727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5770 posts, RR: 20 Posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1546 times:
I've always wondered, If the 717 is really the MD-95, then would't it have commoality with the MD-90? Therefore, why shut down the MD-90 line, leaving the 717 as a lone ship, and not being able to offer a "family"? of jetliners???
TransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 993 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1510 times:
There is only one reason for shutting down MD-90 production - and the name of that reason is 737.
Boeing757/767 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2264 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1502 times:
To be more specific, once the merger went through there was no point in producing two aircraft with the same capacity.
727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5770 posts, RR: 20 Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1498 times:
then why keep 717 open? When they shut 717 down, they can PRETEND they gave it a chance.
777236er From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1485 times:
A 737 would make more for Boeing than an MD-90. On the other hand, Boeing didn't have a light 100-seater, so they kept the MD-95 for that reason. MD had fronted a lot of the MD-95 development cost and it didn't cost Boeing that much to develop the aircraft.
Was the decision political too? It would have looked very bad to close ALL the MD lines and effectivly shut down Long Beach.
Travellin'man From United States of America, joined May 2001, 530 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1451 times:
I'm sure airlines like AA and NWA, and smaller ones like TWA weighed in for keeping some variant alive, given how many they have.
The important thing to remember is that the 717 is scaled down in terms of range, and also slightly the number of pax. It is not the same as the MD-95, which was direct competition to the 737, just based on it.
It is not enough to be rude; one must also be incorrect.
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7724 posts, RR: 55 Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1438 times:
Remember, no-one was buying it. NOT a reliable aircraft. Saudia bought some under HUGE post Gulf War political pressure and it is completely the wrong type for them.
I don't think the 737-600, -700, -800, and -900 deserve the tag New Generation cos they aren't THAT different to the -100 (look at the overhead panel kids), but the (OK OK) 737NG (there I said it) is a damn sight better in any way you want to measure it than the MD90 - reliable, economical, modern, whatever. The MD90 was every bit a model/stretch too far, like the MD11 was. Poor Douglas, what a great company they were til Boeing built the 707.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
WarriorII From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1432 times:
"I don't think the 737-600, -700, -800, and -900 deserve the tag New Generation cos they aren't THAT different to the -100 (look at the overhead panel kids)"
Lowsonboy From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 275 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1428 times:
Sorry, slightly off topic but Cedarjet (or anyone that feels like replying!), just interested in why you think the MD-11 was a model too far for MDC? Surely when it came out it was a perfect replacement for a pretty successful aircraft (the DC-10, plus the L-1011 as well - in terms of range and capacity), even if it didn't live up to expectations. It was launched well before the 777 which superceded it by being more advanced and efficient so surely the market was there at the time, it just didn't work out for them.
WarriorII From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1420 times:
"Sorry, slightly off topic but Cedarjet (or anyone that feels like replying!), just interested in why you think the MD-11 was a model too far for MDC? Surely when it came out it was a perfect replacement for a pretty successful aircraft (the DC-10, plus the L-1011 as well - in terms of range and capacity), even if it didn't live up to expectations. It was launched well before the 777 which superceded it by being more advanced and efficient so surely the market was there at the time, it just didn't work out for them."
Well, although I respect the MD-11, it was a mistake. The first flight occured in 1990, just before the A340's roll-out, and soon after, the 777. The MD-11 incorporated a 18ft 9in fuselage strech, winglets, modified tail, EFIS cockpit, new interior, and modern engines, compared to the DC-10.
The DC-10s main problem was the fact it could not meet projected performance figures. This caused SIA to cancel their order, and go to the A340, a huge blow to the project. Also, AA was very upset over all this. Although MD did beef up the -11 with enhancements, it was too late because by that time, the B777, a more economical twin-jet was just entering service. Even the 4 engined A340 provides a greater range and operates more economically.
Lowsonboy From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 275 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1405 times:
Thanks WarriorII - so basically it was mistakes on MD's part, which if they hadn't made then presumably the MD-11 would have been a much better A340/B777 competitor. It's a shame for such a beautiful bird to have never quite made it as a successful airliner
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7724 posts, RR: 55 Reply 11, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1400 times:
There has been so much opinion expressed here about the MD11, I bet there's more in the archive about that contraversial aircraft than even the 747. Have a look, threads covering the MD11's shortcomings come through here so often you can set your watch by them.
I'll investigate the 737 overhead panels, that's second-hand info I was using as shorthand to make a point about the superficial nature of the improvements in the NG. If the NGs are just slicker versions of the -100s and -200s (which isn't far off the mark) then great because it makes for a very pilot-orientated cockpit. It's just the NG tag is pushing it a bit when you consider the ultra high-tech A320. Both the 737NG and A320 beat the shit out of the MD90 in any case.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Baec777 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1231 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1403 times:
The Boeing 717 is the former MD95 aircraft, and the MD90 line shut cause of the 737 line is in production.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15999 posts, RR: 59 Reply 13, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1393 times:
Actually, when Boeing bought MDD, the MD-90 had already established a track record as a poor seller....so shutting it was easy....had it been selling well, the line would probably have been kept open.
As for the MD-95/717, it was too early in its development to determine how successful it would be, and it did fill a role below the 736. had Boeing known then what a poor seller the the 717 would be now, they would probably have cancelled the MD-95 as well.
As for the MD-11, orders (except for the MD-11F) had dried up by the time of the Boeing purchase. Boeing probably could have kept the MD-11F line open.....LH was disappointed that it was closed.
Neil
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5770 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15999 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
