olddominion727
Topic Author
Posts: 419
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:16 pm

DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:55 am

Looking back at DL's history it seems quite fickle with all plane makers except Boeing. It owned A310's with the acquisition of PA routes, then got rid of those as soon as the 767's & L10 11's could fill the gaps. Then they merge with NW and keep their A320 fleet (which seems to be a good match), keeps the A332 & A333 fleet, also seemingly a good match, declined the A340 fleet (good call); owned DC10's dumped them, then acquired WA, dumped more, but then bought the MD11, dumped that them too (another good call), dumping the DC9's, MD80's, 88's and frothing at the mouth for more '90's. I guess some of it is fleet consoliation and modernization, but is it really that hard to train pilots and cabin to be crossed trained with other equipment? The only Boeing I can ever recall them dumping was the 747-100's. Yes, the 737's 727's because they'd flown thousands of miles over decades and they were tired and worn.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:06 am

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
owned DC10's dumped them,

These were only a stopgap until the L-1011 came along.

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
The only Boeing I can ever recall them dumping was the 747-100's.

Don't forget that the 747 was the FIRST Boeing that DL ever operated. They dumped them because, at that time, there were no routes that they could fly, economically (except for the PanAm interchange). If they could have waited another two years, they could have used them on ATL-LGW.......20/20 hindsight.

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
Then they merge with NW and keep their A320 fleet (which seems to be a good match), keeps the A332 & A333 fleet, also seemingly a good match, declined the A340 fleet (good call);

Different crew in the driver's seat than when other previous orders were made.

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
Looking back at DL's history it seems quite fickle with all plane makers except Boeing.

You need to look at the history past the mid 70s to be accurate. They had a pretty good relationship with Douglas with the DC3/4/6/7/8/9 and even the MD-88.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 1336
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:31 am

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
declined the A340 fleet (good call)

What A340 fleet did DL decline?
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word, and doesn't even make sense.
 
milesrich
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:46 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:38 am

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
Looking back at DL's history it seems quite fickle with all plane makers except Boeing. It owned A310's with the acquisition of PA routes, then got rid of those as soon as the 767's & L10 11's could fill the gaps. Then they merge with NW and keep their A320 fleet (which seems to be a good match), keeps the A332 & A333 fleet, also seemingly a good match, declined the A340 fleet (good call); owned DC10's dumped them, then acquired WA, dumped more, but then bought the MD11, dumped that them too (another good call), dumping the DC9's, MD80's, 88's and frothing at the mouth for more '90's. I guess some of it is fleet consoliation and modernization, but is it really that hard to train pilots and cabin to be crossed trained with other equipment? The only Boeing I can ever recall them dumping was the 747-100's. Yes, the 737's 727's because they'd flown thousands of miles over decades and they were tired and worn.

Sorry, but I think you explanation is a bit simplistic, not just on the 747 which was explained above but the DC-10, MD-11, MD-90 and the Airbus equipment.

First of all, Delta, replaced the Pan Am A-310's with new A-310's, then quickly dumped them, some to Air Jamaica, who they had serviced DC-8's for at the Tech Center. They continued to maintain the A-310's for a while too for Air Jamaica. I will address your comments on the other aircraft. Delta, in sort of surprise, chose the L-1011, over the DC-10. They only ordered five DC-10's which were immediately sold to United and then leased back as a stop gap and somewhat as insurance when the RB-211 ran into problems, Rolls Royce almost went bankrupt, and Lockheed went with them. I have never understood why Lockheed just didn't offer the L-1011 with GE CF-6 or PW JT-9's, or why it was difficult to do that they didn't do it. Once they had enough L-1011's, the Tens went to United. As far as Western's DC-10's, they sold them off for fleet simplification as the the small number of them made them uneconomical.

The MD-11's didn't meet their operational specs, so they were sold off. They couldn't fly PDX-NRT consistently nonstop with a full payload, and then the 777-ER/LR came along and why fly a three engine airplane when you can do the same or better job with a twin? American dumped them for the same reason. You say Delta dumped the DC-9's, I would disagree. The only aircraft they didn't keep for an extended period were the DC-9-14's as they turned out to be too small and they had all those 727-232A's coming, and replaced the DC-9-31's for the same reason, plus they didn't have two galleys like Delta's DC-9-32's and at time, they served full meals on flights such as ATL-ORD. Some DC-9-32's were sold over the years as newer 727's, 757's, and 767's arrived, but the last DC-9-32's were not retired until 1992, some 25 years after they entered service. Those last 25 or 30 ships became Valujet's initial fleet.

Delta still has almost ever MD-88 they ever received, and they have been in service since 1988, 23 years. Originally, they ordered over 100 MD-90's, but they had "bugs" when they were delivered and after the first 16, they cancelled the orders, but at the time, Boeing bought MDD and Delta chose the 737-832 and Boeing was just as happy. But now, after ironing out the small problems, mostly maintenance with the engines on the MD-90's and the fact that used ships can be picked up very cheaply, they have expanded their fleet.

After their so called bad experience with the A-310's, Delta was very anti Airbus, but that was under Ron Allen, and Leo Mullin. Richard Anderson came from NW and his Airbus experience was different. Delta had signed an exclusive aircraft arrangement with Boeing but I think that contract was rejected in the Chapter 11. Plus with NW's large fleet of A-319's and A-320's, it made economic sense to keep them, and they are sort of limited service life airplanes so the order ones in the fleet probably would have not brought all that much and replacing them with 737's would have been an unnecessary expense.

