Jimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 640 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 2032 times:
I've been wondering (as I do from time to time) is there anyone on this board who was around when the DC-10s were grounded (after AA 191) and can remember how the airlines coped during that time?
At least in the US, grounding of the DC-10 fleet seems to be nothing short of disastrous for a few carriers...and I can't imagine how that many passengers could have been easily rebooked onto other flights or other carriers.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2022 times:
My airline didn't fly them, but from what I recall from friends at several airlines that did, it was a real mess.
CO, UA, AA, NA, and WA were the main US airlines affected (NWA's -40s had Pratts versus the GE CF-6s like the others, and I don't recall the -40s being affected), and the lack of the DC-10-10s and -30s really put the pressure on their narrowbody flights, which were then full, and people were still being left behind. I know NA ran some extra sections using 727-200s to try and accomodate some of the demand, and I'm sure the other airlines did as well. If one of those 4 airlines had 747s, I'm sure they made good use of them. The loads at DL, EA, and TW also went up, since they were flying L1011s.
Non-revving and commuting was an absolute joke, and I know several folks that were stranded at HNL that had gone there for an interline softball tournament. Any seat on any airline that was flying 747s, L1011s, 707s, DC-8s, or the DC-10-40s was usually gone.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2016 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Just imagine the chaos that would result in the freight industry...
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1993 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 2): Just imagine the chaos that would result in the freight industry...
Today, of course, but way back in 1979, Fedex was still flying Falcons and had just started using 727s (once air cargo was deregulated in 1977). They made a 727-200 freighter buy back in the early 1980s (didn't they get the last 727 off the line in 83 or 84?) and their DC-10s came in sometime later.
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3250 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1967 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 1): (NWA's -40s had Pratts versus the GE CF-6s like the others, and I don't recall the -40s being affected),
I lived in MSP at the time and I'm quite sure NWs -40s were grounded as well, they certainly deemphasised the DC-10 in advertising.
I just did some quick research... FAA pulled the certificate on 6 June, then on 26 Jun banned all DC-10s from US airspace. On July 13 FAA restored the certificate.
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 3): (didn't they get the last 727 off the line in 83 or 84?)
I believe they got the last 17 or 18 which constituted the entire factory production run of -200Fs.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1957 times:
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 4): I lived in MSP at the time and I'm quite sure NWs -40s were grounded as well, they certainly deemphasised the DC-10 in advertising.
I don't why the -40s stuck in my mind as not being affected. I found this 4-page Time magazine article back from shortly after the accident, and there's a mention on page 3 of the cracked pylon bulkheads only having shown up on -10s and not on any -30s or -40s, so maybe that's what I was recalling.
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3084 posts, RR: 12 Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1923 times:
TWA coped by painting "L-1011" in big letters on their aircraft so the public wouldn't be afraid to get on the plane.
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9286 posts, RR: 13 Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1898 times:
Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 6): TWA coped by painting "L-1011" in big letters on their aircraft so the public wouldn't be afraid to get on the plane
They did...?? The TWA had 'L-1011' painted on its center intake since first deliveries.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3084 posts, RR: 12 Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1882 times:
No, this was in response to the general public thinking that all three-engined jets were DC-10s.
Dl_mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1761 posts, RR: 10 Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1873 times:
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 7): They did...?? The TWA had 'L-1011' painted on its center intake since first deliveries.
The large "1011" disappeared when the twin stripe livery was introduced. It reappeared after the DC-10 incident.
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9286 posts, RR: 13 Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1870 times:
Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 8): No, this was in response to the general public thinking that all three-engined jets were DC-10s
You imply by your first comment that was done post AA 191 crash. TWA had that painted on the intake years before.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3084 posts, RR: 12 Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1836 times:
I was not aware of that. I have a book on the history of TWA and the author mentions that it was placed on there after UAL 191 and mentions nothing of it being on there prior. My mistake.
Jimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 640 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1815 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5): found this 4-page Time magazine article back from shortly after the accident,
I'd like to think you for that article...it's a fascinating read, and perhaps a little eerie to read a 27 year old article in the normal modern Time website format. Makes it feel current.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 640 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
