747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3847 posts, RR: 2 Posted (8 years 7 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5408 times:
Douglas has the DC-8 to compete with the 707 and the 737 was Boeing answer to the DC-9, so why Douglas did not fight back with a narrow body trijet to compete with the 727? They could have used the DC-8 design and turn it from a four engine jet, to a T tail trijet. So why Douglas past on the chance to compete with the 727?
NorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3127 posts, RR: 36
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5225 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
well lets see:
A> the original 727 (-100) was competed with, the Dc-9-30/-40/-50 all did a fine job.
B> By the time the 727-200/-200ADV became a major factor, MCDD was in trouble already with the DC-10 and didn't have time to worry about something in that size class. Eventually the MD-80 program came along and that did compete with the 727-200 for a few years till Boeing ended production and switched to the moderately successful 757.
C> The only true 727-200ADV competitors Boeing ever saw: Trident 3B (underpowered and under ranged), Tu-154 (very good equivalent from the Eastern side of the iron curtain) and one that never got far: Mercure 200 (died due to US/France relation strains).
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Texfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4913 times:
Quoting Mandargb (Reply 7): If B had not killed it, history would have been different.
B didn't kill it...the 717 died due to a lack of orders to be a productive, profit making airplane. All the conspiracy theories fail to take into account that the market operates according to supply and demand. No demand, no reason for supply, hence the 717 was shut down. Everyone loves to hammer on B as to killing off competition by buying them. The reason for the merger was the fact that McD was going under financially, particularly in the commercial side. So the commercial product line was dying before B ever had a say over the future of it. A lot of credit actually should go to B as they tried very much to keep that line alive. The California delegation is a powerful political force and having a production line there gets that support. So it wasn't an easy decision to close that line.