increased. The DC-10, an incredible aircraft, made it until the late 2000's but it lacked the amenities passengers wanted. No in seat video especially. NW kept theirs until they were due for major checks and then flew them for the last time down to Mississippi where they were scrapped (the DC-10-40's) in the 90's and the -30's to other desert scrappers. It is sad to see pictures of an airplane that flew you safely for thousands of hours chopped up as scrap metal.

Northwest Airlines found as the DC-10-40 was getting up in age and was Pratt & Whitney powered, unlike the DC-10-30 which was GE powered, replacement parts were getting expensive. A DC-10-40 part was costing three to four times cost of a similar part that was used on a DC-10-30. Also parts availability was getting harder to maintain as Northwest only had 21 DC-10-40s and JAL had bought about the same number. So Northwest just kept flying them and maintained them at a level only keep them airworthy until their next major check was due and flew them to Mississippi for scrapping, as DTWPurserBoy stated.
Northwest Airlines had started buying DC-10-30s before they started scrapping the DC-10-40s.   


User currently offlinepiedmont727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4491 times:

welcome to A.NET
anyway i think that the dc-10s were really heading toward the retirment by then but i do belive some airlines 727s would have lived a few years longer


User currently offlineLdriver From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4231 times:

All this discussion has me still wondering about a question that's been on my mind for decades. The original decision of the industry to go forward with the 757/67 in the late 70s was based on fuel price predictions that failed to materialize. The investment in such new aircraft was a small fortune. The company Comtran used to claim that by hushkitting a 707 and modernizing the cockpit, even with 1980s gas prices, the savings of over 40 million for a new generation jet (I think it was a 10 million$ upgrade) was the equivalent of 50 years free fuel. There are also those who claim that the rush to phase out the long-haul narrowbody routes was primarily a marketing rather than cost-saving decision. I've always wondered what truth, if any, there is to that view. Thoughts welcome.

User currently offlineSXDFC From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 2418 posts, RR: 22
Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3117 times:

As many mentioned above one of the many things that "killed off" these A/C were the three men crew, with that being the case, was there any proposals to modify the 727 to only carry 2 pilots instead of 3? ( I know this was at least the case on the MD-10 )... One other thing was it possible to fly a 727 without a FE?


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinesomeone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 3473 posts, RR: 3
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3084 times:

Quoting SXDFC (Reply 36):
As many mentioned above one of the many things that "killed off" these A/C were the three men crew, with that being the case, was there any proposals to modify the 727 to only carry 2 pilots instead of 3? ( I know this was at least the case on the MD-10 )... One other thing was it possible to fly a 727 without a FE?

Even with only two crew, they still would struggle with their three engines


User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2808 times:

Does anyone have a picture of a DC10-30/40. I'm a little confused on the difference.

Would it have been possible to make different series 727 just not the 200 series
Like they have with the 737 to keep them flying?


User currently offlineSpaceshipDC10 From Canada, joined Jan 2013, 1984 posts, RR: 3
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2803 times:

Quoting mia305 (Reply 38):
Does anyone have a picture of a DC10-30/40. I'm a little confused on the difference.

Here are the DC-10-30 and the DC-10-40


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Johan Knijn photography
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gerhard Plomitzer



The -30 is GE-powered and the -40 had PW engines. The latter were longer in shape, with the rear cone very visible. The PW also had a larger intake, thus on the tail engine the air intake is larger, looking very similar to what can be found on the MD-11.



I wish I was a glow worm.
User currently offlineNWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1127 posts, RR: 3
Reply 40, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2783 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SXDFC (Reply 36):
As many mentioned above one of the many things that "killed off" these A/C were the three men crew, with that being the case, was there any proposals to modify the 727 to only carry 2 pilots instead of 3? ( I know this was at least the case on the MD-10 )... One other thing was it possible to fly a 727 without a FE?

The 737 originally came with a three man crew due to union contracts. Airlines like Western Airlines had some and decided they wanted the pilot's union to agree to a two man crew. The pilots refused and Western started selling them to Air France, I think. The sold aircraft made a technical stop at MSP, possibly for tax purposes. The Western pilots realized that the 737 was going away and agreed to the two man crew.
As a side note, I think some very early 767s were delivered to an Australian or New Zealand airline due to pilot's contacts requiring a three man crew. These 767s were eventually converted to a two man flight crew cockpit.   


User currently offlineSpaceshipDC10 From Canada, joined Jan 2013, 1984 posts, RR: 3
Reply 41, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2768 times:

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 40):
I think some very early 767s were delivered to an Australian or New Zealand airline

That was Ansett.



I wish I was a glow worm.
User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2757 times:

Thanx for the pics, now I see the difference. I couldn't tell before.

User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 945 posts, RR: 2
Reply 43, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2652 times:

Quoting mia305 (Reply 42):
Thanx for the pics, now I see the difference. I couldn't tell before.

You might be interested in the history of the -40, which was originally to be designated the -20. Wikipedia has a decent description:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlinemcg From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2459 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 28):
It is amazing that we have gone from DC-10's and 727's to RJ's and E170's ( I know that last statement is a bit dramatic)

NW operated a DC-10 ORD-BIL in the 1970's. Today, when that route operates, it's an RJ-70. Times have changed.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25848 posts, RR: 22
Reply 45, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2423 times:

Quoting mcg (Reply 44):
Quoting jayunited (Reply 28):
It is amazing that we have gone from DC-10's and 727's to RJ's and E170's ( I know that last statement is a bit dramatic)

NW operated a DC-10 ORD-BIL in the 1970's. Today, when that route operates, it's an RJ-70. Times have changed.

NW DC-10s also served GTF and GEG.


User currently offlinemcg From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2219 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 45):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 45):
Quoting mcg (Reply 44):
Quoting jayunited (Reply 28):
It is amazing that we have gone from DC-10's and 727's to RJ's and E170's ( I know that last statement is a bit dramatic)

NW operated a DC-10 ORD-BIL in the 1970's. Today, when that route operates, it's an RJ-70. Times have changed.

NW DC-10s also served GTF and GEG.

Same flight. It went ORD - BIL - GTF for sure and then I think it went to GEG and SEA. It was a long time ago.


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...
Champion Air's 727 Fleet - Question posted Mon Nov 12 2007 22:10:30 by Transpac787
DC10 Question posted Thu Mar 24 2005 19:44:23 by Persotvik
Los Andes 727 Crash Question posted Fri Mar 19 2004 17:16:58 by Henpol747
DL 727 Galley Question posted Mon Dec 15 2003 02:45:55 by Flydeltaorf
Garuda DC10 Question posted Tue Sep 10 2002 02:23:51 by Rpwgw
Fedex 727 FOs Question posted Sat Aug 24 2002 23:36:40 by Airlineguy
DC10 Question posted Wed Nov 7 2001 01:30:21 by TurbineBeaver
Korean Air 727, DC10 Exclusive Shots posted Mon Nov 5 2001 12:25:00 by Hoons90
Boeing 727 Fuel Question posted Tue Jun 13 2000 03:56:34 by Airplanekid
UA/NW/CO DC10 Fleet Question posted Fri Aug 10 2012 10:53:12 by alexinwa