Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Qantasclub
Topic Author
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 2:48 pm

I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 12:46 pm

Personally, there is no way in the world I would fly a DC-10 or and 742/741 these days...these aircraft would have to be reaching the limits of their intended longevity, no matter what airline they are used by. What do people think? Are there planes that are so old that you would hesitate to get onboard? And if we're talking old, then how old is too old for an aircraft to still be in commercial service? Many of the US carriers still use old aircraft from the 70s, early 80s...NWA, for example still use 742s to SIN and are there any 727s still flying in the US?
Long Haul is the only way to go
 
syncmaster
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 9:55 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 12:51 pm

No more scheduled revenue flights on 727's. Still on cargo and charter. It really depends on weather I have a choice or not..If I do...I'd probably go for the newer one...but if it's a lot more expensive...or it was the only option it would not bother me.
 
ei a330-200
Posts: 353
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2001 8:22 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 12:52 pm

I know I certainly not take one of NW's aged DC-9s. The DC-10s should be OK, but definately not a DC-9!!!

Aer Lingus Rocks!
 
IMissPiedmont
Posts: 6199
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 12:52 pm

It might be nice if you backed up your statement with facts.

Sorry but you are (I'll be nice) clueless on the subject. I should think a doctor able to construct a valid argument. Perhaps even paragraph structure.
The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
 
aa757first
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:40 am

RE: DC-10

Tue Nov 25, 2003 12:54 pm

Pan Am still operates 727s for scheduled service.
 
Guest

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 12:55 pm

That's like saying 'I would not drive a classic car because it's not safe,' enough though most classic cars on the road today have been rebuilt; the same applies to aircraft. I trust NW's maintenance standards a lot more than I trust the maintenance standands of carriers in some certain countries -- and some carriers in the USA ( HP ) ...

The immaturity of a.net users no longer surprises me, though -- do you think you're smarter than thousands NW employees? Do you really think they'd travel on NW's equipment if they didn't feel it wasn't safe? BTW, NW's oldest passenger B742 was built in 1979 - hardly 'old' for an aircraft ...

...there are a over 10,000 airline buffs on this site but from what I can see 9,980+ tend to be much younger and their only concern is if they are going to have a PTV while flying to Grandma's house that is 1-2 hours away on the latest LCC and question why the fare can't be lower. - a.net user
 
futureualpilot
Posts: 2406
Joined: Thu May 25, 2000 10:52 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 12:56 pm

These a/c have served the airlines with excellent records for how long? What makes them unsafe or not worth flying? NW Deisel 9's are wonderful aircraft that I wouldnt hesitate to fly, same for their DC-10s and 742s. For me it would really depend on the airline, not the aircraft. Id take NW oldest -9 or -10 as opposed to Korean's newest 744 or anything like that.

Just my opinion.
Life is better when you surf.
 
emiratesa345
Posts: 2049
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 10:11 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 12:57 pm

Syncmaster,

I'm not sure, but I thought Ariana Afghan Airlines was still using an ex.-United 727 for some of their operations.

I remember reading something about that, but like I said, I'm not sure.


As for me flying on old airplanes. I flew on Concorde just last month, and the airplane was from the 1970's. Also a very old airplane.

However, the age of an airplane is calculated by the number of cycle hours that it has flown, not by the number of years it has been around. Because of the very little amount of cycle hours on Concorde, it is considered a very young airplane.

Even if it was a lot older, there would be nothing that would stop me from boarding that airplane!  Laugh out loud

EmiratesA345 Smile/happy/getting dizzy
You and I were meant to fly, Air Canada!
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 12:57 pm

747s and DC-10s aren't falling out of the sky here in the US. They're safe. If it is operated by a major US airline, it is a safe airplane. End of story.

I flew on a C-41A three times as old as me a while ago. The thought of it not being safe due to its age never even crossed my mind.
 
AirDude66
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 12:48 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 12:57 pm

I think we buried this one before....a/c age is not based upon years, it is based upon the number of cycles.

At the current rate, NWA could still be flying DC9's 10 years from now.

My question is the AirTran DC9's from the 60's. Here your not only talking about age and cycles, your also looking at outsourced heavy mx. Does the name Sabretech ring a bell anyone????????
 