Yes, C.E. Woolman and Douglas had a great relationship. Delta bought operated more regular body DC-8 than any other airline except United. They bought the stretch 8, and their order from L-1011's was placed after Mr. Woolman died. Delta also operated the DC-2, DC-3 DC-4, DC-6 and DC-7. The DC-10 was the first Santa Monica-Long Beach product that they didn't choose if you don't count the five plane "insurance" order. But again, that was after the death of Mr. Woolman.

I would bet if there was an inexpensive way to re-engine the MD-88's, Delta would probably do it. Those airplanes fit many of their routes just perfectly. All they need is more efficient engines, plus they are getting up in years, but compared to the age of some of the DC-9-31's that NW had at the time of the merger, they are relatively young. Everyone writes about how American is saddled with high costs with their Super 80's but the fact that Delta was able to get lease concessions and cram down the amount owed on those airplanes in Chapter 11, and has better labor contracts makes operating them more acceptable to Delta. Fuel is huge expense, but new airplanes cost lots of money and labor is significant expense too. Delta dumped their pension plans, etc.
 
User avatar
kgaiflyer
Posts: 2561
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:22 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:49 am

Quoting homsar (Reply 2):
What A340 fleet did DL decline?

It was NW that declined the 343 to replace its aging DC-10s.
 
747400sp
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:12 am

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
767's & L10 11's




You mean L1011& 767s. That weak twin jet, should never go before a great trijet.
 
User avatar
n901wa
Posts: 406
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:38 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:13 am

For the A310 fleet, From what I saw when they first showed up from PA, they were in bad shape. The Deferal MTC list ( OMI ) was long on every one I saw. In fact you could hold the Print out eye level, and the printout ran down to the deck and a few pages. Its the longest I ever saw to this day. They sucked a lot of Man power and time, Delta just got tired of throwing parts at it, and Airbus wanted to Keep Delta, and offered new A310 in exchange. But with the exAC L-1011-500 and new 767-300ERs that were showing up, the 310 was done.
I was not fond of the A310, and that had more to do with the shape they were in. The A320s and A330s that are in the Fleet now are in Great Shape and NWA had done a Great job keeping them that way. So it was Smart to keep then, and new Delta did not have to plan to replace them, like the A310's we first got. Let me say, I am glad they kept the Airbus, Once you get to learn the airplane you can see how good the Airplane is.

As for WA DC-10. I worked on the WAL DC-10's and they were in Good Shape, But you got to remember at that time DC-10 were worth their weight in Gold. Fed EX and AA were buying them up, and with such a small fleet of DC-10's It was a smart to make a buck on it, when they could easy swap them for a L-1011.

The MD-11 Order was made back in 1988 and was going to be the Int flagship. They had only 4 options at that time, the 747-400 , A330/340 or MD-11 ( I think the 777 was still on the board, and the A330/A340 was just launched). I have heard storys that Delta was not going to buy another 4 eng airplane after the 747-100 left, and Long Haul ETOPS was still new, so that left the MD-11. To be honest I loved the MD-11. I learned a lot on the bird. And I still think it is a Great Airplane with 14 years in service at Delta not bad ( I think they were pulled early to cut cost ).

Don't forget the DC-9's that Delta flew before they parked them were old too. They ran them out like the 727 and got their money out of it. The 88 will be here for a while, and the NWA DC-9's would have stayed longer if Fuel was not a issue.

Now don't forget the 737-332 that were ordered the same time as the MD-11, but Delta did not want them when they got them. So 1 or 2 sat before Delta sold them off. They never made it into service, and I think 1 was parked in ATL, but not sure ( Getting Old ).

Now this is just from what I have seen, and if anything Delta has been more of a Douglas / MDC airline to me. They stuck out the MD-11 and MD-90 thru its problems, and I think you will see them stick out the 88 as long as they can. Hope the above makes sense.
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3964
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:22 am

Everyone has done a pretty good job so not much for me to add but ill address this:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
dumping the DC9's, MD80's, 88's



DL is not dumping the 88s. The let go a few during BK but that's about it. They will remain till about 2018, which is the year that's currently being thrown around for their retirement.
What gets measured gets done.
 
olddominion727
Topic Author
Posts: 419
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:16 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:34 am

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 5):

Yeah, I love L10 11's too, much more than the 767. I am sad to see them go. I wish they would've updated them... into the new century
 
olddominion727
Topic Author
Posts: 419
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:16 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:39 am

Quoting n901wa (Reply 6):

Makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the info
 
747400sp
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:39 am

Quoting milesrich (Reply 3):
Yes, C.E. Woolman and Douglas had a great relationship. Delta bought operated more regular body DC-8 than any other airline except United. They bought the stretch 8, and their order from L-1011's was placed after Mr. Woolman died. Delta also operated the DC-2, DC-3 DC-4, DC-6 and DC-7. The DC-10 was the first Santa Monica-Long Beach product that they didn't choose if you don't count the five plane "insurance" order. But again, that was after the death of Mr. Woolman.






The reason why DL originally turned down the DC-10, was because of delays with deliveries with their DC-8s and DC-9s. Delta thought they had a safe bet with Lockheed and their L1011, ( boy was they wrong) but the problem with RR engines, delayed the L1011 from entering the fleet. Due to delays with Lockheed, DL ordered DC-10s, and when the L1011s started entering the fleet, they sold the DC-10s to UA.
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3964
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:03 am

Quoting olddominion727 (Reply 8):

The Tristar was regarded by many as an a/c well ahead of its time. Just read up on some stuff in TecchOps. You'll be amazed at how advanced it was and how good of a job Lockheed did relative to its peers.
What gets measured gets done.
 
727LOVER
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:33 pm

Didn't DL order 52 BOEING 737-300 & fhen canceled the order?
I feel woozy....what did you put in that Pudding Pop?
 
toltommy
Posts: 2463
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:04 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:53 pm

Quoting milesrich (Reply 3):
The MD-11's didn't meet their operational specs, so they were sold off. They couldn't fly PDX-NRT consistently nonstop with a full payload

Actually, it was LAX-HKG. MD promised the plane would be able to fly that route nonstop, but it only took a slight shift in winds to prevent it. Lot of fuel stops at TPE. I was PDX based, never had problems getting to Japan on the Mighty Dog.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 12):
Didn't DL order 52 BOEING 737-300 & fhen canceled the order?

Yes, I think they actually took a few planes from the order, and then sold them off. They were referred to as the 73G because they were the first glass cockpit 737 at Delta.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 11):
The Tristar was regarded by many as an a/c well ahead of its time.

No doubt. I've heard that Lockheed had to dumb down the advancements that the Tristar made, because they weren't sure the airlines and/or pilots would accept them.
 
jgrantco
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 10:02 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:54 pm

I remember a large number of 737-200 in the fleet. I thought the 1st 737-300 showed up from Western in the merger.
 
milesrich
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:46 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:18 pm

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 12):

Didn't DL order 52 BOEING 737-300 & fhen canceled the order?

I think with options, their plan was to take more than 100 of them. As someone pointed out, only a few were delivered and sold before they were ever operated. There were plans to operate them because the Flight Attendant's manual had a section on them.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 10):
The reason why DL originally turned down the DC-10, was because of delays with deliveries with their DC-8s and DC-9s. Delta thought they had a safe bet with Lockheed and their L1011, ( boy was they wrong) but the problem with RR engines, delayed the L1011 from entering the fleet. Due to delays with Lockheed, DL ordered DC-10s, and when the L1011s started entering the fleet, they sold the DC-10s to UA.

Delays with DC-8's, which ones, the later Series 51s? the Stretch Series 61s? The 11's were certainly delivered on time. In fact, I believe they entered service a few months before the date originally targeted by Douglas. I do know that Douglas had some production problems with the DC-9's and that led to their merger, sale to McDonnell, but Delta was the launch customer and I have never heard this story before. Furthermore, they didn't sell their DC-10's to United when the L-1011's came into the fleet. They made a deal to sell United the DC-10's and lease them back long before the first L-1011 was delivered, and Delta was the only airline to operate factory delivered - vs used - 747's, DC-10's, and L-1011's all at the same time.

As far as Lockheed, they didn't exactly have the stellar customer service record with airlines for service that Delta did, which is one of the reasons the DC-10 was built to begin with as United and American didn't want to order the Tristar which was announced first. While American had purchased Electras from Lockheed, the only airliner that United ever bought from them was the L-18 Lodestar that UAL operated for a few years on the West Coast routes. The thought was that Burbank based Lockheed was more interested in military sales than airline ones.

At the time, I think the fact that Lockheed only offered a Rolls Royce engine option was also a reason these two carriers ordered the DC-10. Yes, the Tristar was advanced airplane, so was the Stratocruiser, so was the Convair 880. Had the DC-10 not had a cargo door problem and had American not decided to use forklifts to change engines, the airplaine's reputation would have been untarnished until 18 years after it went into service when the real design flaw, the lack of real independent hydraulic systems, led to the disaster at SUX, however, if an RB-211 had an uncontrolled explosion in the rear fuselage of the L-1011, who knows what could have happened. In the US, three major airlines ordered the L-1011, two of which were big Constellation customers, Eastern and TWA, while all the rest except Braniff that skipped the jumbo jet wide body craze ordered the DC-10. (I know, Northeast ordered the L-1011. They the Bristol Britannia too.) And when it came to flying the aircraft, even on a used or cargo conversion basis, the DC-10 had a lot more customers. The DC-10 v L-1011 argument can go on forever, but I don't think anyone can argue that Lockheed won that battle anymore than the Constellation, no matter how beautiful it was, beat out the DC-6 and DC-7 series aircraft.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:06 pm

Quoting n901wa (Reply 6):
The MD-11 Order was made back in 1988 and was going to be the Int flagship. They had only 4 options at that time, the 747-400 , A330/340 or MD-11 ( I think the 777 was still on the board, and the A330/A340 was just launched). I have heard storys that Delta was not going to buy another 4 eng airplane after the 747-100 left, and Long Haul ETOPS was still new, so that left the MD-11.

I heard that the reason the MD-11 was chosen over the 747-400 was purely monetary. It was said that you could buy 3 MD-11s for every two 747-400s and that's why they were chosen. 20/20 hindsight, but even at that, the 747s would probably been a better value, if chosen. I'd be willing to bet that if they had either kept the 747-100s long enough for the TATL routes to come along or if the routes had come earlier, you might have seen DL using them up into the 80s. DL's route system, at the time, just did not fit them.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
User avatar
n901wa
Posts: 406
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:38 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:23 pm

Quoting jgrantco (Reply 14):

Yea the first 737-347s showed up at the Western Merger. The 737-332 were ordered after the merger, and was the ones that were not put into service. The other second hand 300's showed up much later.

Quoting toltommy (Reply 13):

Yea I thought it was the LAX-HKG was the issue. I remember putting in the Extra Fuel Tanks in the aft end of the Fwd cargo hold ( I think they were 804, 805 & 806 that had 2 bladders installed ), and when they fulled the temp had to be right so the tanks would be completly full.
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 8:26 pm

Delta had quite a few 737-232 ADVs which were delivered in the mid to late 1980s and then disposed of in the mid 2000s. Another interesting bird that DL had and kept around for a while until the economics weren't feasible any longer.

The 733s were from Western but eventually migrated on certain ATL routings. One loyal 733 routing for Delta was ABE-ATL. They were also dumped in the early mid 2000s but were delivered in the mid 1980s. IIRC, UA had younger 733s than DL but they were dumped around the same time as well.

The 762s had some very interesting routings towards the end but they never went international. Domestic only.

DL has ran a consistent game with the M88s, 738s, 763s, and 757s thus far. They seem to be the favorites, in addition to the A330s from NW. I think DL likes the A320 but in terms of overall cabin shape they are generally not the best, but the economics are likely fantastic.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 1336
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 10:11 pm

So, what was DL's reasoning behind ordering 737-300s and then cancelling them, but keeping the ones around that they already had?
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word, and doesn't even make sense.
 
ExL10Mktg
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:39 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sun Jan 08, 2012 10:16 pm

Quoting milesrich (Reply 3):
I have never understood why Lockheed just didn't offer the L-1011 with GE CF-6 or PW JT-9's

The L-1011 was offered with P&W engines to Pan Am although it would have involved re-engineering the S-duct for the center engine. I'm not sure in the early days if that was an option due to Lockheed's financial condition. The RB-211 was by far the shortest of the 3 engines so it fit well for the design. The P&W was longer but could be made to fit. The GE was simply too long.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 15):
Had the DC-10 not had a cargo door problem and had American not decided to use forklifts to change engines, the airplaine's reputation would have been untarnished until 18 years after it went into service when the real design flaw, the lack of real independent hydraulic systems, led to the disaster at SUX

AA 190 was the accident that revealed the hydraulic problems, not UA 232. The plane was brought down not by the engine falling off but by the consequences of losing corresponding hydraulic pressure on the slats causing them to retract on one side (actually exposing a secondary design flaw as well, that the loss of pressure caused retraction, rather than requiring pressure to extend AND retract as was the case with the L-1011.) The United accident happened because the DC-10 was ultimately re-certified (after the AA accident caused it's certificate to be revoked) without any major redesign/retrofit required. There was far more to that re-certification process than the public will ever know about.
 
FX1816
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:02 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:36 am

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 18):
The 733s were from Western but eventually migrated on certain ATL routings. One loyal 733 routing for Delta was ABE-ATL. They were also dumped in the early mid 2000s but were delivered in the mid 1980s. IIRC, UA had younger 733s than DL but they were dumped around the same time as well.

Not all of the 733's were from Western. They had a few that were with other carriers too like Western Pacific and Germania. The UAL 733's were not that much younger than that of the Western ones and DAL retired the 733 in 2005 and the 732 in 2006. UAL retired the 733 in October of 2009, less than a month after I flew on two of them.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 5):
Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
767's & L10 11's




You mean L1011& 767s. That weak twin jet, should never go before a great trijet.

Try positing something worth while eh? You just keep on with the same old story about "weak" twins, seems to me that the twins are dominating the markets ok.

FX1816
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:47 am

Quoting ExL10Mktg (Reply 20):
AA 190

AA 191

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 18):
Delta had quite a few 737-232 ADVs which were delivered in the mid to late 1980s and then disposed of in the mid 2000s. Another interesting bird that DL had and kept around for a while until the economics weren't feasible any longer.

33 brand new birds, to be exact.......plus the ones received in the WA merger. WA had a handful that were also delivered, new, to WA before the merger was complete (delivered in DL colors, BTW).The 33 original DL ones were used for awhile on the Delta Express service, as long as that lasted.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 15):
The DC-10 v L-1011 argument can go on forever, but I don't think anyone can argue that Lockheed won that battle anymore than the Constellation, no matter how beautiful it was, beat out the DC-6 and DC-7 series aircraft.

I think that if you ask most pilots, specifically those that have flown both, they will tell you that the Tristar was more of a pilot's a/c than the DC-10. Lockheed lost money on them, more than likely because they were built to this standard.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
milesrich
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:46 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:17 am

Quoting n901wa (Reply 17):
Yea the first 737-347s showed up at the Western Merger. The 737-332 were ordered after the merger, and was the ones that were not put into service. The other second hand 300's showed up much later.

Quoting toltommy (Reply 13):

Yea I thought it was the LAX-HKG was the issue. I remember putting in the Extra Fuel Tanks in the aft end of the Fwd cargo hold ( I think they were 804, 805 & 806 that had 2 bladders installed ), and when they fulled the temp had to be right so the tanks would be completly full.

There were 13 737-347's that Western had prior to the merger. These aircraft had conventional vacuum gauge cockpits. The Gernania 737-300's were glass cockpit aircraft that were leased in 1999, when Delta was short of aircraft, and they had glass cockpits. They were grounded rather quickly, when the cutbacks came after 9-11. At the time, the reasoning given was that they needed a separate flight deck crew, i.e, they couldn't be used to sub for the 737-347's, and since they were a small sub fleet, they went first.

The Delta 737-232A's were leased from Boeing in exchange for the first ten or so L-1011's in the fleet, that later ended up with ATA. When the pilots gave concessions, the Ron Allen management group agreed to keep the aircraft and they all became the fleet of Delta Express. After 9-11, Leo Mullin killed Delta Express, opening up the market door for Jet Blue.
 
boeing773er
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:23 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:22 am

Quoting milesrich (Reply 23):

When the pilots gave concessions, the Ron Allen management group agreed to keep the aircraft and they all became the fleet of Delta Express. After 9-11, Leo Mullin killed Delta Express, opening up the market door for Jet Blue.

But I thought Song replace Delta Express a year latter?

Still interesting.
Work Hard, Fly Right.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:41 am

Quoting Boeing773ER (Reply 24):

But I thought Song replace Delta Express a year latter?

IIRC, Song was started in response to JetBlue, using 757s.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3964
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:57 am

Quoting milesrich (Reply 23):
Leo Mullin killed Delta Express, opening up the market door for Jet Blue.

Not quite. The transition was only a period of a few months between Express and SONG. Song was morphed from Delta Express to remain competative with B6's onboard product. Express had been competing with B6 for several years but there was no comparison between the two carriers. New 320s/old 732s. "Hip" and upbeat onboard experience/old tired F/As and cabin (crews were a mix of NYC and MCO for DL with MCO being very senior). PTVs vs well...a 732. So it was decided that the 737s would return to the fleet and they would not only match B6 on the product offered but one-up them on capacity with 199 seat 757s. Also allowed growth from JFK and MCO to the likes of LAS and others with the range capabilities of the 75.
What gets measured gets done.
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:21 am

Quoting mayor (Reply 22):
I think that if you ask most pilots, specifically those that have flown both, they will tell you that the Tristar was more of a pilot's a/c than the DC-10. Lockheed lost money on them, more than likely because they were built to this standard.

I've not flown the L-1011, but the DC-10 is very much a pilot's airplane, on par with the 727. Easy to fly and honest. BTW, airlines could care less what pilots think of the airplanes they buy and hire them to fly.

Lockheed was incapable of building a simple, easy to maintain commercial aircraft. The Connie, Electra and L-1011 were all more complex systems wise than Boeing, and especially Douglas. The "standard" as you refer to it - more built to miltary specs than commercial - worked against the economics. But the L-1011 is a beautiful aircraft I readily admit. And the Electra is my favorite airliner I never got to actually fly.
 
747400sp
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:05 pm

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 21):
Try positing something worth while eh? You just keep on with the same old story about "weak" twins, seems to me that the twins are dominating the markets ok.





If I dislike twins and decide to say so in my reply's, that is my business! If do not my reply's, do not read them, simple as that!
 
FX1816
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:02 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:58 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 28):
Quoting FX1816 (Reply 21):Try positing something worth while eh? You just keep on with the same old story about "weak" twins, seems to me that the twins are dominating the markets ok.




If I dislike twins and decide to say so in my reply's, that is my business! If do not my reply's, do not read them, simple as that!

Yes I don't HAVE to read it and you are entitled to your opinion but is it really relevant to say it ALL of the time? It makes you sound silly especially when you say false things like twins are slow, trust me as an air traffic controller twins are hardly slow, they can move just as fast as everyone else. Yes plane spotting these days is much more "boring" than it was 15 years ago but I think everyone on here can agree to that but they are still airplanes and I like them.

FX1816
 
milesrich
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:46 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:42 pm

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 26):
Quoting milesrich (Reply 23):
Leo Mullin killed Delta Express, opening up the market door for Jet Blue.

Not quite. The transition was only a period of a few months between Express and SONG. Song was morphed from Delta Express to remain competative with B6's onboard product. Express had been competing with B6 for several years but there was no comparison between the two carriers. New 320s/old 732s. "Hip" and upbeat onboard experience/old tired F/As and cabin (crews were a mix of NYC and MCO for DL with MCO being very senior). PTVs vs well...a 732. So it was decided that the 737s would return to the fleet and they would not only match B6 on the product offered but one-up them on capacity with 199 seat 757s. Also allowed growth from JFK and MCO to the likes of LAS and others with the range capabilities of the 75.

Transition implies they moved from one to the other. Song was not started until after Express was gone for a while, but by the time Song got going.

On September 26, 2001, two weeks after 9-11, Leo Mullin announced that Delta was cutting Delta Express schedules which before 9-11 was flying from Florida to 13 different cities in the Midwest and East, with a dedicated fleet of 737-200A's, both Delta ordered 737-232A's, and Western 737-247A's. 14 months later, after Delta Express had been cut by more than 50% of its 9-1-2011 levels, in November of 2002, announced its Song product with a dedicated 757 fleet. Delta Express had been started with in the mid to late 1996 with the 737's and a concessionary ALPA contract, and it was fairly successful. Then in 2000, Mullin, after fighting a losing battle with Comair pilots the year before, signed a contract with Delta's pilots that was even more generous than the one United had inked the year before, and that contract eliminated many of the concessions in the Delta Express Contract.

When the Express cuts were announced after 9-11, Delta blamed labor costs., especially the pilots, in their decision to cut back Express, and continued to make similar statements through 2002. In August of 2002, the airline announced it would soon introduce a new low cost airline, again blaming high labor costs for Express's lack of success.

Jet Blue expanded their operations to Florida from Delta Express cities with the cutbacks in Express's service.
 
WA707atMSP
Posts: 1471
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:16 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:49 pm

Quoting milesrich (Reply 3):
I have never understood why Lockheed just didn't offer the L-1011 with GE CF-6 or PW JT-9's, or why it was difficult to do that they didn't do it.

Miles,

According to "The Sporty Game", by John Newhouse, Lockheed considered offering the L-1011 with CF-6s to win UA's order, but Lockheed's management thought they could win the order even with an RB-211 powered TriStar.

Lockheed's president at the time the L-1011 was developed says in The Sporty Game that not offering a CF 6 powered L-1011 was one of his two biggest mistakes, the other mistake being not purchasing Douglas. If Lockheed had out bid McDonnell for ownership of Douglas, there would never have been an L-1011 vs DC-10 competition, and "Lockheed-Douglas" might still be making commercial aircraft.
Seaholm Maples are #1!
 
747400sp
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:19 pm

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 31):
Lockheed's president at the time the L-1011 was developed says in The Sporty Game that not offering a CF 6 powered L-1011 was one of his two biggest mistakes, the other mistake being not purchasing Douglas. If Lockheed had out bid McDonnell for ownership of Douglas, there would never have been an L-1011 vs DC-10 competition, and "Lockheed-Douglas" might still be making commercial aircraft.






Are you kidding me, Lockheed mad a chance to buy Douglas and did not take it, now that very sad. Could you imagine how good a LD-10 could have been? We likely still have seen LD-10s, flying passengers today. A LD jetliner would be better built than these Airbuses and Boeing's flying now.

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 29):
Yes I don't HAVE to read it and you are entitled to your opinion but is it really relevant to say it ALL of the time? It makes you sound silly especially when you say false things like twins are slow, trust me as an air traffic controller twins are hardly slow, they can move just as fast as everyone else. Yes plane spotting these days is much more "boring" than it was 15 years ago but I think everyone on here can agree to that but they are still airplanes and I like them.

FX1816




OK, you have a good point, and I am learning in have business that you must stay with the current tec to be successful. Now, I will admit, the I do not dislike all twins, because I like the 787 and am already a fan of the A350, but a 767 is much slower tan a L-1011 Tristar. Until recently, the only twin that could keep up with a Tristar was a 777. May be I should have said a weak 767, because a 767 is not fast by wide body standers, and they could not take the punishment that a L-1011 can take. Do you realise how well built a L-1011 was, those thing was flying tanks.
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3964
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:29 pm

Quoting milesrich (Reply 30):

In your original post, you made it seem like Express completey ceased operations, thus allowing B6 to move in which in itself was inaccurate as they both flew for a few years together. You then went into detail about the Express CUTBACKS. I was just trying to clear up confusion which was evident in 3 member posts following yours.
What gets measured gets done.
 
WA707atMSP
Posts: 1471
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:16 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:37 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 32):
Are you kidding me, Lockheed mad a chance to buy Douglas and did not take it, now that very sad.

Unfortunately, I'm not kidding.

If you want to learn more, buy a copy of "The Sporty Game" at one of the used book websites like Alibris. The Sporty Game was published in 1982; it discusses the rise of Airbus, the decline of Douglas and Lockheed, and Boeing's ups and downs, from the dawn of the jet age until the early 1980s. Even though it is 30 years old, many of its conclusions are just as relevant now as they were when the book was published.
Seaholm Maples are #1!
 
FX1816
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:02 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:20 am

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 32):
OK, you have a good point, and I am learning in have business that you must stay with the current tec to be successful. Now, I will admit, the I do not dislike all twins, because I like the 787 and am already a fan of the A350, but a 767 is much slower tan a L-1011 Tristar. Until recently, the only twin that could keep up with a Tristar was a 777. May be I should have said a weak 767, because a 767 is not fast by wide body standers, and they could not take the punishment that a L-1011 can take. Do you realise how well built a L-1011 was, those thing was flying tanks.

What exactly do you mean that an L1011 is faster, do you have any proof? Most all of those planes cruise between .77 and .82 Mach when they fly through my air space. The only jet that really gives us any kind of real problems are Cessna Citations and the Omega 707 when he departs VCV. As I said I'm an AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER so I know a thing or two about this and before that I worked at ONT for 11 years and have worked almost every Boeing, McDD and Lockheed commercial plane made so I understand how durable they are.

FX1816
 
TSS
Posts: 2479
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:52 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:18 am

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 32):
Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 31):
Lockheed's president at the time the L-1011 was developed says in The Sporty Game that not offering a CF 6 powered L-1011 was one of his two biggest mistakes, the other mistake being not purchasing Douglas. If Lockheed had out bid McDonnell for ownership of Douglas, there would never have been an L-1011 vs DC-10 competition, and "Lockheed-Douglas" might still be making commercial aircraft.

Are you kidding me, Lockheed had a chance to buy Douglas and did not take it, now that very sad. Could you imagine how good a LD-10 could have been? We likely still have seen LD-10s, flying passengers today. A LD jetliner would be better built than these Airbuses and Boeing's flying now.

It certainly would have been interesting to see which company's overall design philosophy would have been implemented in their subsequent commercial products- Lockheed's groundbreaking technological sophistication or Douglas's tank-like durability and simplicity.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:58 am

While not over-indulged yet in this thread, I want to add some notes on the MD-11 and MD-90, before the classic a.net myths make the thread.

It's fair to say in the beginning, DL's MD-11 fleet under-performed. Unlike AA, which quickly decided to opt for the 777, DL initially stuck by the MD-11. DL had the first 8 aircraft go through PIP mods during 1994-95. DL also deferred later options until the aircraft were full PIP ready, this included ships N810-815DE. Some of these options were excerised earlier than planned (1996 vs 1998) with further options on the books for 1999. From the mid 90s until phaseout, DL dispatch was better able to position later builds on longer sectors, thereby increasing the reliability of the fleet. Remember, routes such as JFK/ATL-NRT had heavy MD-11 rotations in later years.

When DL signed the gentleman's agreement with Boeing in mid 1997, it was clear that the 777 would be the future. Shortly thereafter, DL announced the MD-11 would remain in the fleet through 2009. This would have put the type at 18 years; almost as long as the Tristar 500. Sadly, with 9/11, the plans changed and retirements were quickly accelerated.

Now the MD-90: As late as Q2 of 1997, DL was fully committed to the MD-90 order with MDC. MDC offered a modification line service to ease MD-90's EIS, which DL signed to take place a DFW in mid 1997. This ironed out many of the early hickups, and deliveries were to resume through 2001.

Only months later did Boeing convince DL to cancel the order as part of the gentleman's agreement. Boeing were aggressive, knowing full well that regulatory approval for the merger would never be received with such a large order for a US legacy on the books. By then, it was industry knowledge that MDC's management had ulterior motives, and was not exactly fighting to keep MDC in business, to say the least. The writing was on the wall; there was only one direction for the airline to go. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Quoting mayor (Reply 16):
I heard that the reason the MD-11 was chosen over the 747-400 was purely monetary.



It definitely was not purely monetary. I think loyalty was the largest factor. Remember, DL ordered the MD-11 around the same time as the MD-90. In both cases, DL was the launch US customer, therein receiving concessions. Furthermore, these orders were placed on the backbone of the MD-88 EIS, which from all accounts, highly impressed DL. So much so, the original MD-88 order (30 firm + 50 options) was quickly upgraded to 100 firm + 100 options.

Quoting ExL10Mktg (Reply 20):

Quoting milesrich (Reply 15):
Had the DC-10 not had a cargo door problem and had American not decided to use forklifts to change engines, the airplaine's reputation would have been untarnished until 18 years after it went into service when the real design flaw, the lack of real independent hydraulic systems, led to the disaster at SUX

AA 190 was the accident that revealed the hydraulic problems, not UA 232. The plane was brought down not by the engine falling off but by the consequences of losing corresponding hydraulic pressure on the slats causing them to retract on one side (actually exposing a secondary design flaw as well, that the loss of pressure caused retraction



To milesrich's credit, it is not untrue to say AA's maintenance practices caused AA 191. The slat retraction due to hydraulic loss and the engine de-ttachment were both contributors. If you want to get technical, the final straw was really the loss of electrical power, which prevented the Captain's stick shaker from engaging when the DC-10 stalled. Add the fact that it was not mandatory for the first officer to have a stall warning and that procedure dictated reduced speed to V2 during engine climb-out procedure, the whole scenario made for the perfect storm.

The fact that investigators proved the plane could have been saved, albeit with a hard landing, negated the significance of the hydraulic loss, and unfortunately prevented a stricter mandate for safety shut-off valves to be installed.

[Edited 2012-01-12 18:03:56]
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:14 am

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 27):
Lockheed was incapable of building a simple, easy to maintain commercial aircraft. The Connie, Electra and L-1011 were all more complex systems wise than Boeing, and especially Douglas. The "standard" as you refer to it - more built to miltary specs than commercial - worked against the economics.



   Indeed. As highly sophisticated as the Tristar was, it could never match the DC-10 in BOTH range and payload.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 1786
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:12 am

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 35):
The only jet that really gives us any kind of real problems are Cessna Citations and the Omega 707 when he departs VCV.

Interesting. I was always under the impression that the 707s were relatively fast as airliners go. Or is it just that they do not climb as well? Or maybe is it just the fact that it's a huge tanker full of water/fire retardant?

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 35):
As I said I'm an AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER so I know a thing or two about this and before that I worked at ONT for 11 years and have worked almost every Boeing, McDD and Lockheed commercial plane made so I understand how durable they are.

Lol. I just got tired of responding over in the 757 TATL thread for pretty much the same reasons. It's amazing how despite seeing contradictory experience from actual professionals some enthusiasts cling quite aggressively to their beliefs/prejudices/pet theories etc. Never let the facts get in the way of a good meme, right?
You Sir, are a very funny lady.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:25 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 37):
Quoting mayor (Reply 16):
I heard that the reason the MD-11 was chosen over the 747-400 was purely monetary.



It definitely was not purely monetary. I think loyalty was the largest factor.

I was just going by the rumor going around at the time.......having said that, loyalty to who? Douglas? We had as much, if not more, business with Boeing at that time. BTW, when the "gentleman's agreement" was signed, DL was looking at having only 4 or 5 aircraft types in the fleet......737s, 757s, 767s and probably 777s......they wanted to simplify the fleet that much but it never came to fruition. But I do remember them talking about having the fleet, that simple.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:08 am

Quoting milesrich (Reply 15):
however, if an RB-211 had an uncontrolled explosion in the rear fuselage of the L-1011, who knows what could have happened.

The answer was provided on September 22nd 1981 when an Eastern Airlines L1011 departing Newark for San Juan PR
had an uncontained failure of the No. 2 engine.


This caused the failure of the A,B and D hydraulic systems, however, unlike the DC10 there are Four Hydraulic Systems
on the Magnificent Tristar.


This remaining system, allowed the Aircraft with 201 grateful people to return for a safe landing at JFK.


Certainly a better outcome than the DC10 at Sioux city.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3964
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:53 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 40):
BTW, when the "gentleman's agreement" was signed, DL was looking at having only 4 or 5 aircraft types in the fleet......737s, 757s, 767s and probably 777s......they wanted to simplify the fleet that much but it never came to fruition. But I do remember them talking about having the fleet, that simple.

I think that would have been wholy possible had 9/11 not happened. We started getting 738s, T7s, 764s, new build 757s and 763ERs all around the same time. I truly believe the 88 fleet wouldn't be as large as it is today had DL not deferred all those 737s and sold them to third parties immediately upon delivery. By now, they would have had well over 100 738 frames.
What gets measured gets done.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:04 pm

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 42):

I think that would have been wholy possible had 9/11 not happened.

Well, if I'm not mistaken, that plan went down the toilet BEFORE 9/11.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3964
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:13 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 43):
Well, if I'm not mistaken, that plan went down the toilet BEFORE 9/11

Really?

And when you look at it, all the old stuff was on the way out the door anyway. The TriStars were no longer doing any int'l stuff but a bunch of ATL-MCO/FLL, etc. etc. and west coast, which the 764 had stepped in to take over. The 732s lasted pretty long but I think because DL had no real capacity replacement for them. CR9s/170s/175s was several years away. 722s lived it's life. So really, only the 88s were "odd-balls" but the fleet was so large there was no way to displace the capacity with anything. So they did sort of accomplish the "All Boeing" with now having 737s, 757s, 767s 777s (and MD88s/90s) then the merger came along..
What gets measured gets done.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:21 pm

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 44):

Just as an FYI, when I started with DL in '71, we had 173 a/c in the fleet......DC-8s, 9s, CV880s, 747s, L100s
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
westindian425
Posts: 729
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 7:46 am

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:43 pm

Quoting milesrich (Reply 15):
however, if an RB-211 had an uncontrolled explosion in the rear fuselage of the L-1011, who knows what could have happened.

I think someone already clarified the major differences between the DC-10 and the L1011, but one thing I'd like to point out is a catastrophic failure of the number 2 engine wouldn't cause a total hydraulic failure such as what took place with United 232. The hydraulic systems on the Tristar are very different.

Quoting mayor (Reply 22):
I think that if you ask most pilots, specifically those that have flown both, they will tell you that the Tristar was more of a pilot's a/c than the DC-10.

Every pilot I know who have flown the Tristar absolutely love the plane. Of course, that's opinion and personal preference. As several people have said, the success/failure of the program really hinged on the problems with the Rolls Royce. The DC-10 definitely beats the Tristar on payload, which is why you don't see many (if at all anymore) L1011s converted to cargo.

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 35):
What exactly do you mean that an L1011 is faster, do you have any proof? Most all of those planes cruise between .77 and .82 Mach when they fly through my air space.

Normal cruise for the Tristar is M .85, with high-speed cruise up to M. 90 (and Mmo of .95). Yeah, that's pretty fast for a widebody, and in today's airliner norms.
God did not create aircraft pilots to be on the ground
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4915
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:56 pm

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 31):
Lockheed's president at the time the L-1011 was developed says in The Sporty Game that not offering a CF 6 powered L-1011 was one of his two biggest mistakes, the other mistake being not purchasing Douglas. If Lockheed had out bid McDonnell for ownership of Douglas, there would never have been an L-1011 vs DC-10 competition, and "Lockheed-Douglas" might still be making commercial aircraft.

There is another thread about this, and count me as one who deeply regrets that this did not happen. The worst thing that ever happened in the airliner business was McDonnell sticking their nose in. They ruined Douglas, and nearly ruined Boeing as well. The sooner all vestiges of McDonnell influence get purged completely the better.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:08 am

Quoting mayor (Reply 40):
I was just going by the rumor going around at the time.......having said that, loyalty to who? Douglas? We had as much, if not more, business with Boeing at that time.

When an airline is the launch customer of two different aircraft types, placing orders for over 300+ frames (yes, options included) in a three year period, and then is the US launch customer of the flagship widebody, loyalty shouldn't be under-estimated. Furthermore, not many airlines partner with a manufacturer in the development of a new aircraft type.

If you compare the respected catalogs offered, DL certainly had more business with MDC in the late 80's/early 90's. DL only ordered the 757 and 767 in significant numbers during that time.

Quoting mayor (Reply 40):
BTW, when the "gentleman's agreement" was signed, DL was looking at having only 4 or 5 aircraft types in the fleet......737s, 757s, 767s and probably 777s......they wanted to simplify the fleet that much but it never came to fruition.

It would seem DL was able to accomplish their fleet simplification plan, with exception of the MD-90's, which were shopped to no avail. The MD-88's were not going anywhere, and the MD-11's, as of 1999, had a planned phaseout between 2007-2009.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 41):
This caused the failure of the A,B and D hydraulic systems, however, unlike the DC10 there are Four Hydraulic Systems
on the Magnificent Tristar.

It's worth noting the fourth independent hydraulic system set the Tristar apart from all of the early generation aircraft, and wasn't specific to the DC-10, rather it could apply to the 727, A300, or 747. See JL 123.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: DL Love/hate MD & Airbus

Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:26 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 48):
It would seem DL was able to accomplish their fleet simplification plan, with exception of the MD-90's, which were shopped to no avail. The MD-88's were not going anywhere, and the MD-11's, as of 1999, had a planned phaseout between 2007-2009.

There again, that is what we were told......that they were going for fleet simplification with an ALL Boeing fleet.

Quoting westindian425 (Reply 46):
Every pilot I know who have flown the Tristar absolutely love the plane. Of course, that's opinion and personal preference. As several people have said, the success/failure of the program really hinged on the problems with the Rolls Royce. The DC-10 definitely beats the Tristar on payload, which is why you don't see many (if at all anymore) L1011s converted to cargo.

Probably the biggest mistake that Lockheed made with the Tristar was not designing it so it could be enlarged or being able to increase the payload, significantly. There were a few fixes, but they weren't something that you could sell a customer, long term. Imagine trying to tell a customer that they could increase the range of their Tristars by adding the fuel bladders, but, of course, this reduces the payload and cargo space. Think they would go for that? Who flew the L-1011-250 besides DL in any numbers?
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen