greatansett
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 5:38 pm

MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:26 am

Hello all,
I was just wondering why the MD-11 in comparison to the 777-200, failed when the data avaliable seem to indicate that the MD-11 is a better aircraft. NOTE:If I remember off memory, The MD-11 burnt .2L less in terms of Km.
777-200
Range-9537Km
Capacity-Flightcrew of two. Passenger seating for 305 in three classes or up to 440. Underfloor capacity for up to 32 LD3 containers
Producton-452
MD-11
Range-12,633km
Capacity-Max single class seating for 410, can seat 298 in three classes, 323 in two (I think that the MD11 has greater container capacity)
Production-200










SORRY IF THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE
Ron Paul 2012
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4899
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:45 am

You should be comparing the MD-11 to the 777-200A, but to the 777-200ER. The MD-11 did not meet promised performance, and was introduced at the wrong time as there were already widebody twinjets - the 767, A300, and A310. The 777 was released only five years later. Trijets are considered more difficult in terms of maintenece.
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
 
mah584jr
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:35 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:45 am

I have heard that plane maintenance cost a lot for the MD-11. Engine parts were harder to come by. Production was halted because Boeing swallowed up Douglas and hence had no use for the plane, when they already had the 777.
 
greatansett
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 5:38 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:48 am

Yet the 767,A300 and A310 did not directly compete with the MD11. Had the MD11 met its preformance targets would it still be in production today?
Ron Paul 2012
 
bohica
Posts: 2303
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:58 am

The MD-11 is not a failure. Ask Fedex, UPS, Gemini, etc. They are killing each other for every one that becomes available. The MD-11 might not be the most successful plane for passenger ops, but they are for cargo ops.
 
greatansett
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 5:38 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:00 am

Then if they are that popular why are the MD11F's not being produced anymore?
Ron Paul 2012
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12390
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:04 am

With 452 frames and with only a few not flying, it is a failure? While very few are in service as pax a/c, they have become very successful as freighers.
The MD-11 wasn't the most successful aircraft, in part due to bad timing. It had disappointing performance in comparision to the then avilable 2 engine a/c. Engine and airframe engineering with twin engine mid and large a/c was more up to date. The MD-11 was a 1960's basic design from the DC-10 and was difficult to improve in comparision to the 747 and other newer a/c from both A & B, without enough frames to cover the costs of more extensive engineering improvements. That 3rd engine is a PITA to access to work on it and of course, 3 engines would normally burn at cruse more fuel than 2 larger engines. Another issue is the growth of Airbus, with the A-310, A-340, as well as the Boeing 767 with improved variants taking some of the market of the MD-11 series. Many airlines also wanted to stick to one brand of a/c or another for their larger a/c, and despite the quality of engineering of MD's the were one too many brand of a/c, with it's own mx requirements.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:12 am

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 6):
With 452 frames and with only a few not flying, it is a failure?

Exactly 200 MD-11 were built, and there have been several losses
 
Tango-Bravo
Posts: 2887
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 1:04 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:14 am

Quoting GREATANSETT (Thread starter):
MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

The condensed version: The MD-11 was an overweight underperformer.

Quoting Mah584jr (Reply 2):
Production was halted because Boeing swallowed up Douglas and hence had no use for the plane, when they already had the 777

IIRC, production was halted because all (or very nearly all) MD-11 pax version orders had been built by the time Boeing acquired McDonnell-Douglas. Many of the MD-11s in the order book were cancelled and never built when performance failed to meet the numbers represented or when the airlines by whom they were ordered went out of business before their MD-11 orders were built. Also, sales of the reasonably popular pure cargo version of the '11 were hindered by the premature retirement of many pax '11s, which were converted to freighters.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:17 am

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 6):
With 452 frames and with only a few not flying, it is a failure?

Only 200 MD-11's were built.
 
bohica
Posts: 2303
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Sun Jul 16, 2006 1:51 pm

Quoting GREATANSETT (Reply 5):
Then if they are that popular why are the MD11F's not being produced anymore?

When Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas, Boeing discontinued building them. It is not cost effective to keep a production line open just for new MD-11F's. When passenger airlines were selling their MD-11's it was cheaper to convert one to cargo than buy a new one.
 
cf6ppe
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:09 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Sun Jul 16, 2006 2:44 pm

Quoting Mah584jr (Reply 2):
I have heard that plane maintenance cost a lot for the MD-11. Engine parts were harder to come by

Please rest assured that parts for the GE CF6-80C2D1F and PW 4462 (4460 & 4458) powerplants installed on MD11's are currently in sufficient quantities that engines are not delayed in the repair process in the various engine shops.
The reason being (that parts are available) is that although the MD11 configurations of these engines aren't being produced, similar models of these engines (i.e., GE CF6-80C2 and PW 44xx) used on Boeing and Airbus are being produced using those families of engine parts. Also, spare parts manufacture is a very big business.

Now what I do agree with from your statement is the fact that engine and airframe parts are quite expensive. A lot of you would gasp if you had to support the parts cost for repair of an engine from you annual earnings.

Replacement of only the HP Turbine blades and vanes runs the bill up well over a million dollars. Life Limited parts replacements of the various disks, shafts, spools, and hubs makes will make you think that you are in the wrong business (i.e., maybe you should be on the selling end instead of being on the purchasing side).
 
Geo772
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:40 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:39 pm

When Boeing bought out McDonnell Douglas it marked the end of the MD11. Also the MD 80/90 line was closed when the 717 ceased to be built this year.

Boeing had a real winner with the 777 as it was a more capable airplane than either the MD11 or the A340 series aircraft due in part to the lower operating costs. Also with the soon to be introduced freighter version a true successor to the DC10/MD11 freighter will round off the family.
Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
 
AussieItaliano
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:10 pm

What I don't understand is why several airlines ordered them, and then got rid of them (sometimes in less than 10 years). This just doesn't seem like the best financial decision to be ordering planes and then dumping them off to cargo carriers soon after at a much lower price than that originally paid.

Maybe someone else knows the reasoning here. Anyone?
Third Runway - LHR, Second Runway - LGW, Build Them Both!!!
 
MalpensaSFO
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:17 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:42 pm

The MD-11 program was far from a failure..

American Airlines
Delta Airlines
World Airways
VARIG Brazilian Airlines
VASP Brazilian Airlines
USAfrica Airways
Swissair
Swiss International
Alitalia
Alitalia Cargo
Sabena
CityBird
Martin Air
Martin Air Cargo
LTU
KLM
Lufthansa Cargo
Finnair
Saudia Airlines
Saudia Airlines Cargo
Thai Airways
China Airlines
Mandarain Airlines
China Eastern Airlines
Garuda Indonesia
Philippine Airlines
Japan Air Lines
Korean Airlines
Fedex
Gemini
UPS

The only thing that killed the MD-11 program were more fuel efficient planes. The same thing that killed off the DC-8, 707, 727 and so forth..
TO FLY IS TO SERVE
 
bigb
Posts: 727
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:51 pm

Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 14):
The MD-11 program was far from a failure..

American Airlines
Delta Airlines
World Airways
VARIG Brazilian Airlines
VASP Brazilian Airlines
USAfrica Airways
Swissair
Swiss International
Alitalia
Alitalia Cargo
Sabena
CityBird
Martin Air
Martin Air Cargo
LTU
KLM
Lufthansa Cargo
Finnair
Saudia Airlines
Saudia Airlines Cargo
Thai Airways
China Airlines
Mandarain Airlines
China Eastern Airlines
Garuda Indonesia
Philippine Airlines
Japan Air Lines
Korean Airlines
Fedex
Gemini
UPS

The only thing that killed the MD-11 program were more fuel efficient planes. The same thing that killed off the DC-8, 707, 727 and so forth..

With only 200 built and a lot of these airlines got rid of thing quite quickly. Doesn't look like a success.
ETSN Baber, USN
 
User avatar
BALandorLivery
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:54 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:11 am

Discussed in detail many times before.
 
FLALEFTY
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:21 am

When the MD-11 was conceived, ETOPs was in its infancy. But when the 180 minute ETOPs was granted to the 767, by the time the MD-11 entered service, the 767 was on its way to dominating the North Atlantic market.

The cancelled Singapore order for the MD-11's early lack of range/payload performance also hurt.

Then came strong competitors like the A330/340, and ultimately, the B777, that finished the MD-11 off. These planes all offered superior technology and performance at similar prices.
 
FXMD11
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 1:34 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:54 am

Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 8):
Also, sales of the reasonably popular pure cargo version of the '11 were hindered by the premature retirement of many pax '11s, which were converted to freighters

One of the greatest midsize freighters ever manufactured.Excellent Feeder
for Integrators like us, FDX. Quick to turn around, low in maintanence, long
range, hence great for hub connections ie. Subic Bay to Los Angeles / Memphis-Paris. The freighter version was definately a success and still continues to be one. TG had no problems selling their 4 x Elevens to UPS.
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:00 am

Not as a Freighter. bigthumbsup 
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
BA787
Posts: 2381
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:40 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:12 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 9):
Only 200 MD-11's were built.

Of which 195 are still in service, including the first one to be built OH-LGA which flies with Finnair.

Quoting BigB (Reply 15):
With only 200 built and a lot of these airlines got rid of thing quite quickly. Doesn't look like a success.

Yes but many still operate them especially cargo. KLM, Finnair and many cargo airlines but to name a few.

I also know for a fact that Finnair are very pleased with their MD-11's and liked them so much that they ordered more which meant that they recieved the last production aircraft, OH-LGE.



Still operators:

World Airways:7 MD11, 2 MD11ER, 2 MD11F: 11
Alitalia: 1 MD11 Combi, 4 MD11F:5
MArtinair: 4 MD11CF, 3 MD11F: 7
KLM: 10 MD11: 10
Lufthansa Cargo: 19 MD11F: 19
Finnair: 6 MD11, 1 MD11ER: 7
Saudi Arabian Airlines: 4 MD11F: 4
THAI: 4 MD11: 4
Fedex: 1 MD11, 49 MD11F: 50
Gemini: 4 MD11F: 4
UPS: 1 MD11, 19 MD11F: 20
Shanghai: 1 MD11F: 1
Transmile Air Services: 4 MD11F: 4
Air Namibia: 2 MD11: 2
Eva Air: 11 MD11F: 11


Stored: Saudi Arabian Government: 2
Delta: 3
Varig: 13
Fedex: 8
UPS: 1


2 crashed, Swissair 111, Korean Air

Total 188, 5 Broken up = 193

Dunno about the rest, someone shed some light?

Tom
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:38 am

Well, to paraphrase Cato, every third word out of Seattle was "Douglas delenda est" for a long time before this happened.

You guys insist on comparing aircraft on relatively narrow indices of merit. That's not looking at the big picture.

The reality is this. What Boeing bought was a monopoly position in the commercial aircraft industry.

The Long Beach plant was offered to Taiwan, which studied the setup for about six months before getting cold feet. I think it was going to be too much for them, and maybe their nerve failed them. Who knows?

There was also a brief, under the radar flirtation with Airbus which came to nothing. Wanna bet that if it was an Airbus plant today that the "next air tanker" issue would be solved forever? But it was not to be.

Boeing bought the facility for one reason and one reason only. It was to keep anyone else with a mind to take a flyer out of the trade by upping the ante.
See, it's like a lot of other businesses that are capital, labor, and knowledge intensive. It is a lot easier to get into a business like that by buying up a facility that is already in existence, even if it's not doing real well.

In buying up Douglas and letting the product lines bleed to death, Boeing made damn sure to plant a stake in the heart of the hated Californians and make sure that, in the future when commercial aircraft were to be built in the United States it would be by Boeing, north of the Columbia River and not by some bunch of pezzonovante upstarts.

We see that here in the midwest. Large meatpackers buy up and idle productive capacity. It is always there as a threat to keep people in their place when they get to thinking they'd like to capture some of those dollars. I had a client in a specialized metalworking trade buy up all the assets of a failed competitor to keep anyone else from going into that trade on the cheap.

And that is why marketing of the Douglas product lines post Boeing came to nothing. It had little to do with merit. It also explains why the Chinese will never get to buy the type certificates.

And it also explains why, when the last C17 rolls off the line, there won't be any choices or alternatives for anyone in the market for an American made commercial jet. There is no more competition.

They'll shutter the C17 plant and climb into the limos with a big assed smile because the building and all the tooling in it belongs to Uncle Sugar-you heard right. Sugar owns the C17 plant and the tooling, and Boeing doesn't have a nickel in it.

And they'll have the perfect patsy-they'll blame the government.

And that, my friends, explains the moral bankruptcy of the last two administrations and the excessive amount of influence that Boeing wields in Washington.

It explains the incredibly piss poor efforts of Feinstein and Boxer to see this train wreck and run up the track with a lantern-hell, we're 2.5 million here in Iowa and we have more horsepower in DC than California with Harkin and Grassley.

It also explains why, in a larger sense, there was no massive effort of the EU to intervene like they do in so many other affairs affecting global trade that are rooted in this country-Microsoft and Apple, to name two.

They kept their noses out of it because it was one less competitor for Airbus. Boeing, in a sense, was doing their dirty work for them.

I wonder what they think of their decision today?

Now....you might wonder how I came to know all this. Simply, I along with a couple of other people here at a.net was there.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:57 am

Quoting GREATANSETT (Thread starter):
SORRY IF THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE

Are you really? A search would have turned up plenty of answers to your question.

"This user is temporarily banned due to repeated violation of our forum rules. The account will be activated again as soon as the user confirms that he/she will adhere to the rules in the future. "

Hmm...

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
And they'll have the perfect patsy-they'll blame the government.

Sounds like YOU'RE blaming the government.

If what you're saying is true, then it would have immense anti-trust consequences. That simply doesn't seem to be the case. The answer to this question is simple: the MD-11 went away because Airbus and Boeing offerings were far superior.
 
teixeim
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:49 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:04 am

Woof - after that last post, mine will get lost, but here goes:

to the a.netters who want to discuss a failure airliner set, why not discuss the Convair 880/990 line? Those were certainly failures, even though there's fans of those aircraft who'll swear they weren't. Another failure would be the Vickers VC-10.

Reminder to flamers: we're discussing commercial failure/success here -- not anything else!
 
WSOY
Posts: 822
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:24 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:16 am

Quoting BA787 (Reply 20):
Finnair: 6 MD11, 1 MD11ER: 7

All are now standard MD-11, with an MTOW of the -ER version.
They are likely to see service beyond 2012 as the A350 will be late.
"Nukkuessa tulee nälkä" (Nipsu)
 
1011
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2001 11:30 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:19 am

As a pax I loved the M11. Huge windows! Comfortable cabin. And it made a really cool sound. Not as cool as the L10 though. Long live the tri-jets. I guess I can't say that anymore.



Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 14):
2 crashed, Swissair 111, Korean Air

Fedex lost a M11 on landing a few yrs back.
 
jetset7e7
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:56 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:20 am

It failed to meet its targets for range and fuel burn, and American Airlines in particular was unimpressed; as was Singapore Airlines, who cancelled their order for 20 aircraft in favor of the Airbus A340, which itself was later displaced by the Boeing 777. Although improvements were made and the aircraft did eventually perform as designed, the damage was done.

Production ended because of lack of sales, due to internal competition from comparable aircraft, such as the Boeing 777 and external competition from the Airbus A330/A340. Also two engines are less expensive to operate and maintain than three.

The success of ETOPS airplanes like 767 and 777 killed the intercontinental trijets.

McDonnell Douglas and later Boeing did perform studies on the feasibility of removing the 3rd tail engine and making it a 2 engine plane, but nothing came of it.

McDonnell Douglas originally projected that it would sell more than 300 MD-11 aircraft, but only a total of 200 planes were built.

Sourced from Wikipedia.org

Mark
Retrofitted Blended Winglets - The Future Is On The Wing
 
WSOY
Posts: 822
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:24 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:20 am

Quoting FLALEFTY (Reply 17):
the B777, that finished the MD-11 off. These planes all offered superior technology and performance at similar prices.

With twice the capital cost, I believe.
"Nukkuessa tulee nälkä" (Nipsu)
 
da man
Posts: 836
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:27 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:03 am

Quoting BA787 (Reply 20):
including the first one to be built OH-LGA which flies with Finnair.

OH-LGA was the first MD-11 delivered, the first one to be built was an MD-11F for FedEx - N601FE.
War Eagle!
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:46 am

Quoting 1011 (Reply 25):
Fedex lost a M11 on landing a few yrs back.

This wasn't the fault of the jet.
 
nosedive
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 2:18 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:51 am

Quoting 1011 (Reply 25):
Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 14):2 crashed, Swissair 111, Korean Air
Fedex lost a M11 on landing a few yrs back.

FX lost one in EWR and one at Subic Bay. Mandarin (yes?) lost one as well.
 
AirEMS
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 6:34 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:02 am

I have a book that shows a KC-11 I think it looked great but the USAF never bought it though. Even though it may have failed on what ever level I think it was a great looking aircraft.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gregg Stansbery



Fly & Work Safe
-Carl
If Your Dying Were Flying
 
MTY2GVA
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:18 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:23 am

Along with why Northwest hasnt retired the DC-9s this is a record braking thread.
Tengo orgullo de ser del norte del mero San Luisito...
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:32 am

Quoting WSOY (Reply 27):
With twice the capital cost, I believe.

A new-build 777 did not cost twice what a new-build MD11 cost when both aircraft were in production.

This may now be the case since the MD-11 is restricted only to the resale market only, while 777 are still available for production.

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 29):
This wasn't the fault of the jet.

And...?

If an aircraft crashes it crashes. The cause will be listed as pilot error but it still contributes to the crash statistics of the airframe.
 
FLALEFTY
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:25 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
And that, my friends, explains the moral bankruptcy of the last two administrations and the excessive amount of influence that Boeing wields in Washington.

Aha! Another progressive!

Yea!

However, given the importance of the C-17, and the fact that the USAF is putting heavy flying hours on the current fleet in support of our adventures in the Middle East and Central Asia, I don't think Congress, or Boeing will allow Long Beach to shut down. Besides, Canada just bought 4 C-17s and wants more, and the U.K. is still considering adding to their fleet. Congress will program a few billion $ a year to keep the line humming.

The cancellation of the MD-11 was less a product of political sculduggery than simply a sound business decision by Boeing. With the superior, 777 and Boeing's market analyses that indicated that most of the pax M-11s would eventually be converted to frieghters, the decision to kill the line was reasonable.
 
mig21umd
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:30 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:38 am

Australia decsided on 5 C17 as well.
Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you long to return
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:00 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 33):
If an aircraft crashes it crashes. The cause will be listed as pilot error but it still contributes to the crash statistics of the airframe.

In the context of this and all the previous similar posts regarding the reasons of the MD-11 "failure" I think it's reasonable to state, when speaking of MD-11 crashes, that those 2 had nothing to do with the jet what so ever and can't be considered as an a/c fault. Every jet type has crashed for one reason or other and some are a/c shortcomings and others aren't. This just comes up about every 6 mo.
 
FireFly
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:38 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:30 pm

Quoting Cf6ppe (Reply 11):
A lot of you would gasp if you had to support the parts cost for repair of an engine from you annual earnings.

Are you saying I should give a second thought to my imminant purchase of a 748 when it rolls off the assembly line??
"Bury me at sea, boys; where no murdered ghosts can haunt me" MacGowan
 
padster
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:03 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:34 pm

..have we forgoten about varig so soon .. were they not the largest passenger operator of the md11?
 
MalpensaSFO
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:17 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:36 pm

Quoting BA787 (Reply 20):
2 crashed, Swissair 111, Korean Air

Dont forget Mandarin Airlines from Taipei to Hong Kong..
TO FLY IS TO SERVE
 
olympicbis
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 6:32 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:05 pm

From a passenger point of view, I did fly several times on the Swissair / Swiss MD11s. It was one of the finest aircraft to fly on : very quiet, especially in the front cabin, big windows, nice powerful take-offs even on a heavily loaded ZRH-GRU, and it certainly is one of the most elegant airliners ever built, but this is personal taste... I do miss them....
 
LMP737
Posts: 4810
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:15 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
In buying up Douglas and letting the product lines bleed to death, Boeing made damn sure to plant a stake in the heart of the hated Californians and make sure that, in the future when commercial aircraft were to be built in the United States it would be by Boeing, north of the Columbia River and not by some bunch of pezzonovante upstarts.

Douglas was where I got my start in the commercial aircraft business. Naturally I'm saddened to see the end of commercial aircraft production there. However the writing was on the wall at Long Beach even before Boeing bought MD. The only thing that might have saved Douglas is if the folks in St. Louis had been willing to make a huge investment in new products and updated facilities. As we already know they were not.

When Boeing took over Long Beach was producing the MD-80, MD-90 and MD-11. The MD-80 had reached the end of it's production life by the late 90's. The MD-90 which MD had hoped would grab a significant share of the narrowbody market was a bust with the airlines. As for the MD-11 which is the subject of this thread it was pretty much a bust with the airlines as well. Boeing could have kept production of the MD-11F going a little longer if they had been a bit more aggressive selling it IMO. In the end though it's hard to keep a production line going on just freighter orders alone. We have seen that with the A300/310.

That leaves the 717. Once again maybe if Boeing had been a bit more aggressive with selling it they might have sold more. However that does not change the fact that it had no commonality with any other aircraft in Boeings product line/ It also does no change the fact that the 717 is competing with lighter jets like Embraer's E170/190.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
S12PPL
Posts: 3603
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 5:26 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:44 am

Quoting AirEMS (Reply 31):
Even though it may have failed on what ever level I think it was a great looking aircraft.

Especially in the wavy gravy scheme!!
Next Flights: 12/31 AS804 PDX-MCO 2/3 AS19 MCO-SEA QX2545 SEA-PDX
 
MYT332
Posts: 7283
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 7:31 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:14 am

Quoting BA787 (Reply 20):
Air Namibia: 2 MD11: 2

Air Namibia actually now only have one MD11 left which is going to be replaced soon by A343, D-AIMF. However, until that is ready they are going to be wet leasing a MH B744 for a while.

You heard it here first!
One Life, Live it.
 
DeC
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:12 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:43 am

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 29):
Quoting 1011 (Reply 25):
Fedex lost a M11 on landing a few yrs back.

This wasn't the fault of the jet.

What about this?

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19980902-0&lang=en
DEC
 
WSOY
Posts: 822
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:24 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:01 am

Quoting DeC (Reply 44):
What about this?

The fire most likely originated from wires belonging to the in-flight entertainment system, a later customer installation. The insulation blankets of most if not all MD-11s have been replaced now, but blankets of similar material were installed on other a/c as well.link
"Nukkuessa tulee nälkä" (Nipsu)
 
socal
Posts: 464
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:20 pm

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:14 am

The MD-11 was not a failure, my  twocents 
I Love HNL.............
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:29 am

Quoting GREATANSETT (Reply 3):
Had the MD11 met its preformance targets would it still be in production today?

A340 had a hard enough time competing against the 777, can you imagine if MD11 and A340 had to fight for the airlines which for some reason or another didn't want the 777? Boeing just hit one out of the park on 777 - and created a jet that outperformed by good margin both MD11 and A340. Even if it met its targets, it wouldn't beat out the performance of the 777. I really liked the MD11, it's a really interesting and beautiful jet, but douglas made the fatal flaw of keeping it a tri-jet.

Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 8):
The condensed version: The MD-11 was an overweight underperformer.

The major issue was that thing under the verticle stabilizer.

Quoting MTY2GVA (Reply 32):
Along with why Northwest hasnt retired the DC-9s this is a record braking thread.

On paper, the MD-11 looks wonderful, and the DC-9s fly because they are reliable, paid off, are much nicer to fly on than a CRJ, and if they retired the DC-9, NW wouldn't have anything else to wake me up with flying out of MSP at 5:50 Am.

Quoting Socal (Reply 46):
The MD-11 was not a failure, my twocents

The same way the L-1011 wasn't a failure....
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
thering
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:44 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:55 am

I love(or loved) to fly RG's MD-11s, I think this is a great plane... But, even thought, nobody can say that the MD-11 is better than the 777-200 when it's not... The 777 is much more modern and efficient...
I really think that if the MD-11 was lunched around 1994/5 like the 777 it would have been a success... Remember, it does not have any ETOP problems...
146 319 320 321 332 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 742 743 744 762 763 772 773 CRJ ER4 100 F50 F27 M11 D10
 
padster
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:03 am

RE: MD-11 Why Was It A Failure?

Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:08 am

Quoting Thering (Reply 48):
I love(or loved) to fly RG's MD-11s, I think this is a great plane... But, even thought, nobody can say that the MD-11 is better than the 777-200 when it's not...

or loved ?? they are not gone yet ... I just saw a beuitiful Varig MD 11 take off tonight fron LHR , they still look great !!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], BlueSky007, bohica, BojamDelta, CaptSkibi, David L, FAST Enterprise [Crawler], flyguy89, Heavierthanair, IslandRob, jetmatt777, Noris, Polot, Raventech, SamoNYC, Spyhunter, StTim, TWA1985, Web500sjc and 299 guests