Fred1982
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 9:18 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:01 pm

Ok, first off I went to school for an aircraft mechanic. Aircraft must be maintained in a air worthy condition. Age of an aircraft has nothing to do with its air worthy condition as long as maintenance is done and followed by the manufacturers maintenance manual. I totally disagree with this post. NWA uses DC-9s that where built in the mid to late 60's. They are still flying safely. I personally would rather fly on a tried and true aircraft than a newer one that doesn't have the bugs worked out. Only plane I've ever flown on was a 727 last year and it was 27 years old at that time. I could go on and on, but thats my opinion. Fred
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:01 pm


IMissPiedmont no-one asked you to read this thread so if you have nothing positive to say or no opinion to express on the subject then dont say anything at all.

As for the topic I've travelled in QF 747-200's on both domestic, Perth-Sydney, and International services and have no problem with getting on one. I haven't flown on a DC-10 before but wouldn't have a problem doing so. As for the 747-100, well there aren't that many of them left so the chances of flying one are remote.
 
Avion346
Posts: 184
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:36 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:02 pm

I agree with Futureualpilot, it would depend on the reputation/safety record of the airline. I have flown many MANY times (last on Sept. 14, next on Nov. 30) on NW DC-9's, and there is not one thing wrong with them. Interiors OK, service OK, etc. No qualms about doing it again.
 
POSITIVE RATE
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 11:31 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:03 pm

I agree with all the above comments- an old aircraft can be maintained just as well as a brand new one, and cycles are more important than age true. The only thing is the maintenance must be extra good on these older jets otherwise corrosion etc could lead to in-flight structural failure as in the case of the China Airlines 747-200 in May 2002. Also the older the aircraft means it could have been repaired numerous times- i.e tailstrike damage as in the JAL 123 crash. But as someone mentioned above i'd take a NW DC-10 of a brand new KAL 747-400 anyday.
 
User avatar
Aloha717200
Posts: 3879
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:50 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:04 pm

I'd fly on an older plane in a heartbeat, as long as the airline had decent service and the aircraft interiors were well kept.

I never joined the "new planes are better" bandwagon. Bollocks. Old planes are incredible to fly on as long as the interior isn't a dump. I flew on an aircraft that was 24 years old, built in 1976. Flying on that was like flying on a legend, that thing had seen service in the golden years of commercial aviation, and I rode it right at the end of it's life. That's the first and last time that I've ever been truly captivated by the experience of flying. I always love flying, but that time, it was different.

I'd jump at the chance to fly on a DC-10. Northwest flies them, I'd only hesitate because i heard they dont take good care of their DC-10 interiors and their service isn't too friendly.

So all I can say is, if you refuse to fly on older aircraft.....your loss.
 
CanadianNorth
Posts: 3281
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:41 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:06 pm

ok... so if i offered you lot a trip on like a DC-9 or a 742 or a 732 or something some of you would say its too old and unsafe, yet if i offered those people a free ride in a 1920s rolls royce i bet you would all be right in there. Think how hold them DC-3s are that some of you take tours on eh...

It all depends on maintenance. With the proper maintenance and care, a well build aircraft should last for years and years and years.


CanadianNorth
HS-748, like a 747 but better!
 
N243NW
Posts: 1599
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:29 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:10 pm

Qantasclub-
I have to disagree here. I would very gladly fly on any of these old planes, seeing that they will soon become very rare. The safety of these old planes is excellent not only because of the extremely high maintenance standards of the airlines they fly for, but many of these planes (three of which you specifically mentioned) were built as real workhorses. For example, I would not hesitate one second to board N700ME, the oldest DC-9 flying, manufactured in 1966 as DC-9 #2. Look at its pristine condition after 37 years of flight:

View Large View Medium

Photo © Jay Piboontum


Plus, NW has several DC-10s that were manufactured in 1988, if that's young enough for you. I agree with the other posts here; it is mainly a question of cycles. I'd rather fly on a 1970 model 741 with 5,000 cycles than a five-year-old 744 with 50,000.
Last year, I took a short flight on a 1929 Ford Tri-Motor. It's a magnificent airplane, that Tin Goose! However, I understand your skepticism of flying on older planes; just trying to point out some facts to help.
-N243NW Big grin

[Edited 2003-11-25 05:15:38]
B-52s don't take off. They scare the ground away.
 
Ryanair!!!
Posts: 4127
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 8:55 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:14 pm

For the record, I have flown all the 3 a/c types that are being trashed here on this thread. DC9, DC10 and the 747-200... all with NWA!

I loved the DC9, in fact I like it so much I wished I could fly on it some more! It has space! And because I sat in the front, it was silent as well.

DC10 on NWA was another story though. While the plane flew ok, the insides weren't very comfortable, but that is not being discussed here so I shall leave it alone. I have also flown the AA DC10 fm HNL-LAX. Landed in a storm that was of Twilight Zone proportions. It was exciting but I bet some pax were shitting in their pants!

747-200, it felt like any other 747s. Not that the engines were any rougher, or the flight any bumpier.

So you see, it is a matter of how the airline maintains the aircraft. Not that I would fly NW but if I had to, the age of the plane would not be a problem to me.
Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
 
Airbus Lover
Posts: 3163
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2000 10:29 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:17 pm

Mandala, Merpati and Jatayu of Indonesia are all operating B727s and am booked on one of those flights just for the sake of flying an old plane  Big thumbs up

Of course, I agree with IMissPiedmont, IndustrialPlate, Futureualpilot, Flyf15, Airdude66, Fred1982, etc... etc... Seems that there are still quite a number people with better sense and knowledge on aviation.

So far I haven't read anything of good quality from this very (new) contributer to our forums, not surprised of this post really.

Having work in the engineering and maintenance dept., wow really, a well maintained B742 (we still have those in MASKargo) and DC10 (had them until 6 or 7 years ago). They are indeed nothing to be worried about.

[Edited 2003-11-25 05:18:34]
 
FrequentFlyKid
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2001 5:04 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:20 pm

I'm starting to think that the majority of these posts are intentionally started to cause these types of pointless arguements. At least I hope so, because I cannot fathom the rationale of some people.
 
maiznblu_757
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:05 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:22 pm

Valujet DC9's were the only ones I wouldnt have flew on. Once they went over to AirTran, it was different.

If you flew Valujet, you were playing Roulette.

 
kevin752
Posts: 684
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 3:18 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:23 pm

I would love to fly on a DC10, 747-100/200 any day. I love to fly on any classic airliner. My favorite 747 is the 200 and my favorite 737 is a 300 so I love to fly on old planes Expecially L1011's.
"Keep Climbing"
 
User avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2639
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:26 pm

Last B747-200s built 1988
Last DC-10s built 1987

First B757 built 1982
First B767 built 1981
First A310 built 1982
First A320 built 1987

So there are B747-200s and DC-10s flying around which are younger than 757s, 767s, A310s and A320s.

However in your opinion the former aircraft are in some way unsafe, but the latter perfectly acceptable?

By the way, the life of an aircraft is measured in cycles and hours, and so is not related to the age of the aircraft in years... A 10 year old aircraft which has been flown relatively little would be considered "younger" (ie more airframe life remaining) than a 5 year old aircraft which has been utilised for an intense flying program, clocking up many more hours and cycles in the process. Concorde was a prime example - built in the 1970s, but with much lower usage than other aircraft built around the same era.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed...

Regards
CROSSWIND
 
Ryanair!!!
Posts: 4127
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 8:55 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:29 pm

Geez Qantasclub... How to help you? You are on your own for this one!  Laugh out loud
Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
 
AirDude66
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 12:48 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:30 pm

Maiz,

I think your mistaken.....J7 mx was 100% better than FL.

I was there for 5 years.
 
nwcoflyer
Posts: 685
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 7:55 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:32 pm

I am sick and tired of the weekly, even daily discussion of old aircraft! Give it a break! Is there nothing else to talk about? Why don't you use the search function of this web site and type in NW DC-9 and see how many thousands of results comeback. Give it a break, all of you people who think that old aircraft should be the discussion of the day. Let's talk of something more productive.
 
IMissPiedmont
Posts: 6199
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:36 pm

Sydscott.

Would you care to explain what I said thats got your panties in a knot?
The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
 
airxliban
Posts: 4307
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:14 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:38 pm

if a plane is deemed airworthy, that is all I need.

in fact i look to fly on these old planes that won't be around for that much longer. About the only passenger 741 that is still in commercial service (that i can think of, i'm sure there are others, perhaps you may bring one up) is Iran Air's 747-100Bs.

in fact i may even feel safer on a NW DC-10 than a KE 747. Their safety and reliability record is not so fantastic.

it's all about the maintenance.

I flew in MEA 707s several times as late as 1998 and felt just as safe as I did in their A32X's. Although I wasn't nearly as comfortable in the Airbuses.
PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
 
User avatar
flybynight
Posts: 1538
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:45 pm

I think 99.99% of older airplanes are fine to fly on. One thing I wonder about older 747's is the wiring issues that caused TWA 800 and I believe another 747 went down off the coast of Taiwan. Not saying I wouldn't fly on 741 or 742, but something to keep in mind.
From an airline point of view, a 744 is likely more effecient than a 742. I don't know if the difference would ever justify a new 744.
Heia Norge!
 
TG992
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2001 12:03 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:49 pm

Personally, there is no way in the world I would use a Doctor who joined 5 days ago and has already posted over 120 posts..these posts would have to be reaching the limits of their intended usefulness, no matter what doctor they are posted by. What do people think? Are there doctors so distracted by a.net that you would hesitate to go in the surgery? And if we're talking distracted, then how distracted is too distracted for a doctor to still be in practise?

 Insane
-
 
Airbus Lover
Posts: 3163
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2000 10:29 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 2:00 pm

Well I am pretty sure many of his posts are in the "KL's White Elephant Airport" thread. It is indeed a good read and laugh for many.  Smile
 
pouyazad
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:13 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 2:04 pm

I really don't care if you don't want to fly these aircrafts but just do not forget that maintenance itself is a very important issue. Everyone knows this fact that Iran Air 747s are maybe the oldest 200s and 100s still in service and there no report of a disaster with them.
 
AIR757200
Posts: 1466
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2000 8:30 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 2:06 pm


I'm starting to think that the majority of these posts are intentionally started to cause these types of pointless arguments


Exactly, as far as I can see, Qantasclub has failed to respond to any of these posts or to follow up on his reasoning.-- much like many others who start a thread and abandon them.
 
Airbus Lover
Posts: 3163
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2000 10:29 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 3:07 pm

While for some reason he keeps on saying he won't reply to his "white elephant" post but still does in the end with utter useless replies.  Nuts Interesting hehe...
 
User avatar
Navigator
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2001 2:31 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 3:15 pm

This topic shows clearly that there is still a lot to learn about airliner maintenance among many passengers. There is certainly no reason to hesitate flying in an older airplane as long as it is properly maintained in accordance with all applicable routines.

I suggest the one who started this topic to visit a maintenance center of one of the larger carrier to learn more about maintenance and aging aircraft programs. If there still is a problem flying in mentioned planes it may just be a slight fear of flying.
747-400/747-200/L1011/DC-10/DC-9/DC-8/MD-80/MD90/A340/A330/A300/A310/A321/A320/A319/767/757/737/727/HS-121/CV990/CV440/S
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 3:28 pm


He may not reply to "White Elephant" Airbus Lover but we did conclude that it, indeed, is not a White Elephant in any stretch of the imagination anyway. And thats the brilliant thing, we dont have to conclude the same as any other person on this forum facts or no facts.
 
Airbus Lover
Posts: 3163
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2000 10:29 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 3:35 pm

Umm Sydscott, read carefully!

Like I said, in contrast to the situation here, for some reason, Mr. Qantasclub has always replied in the white elephant post DESPITE his OWN saying that he won't, and at the end of a certain reply of his he clearly stated it was his "last" and endeavours a come back later saying he "couldn't resist" or "compell" and all that load of stuff.
 
POSITIVE RATE
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 11:31 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 3:40 pm

Hey Qantasclub you think the 747 classic is so unsafe so how come QANTAS is still flying both the 747-200 and the 747-300? And don't forget they only just got rid of their 747SP's early this year or late last year. I'm sure QF wouldn't still be flying these types if they thought they were unsafe.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 3:44 pm


Well he hasn't replied lately. And we are all still free to enjoy 747 classics and the vast expanse at KLIA. I myself make sure I'm on QF's A330's as much as possible.
 
pilotpip
Posts: 2844
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:26 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 3:50 pm

I wish I had more chances to fly classic aircraft like the 727, 732, DC-9, DC-10, etc. Just think, if the economy hadn't taken the dive many of the majors would still be flying people rather than sitting in the desert or hauling cargo. The fact that these past couple years have been some of the safest in the history of aviation is a testiment to the quality work of the airlines' employees. Mechanics, ground crews, flight crews, EVERYBODY. The great record doesn't just apply to the 777s, 744s, A320s, A330s, etc. It applies to all aircraft in the fleets of the airlines.
DMI
 
Qantasclub
Topic Author
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 2:48 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:21 pm

Geez, you guys. I always respond if I can, and I never abandon my posts if they are still current! Give me a break! Just finishing off a busy clinic here so be patient.
It's interesting, reading the above responders; some people clearly taking offense, perhaps it's a tired topic, and obviously, the die-hard NW fans protesting about what I said about old planes. Doesn't bother me in the least; it's all part of what makes these forum's entertaining!
Yes, I agree- my general refusal to fly older planes is NOT based on the logic, statistical strength, or experience of aircraft maintenence/engineering. I'm sure they are 'safe'. Call it a gut feeling: I don't like it when an old plane rattles as it soars into the air. And, lets face it...the older a plane is, the more cycles it has flown, the chance of fatigue or structural problems (WHILST NOT THAT HIGH), is still higher the a newer aircraft. But yes, I do recognise that the argument doesn't hold up; new planes crash from pilot error all the time. I make no apologies for holding this point of view, because there are many passengers who would feel the same way as I do. It's a preference. Free choice.Plus, old planes are usually less well refurbished, etc. I can definedtly see the vintage attraction for some who like flying them because they won't be around forever.
Another thing I'll say is, why do people get so offended in this forum? And personal attacks on my profession are totally out of line. I don't work in the aviation industry, but i have an interest; alot of my family work for them, and I have a fascination with planes? OK, I will freely admit that I certainly don't know everything there is to know about the industry, but I know enough to participate in discussions, and in a way, this forum allows me to share thoughts and ideas with people who share the same interest. If I'm wrong, then correct me! If i agree, then I'll learn; if I don't agree, then lets agree to disagree. If you can't handle that (eg-certain people in the KUL white elephant forum), then don't read the bloody topic! If it's a well worn topic that has been argued before...then don't click on it! Others (newcomers)may not have had the chance to express their opinions yet..it's not ALL about you! Simple.
Before I go-that comment about Qantas's 742s-yeah, I wouldn't fly them either, and I believe they have been phased out already.
I have half a mind to take 'doctor' off my profile because it seems to immediatedly spark a certain reaction from some people. Geeez. Chill, guys! I'm not a bad person!


[Edited 2003-11-25 08:44:49]
Long Haul is the only way to go
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:52 pm

Whilst I don't know if I would refuse to fly on "old" airplanes, if I had my choice, I would certainly pick newer over older. This really has to do with comfort, more then safety.

However, is a newer plane safer then an older plane (design)... I would have to say yes it is. Does this mean that older planes are unsafe... no it doesn't.

cheers
 
aviasian
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 8:11 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 5:01 pm

I have just flown Northwest Airlines DC-10-30s on the SIN-NRT-SIN route and contrary to the sentiments expressed by Qantasclub, I thought the aircraft was fabulous.

Both aircraft were very well maintained . . . clean, smelled fresh, engines sounded great, take-off was powerful as you would expect of a DC-10 and both landings were great too.

For those who have an unfulfilled wish to fly on the DC-10, try Northwest's DC-10 flights . . . mine were truly wonderful. And I must add that NW's inflight service on my entire routing (SIN-NRT-LAX-NRT-SIN) were consistently good too!

KC Sim
Bangkok
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 5:02 pm

Kids.
Little kids with too much time on the internet.
I certainly value to judgement of Northwest Airlines mechanics over a Proctologist from Melbourne.


A true airline fan could care less about aircraft age.

I'd certainly would take a DC-10, 741, 742 over a 777, 767 or A330.
Bring back the Concorde
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15079
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 5:32 pm

QantasClub, 'fraid I have to disagree with you on this one. Many highly reputable airlines still operate airframes that can be 30 years old or more. These aircraft are maintained as well as any newer aircraft in compliance with airworthiness directives, and so there should be no problem. SAA's 747 classics are all over 30 years old, and I would have no qualms about flying on them at all, because I know how good SAA's technicians are (OK I think the Super-B's have been retired now, but only recently). Same with BA's old 747 classics, many of which were extremely old but flew just fine. Sometimes the interiors can seem a bit tired, but that is just cosmetic - doesn't affect the aircraft's ability to fly.

Besides, if you limit yourself to aircraft 10 years old or less, you're going to miss out on a bunch of wonderful flying experiences - wouldn't you just love to fly in a Constellation, or a pre-stretch DC8 ? Or a VC10 ? I know I would.

Old isn't necessarily worse (I speak as one crumbling into middle age), its just more experienced.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
Qantasclub
Topic Author
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 2:48 pm

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 5:37 pm

Superfly, 767 I can understand, but would you really prefer an old 742/741 or DC-10 over a 777 or new A330? Interesting.
Northwest Mechanics have to fix and maintain what they have been told and trained to do. That is not the same as choice that is made by a consumer.
And, ok, they would know more about aircraft than me.
Stop calling me a proctologist, though. (THAT I take offense to!)
Long Haul is the only way to go
 
aviationfreak
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 9:01 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 5:40 pm

If I get the chance to fly with L1011, 741, 727, 707 or a DC8 while I still can I`ll do that for sure!
I wouldn`t be so concerned by the age of the a/c but more about which airline from certain country's the a/c is using.
I love both Airbus and Boeing as much as I love aviation!
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 5:40 pm

I am with JGPH1A.
I like the older ones better. They just feel more solid.
I am 30 years old and I have the rest of my life to spend flying boring twins like the A320, 757, 767, 777 and A330.

I've gone out of my way over the last 3 years to fly on IL-62s, An-24s, 747-200s, 727s and 737-200s.
They won't be around much longer. As a true aviation buff, that means something. I treasure my childhood memories on 707s, Convairs, DC-8s, L1011s and DC-10s.

I still need to check off the TU-154, TU-134 and IL-86 off my list.
Too bad I missed out on the Concorde and VC-10.  Sad

I look forward to the A380. I wish Boeing get's it's arse in gear and dust off the B2707 project!  Smokin cool
OK, I am talking like a dreamer now. Big grin
Bring back the Concorde
 
Whisperliner
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2000 8:56 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 7:35 pm

I think the probability is greater that something may be overlooked in an older aircraft as there is maintanence that needs to be done.
Also how does Boeing or Airbus know exactly what needs to be replace 30-40 yrs down the line? I think at best it is an estimate of the lifespan of a particular part. Most airlines would most likely wait until the end of the lifespan before replacing the part for cost effectiveness...that in itself wouldn't make me feel comfortable.

as for the classic car analogy, I would disagree...classic cars are not as safe as modern cars. I am sure most would agree with me that the survival rate of hitting a tree at 35mph in a 2003 Mercedes C class is greater than a 1932 Rolls Royce Phantom II. Newer cars have better safety equipment then their predicessors (ie airbags ect). how can this be applied to jets? well..if many 70's or earlier vintage jets still have their original interiors and insulation, it will not be as safe if there is an oboard fire as compared to a modern interior (toxic free and fire resistent materials were not used yet at that time) I am sure the list can go on and on...
 
DeltaMD11
Posts: 1680
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 4:56 am

RE: I Would Never Fly DC-10 And 742, 741s

Tue Nov 25, 2003 8:35 pm

I'm with the overwhelming majority on this one. Give me a good old 727 or Diesel 9 any day over anything new that is rolling off of the lines. Absolutely nothing to be worried about as long as the aircraft receives proper care and maintanence (as any aircraft needs, old or new)-which is really not an issue here in the US. 3rd world countries, I'd probably feel apprehensive, but the thought of it being on a good old 727 or something of the like--the clad girl won't let me down.

Edit: 70's and early '80's? These aircraft are babies in the grand scheme of things!

[Edited 2003-11-25 12:37:01]
Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos