Page 1 of 4

Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:46 pm
by 777way
Just wondering, if its been discussed before then delete the topic.

[Edited 2015-09-03 14:16:00]

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:54 pm
by UA444
Undoubtedly there would be far more MD-11s built if there wasn't the 777.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:56 pm
by diverted
Same goes for the 343/345/346

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 8:56 pm
by Sooner787
I think there would've been a lot more A330's & A340's built   

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:00 pm
by Stitch
Quoting UA444 (Reply 1):
Undoubtedly there would be far more MD-11s built if there wasn't the 777.

Agreed. Once the MD-11 met it's performance targets, it likely would have sold better, especially to existing large DC-10 customers who were using it on long-haul flights.

Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 3):
I think there would've been a lot more A330's & A340's built.   

The A340-300 certainly would have sold better, though I think the pressure on Airbus to improve the A330-300's operating weights to make it more capable would have been much less (as they would have pushed customers to the A340-300).

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:02 pm
by 38m
Huge success of A340/330, a lot more of MD-11, IL-96, 747,767... and even A380!

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:06 pm
by LH707330
Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 3):
I think there would've been a lot more A330's & A340's built

This would likely have been the case IMHO as well. SQ notably swapped from the MD-11 to the 340 when the former had issues. The other thing to remember is that there was a recession in the early 90s that hit the 340/MD-11 more so than the 777 that hit the shelves later.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:09 pm
by MrHMSH
Quoting 777way (Thread starter):
Just wondering, if its beens discussed before then delete the topic.

Very likely, while I agree with diverted and Sooner787

Quoting diverted (Reply 2):

Same goes for the 343/345/346
Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 3):
I think there would've been a lot more A330's & A340's built

I don't see why the MD-11 couldn't have got to 400-500. But I think the A340 was better than the MD-11, as it was a new design where the MD-11 was essentially an upgrade of the old DC-10.

A world without the 777 seems strange, it's just so successful and used that I struggle thinking of what would have happened without it. That said, the A340 in all its guises has been a good aircraft, just not as good as the 777, and the same goes for the MD-11.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:11 pm
by ripcordd
It wouldn't have there would have been a MD-12 that would have sold a lot

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:15 pm
by SpaceshipDC10
Quoting ripcordd (Reply 8):
It wouldn't have there would have been a MD-12 that would have sold a lot

Which one? The Trijet or the Quad?

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:19 pm
by slcdeltarumd11
Of course if there was one less option, it would have sold more. Less options for airlines. Would it have been a runaway hit, i doubt. Its too thirsty, isnt it? I would think the A330 would have had more of a sales increase then the MD11 just a few years later.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:58 pm
by FlyCaledonian
Quoting LH707330 (Reply 6):
The other thing to remember is that there was a recession in the early 90s that hit the 340/MD-11 more so than the 777 that hit the shelves later.

I think that's an important point that gets overlooked. Just off the top of my head: -

* Northwest Airlines had A340s on order - deferred and added used DC-10s then took A330s.
* Continental Airlines had A330s and A340s on order - cancelled; added used DC-10s and then ordered 767s and 777s.
* Air Europe had RR Trent powered MD-11s on order - airline collapsed and order was cancelled.
* TWA had RR Trent A330s on order - deferred and evntually cancelled (as part of A318 order if I recall).

I think the 777 also helped turn airlines off the 747 before the 77W came on the scene. When Boeing offered the 747-500 and 747-600 using 777 technology and airlines didn't like the price. Then in the late 1990s airlines started dropping 747 orders, e.g. BA who cancelled a number of 747-400 orders and took 777-236ERs instead (RR powered because the cancelled 747s were to have had RB211-524s).

Things could have looked very different in the late 1990s: -

* NW operating A340s (and 747-400s) vice A330s.
* CO operating A330s and A340s vice 767s and 777s.
* TW operating A330s vice 747 classics and 767-300s.
* AA still operating MD-11s vice 777s (possibly a very big fleet given their 43 777-223ERs).
* DL still operating MD-11s vice 777s (Had 15 at the peak, but could have been 20+).

It would have been interesting to see what UA did regarding replacing the DC-10 (That was what the 777 was partly for).

BA might well have gone for A340s to replace the LGW DC-10s (as well as give it something between the 767-336ER and 747-436).

SQ might have followed the CX route and gone straight for A330s as a regional aircraft (The 777 replaced the A310 on a lot of routes). I also wonder if there was no 777-300 whether we could have seen CX and SQ order 747-400Ds for use on regional Asian flights.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:11 pm
by UA444
Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 10):

The A330 at that point could not do what an MD-11 could. And Airbus itself wasn't as established.

[Edited 2015-09-03 15:11:27]

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:27 pm
by DocLightning
First of all, "If the 777 hadn't been built" is a bit of nonsense. At some point, a widebody twin with capabilities like the 777 would have been built. Now, note that the MD-11 was introduced in 1989 or 1990 and the 772 was introduced in 1997, so there was a significant lag between the two models. In spite of that, the MD-11 sold poorly because it was a sub-par aircraft. Its fuel burn was above promised and thus its range was below promised. There are many things McD could have done to make it work, but they didn't and the MD-11 really killed the company. In fact, SQ canceled theirs because they didn't meet performance guarantees and took the A340 instead.

It's a pity because the MD-11 is such a gorgeous aircraft, but unfortunately looks don't win in this game (the A320 proves that  &nbsp , performance and economics do.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:27 pm
by bigb
I think we would have saw the 747-500/600/700s get built

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:29 pm
by seabosdca
Someone, most likely Airbus or MD, would have built a big twin if Boeing hadn't. MD had thought up a two-engine version of the MD-11, and it might have been built.

But if no one had, the A340 was clearly the best product in the longhaul market before the 777 came out, and the A340 would have outcompeted the trijet MD-11.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:36 pm
by 777way
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
First of all, "If the 777 hadn't been built" is a bit of nonsense. At some point, a widebody twin with capabilities like the 777 would have been built. Now, note that the MD-11 was introduced in 1989 or 1990 and the 772 was introduced in 1997,

Well Airbus didnt have any plans for such but MD sure did think of it, also the 772 first flew in 94/95.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:36 pm
by dc10lover
767 - 300 / 400 would be more popular than the MD - 11. Remember, twin engines are better than three.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 12:06 am
by zippyjet
Quoting 777way (Thread starter):

Good question. However it seems 3 holers are persona non grata. With the current technology and fuel saving going on the MD-11 could still be an anachronism even without the tripple 7. Airbus would have probably come out with something similar to a 777.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 12:25 am
by prebennorholm
Without the 777 on the way there would likely be no MD-11 as we know it today. But there would have been many more MD-11s, only a different plane with a new and longer wing.

With the 340 and 777 on the way, and with MD's financial state, there was no bank ready to finance a new wing for the MD-11, so they had to do it on the cheap, or not at all.

They knew what was needed. Already in the late 70'es they were working on the "DC-10 Super 60 Series". Three stretched DC-10 variants (-61, -62 and -63) of which the two latter were long range planes with a roughly 30 feet wing span increase.

It came to nothing at that time due to lack of funding. Lockheed's struggle to stay in the airliner business with their Tristar also didn't make the banks more eager to dump money on MD.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 12:47 am
by Max Q
There's a significant issue that is being forgotten here.


The MD11's safety (or lack of it) record, if many more had been sold there would have been
more incidents and / or crashes.


This would have limited any more orders, as it did already, it was never a big hit with passenger airlines anyway.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:08 am
by Okie
ETOPS-120 killed the MD-11 which was followed pretty quickly with ETOPS-180.
ETOPS-120 incorporated most Atlantic crossings and 180 incorporated about 90% of the earth.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 19):
With the 340 and 777 on the way, and with MD's financial state, there was no bank ready to finance a new wing for the MD-11, so they had to do it on the cheap, or not at all

MD missed original performance targets by a pretty good margin. I am not sure MD ever satisfied AA.
The fuel burn was higher than expected largely because of the poor wing and a generation behind in engine technology.
Something had to give burning more fuel cost money along with giving up payload or distance.

I believe the first 777 was delivered about mid 95 off the production line with ETOPS-180 using 10%+ less fuel than the MD-11

Okie

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:14 am
by LAX772LR
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
and the 772 was introduced in 1997

1995

772ER was 1997

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:24 am
by DocLightning
Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 22):
1995

772ER was 1997

The general convention is that the 77A refers to the 777-200 base model and the 772 refers to the 777-200ER, which was stretched to make the 773. The 77L refers to the 777-200LR and the 77W to the 777-300ER.

The 77A was a DC-10 replacement capable of flying TATL routes and transcontinental routes. While it could do SFO-NRT, it was a bit of a push for that model. The MD-11 could do 12-13 hour routes. The 772 is a 14+ hour aircraft.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:59 am
by Ferroviarius
Quoting 777way (Thread starter):
Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Under any so called "normal circumstances": No!

If the 777 would not have been built, Boeing would sooner or later have built something else, "777 alternative", and more modern and better than the MD11. This is NOT a statement against the MD11, which was a child of its time as was - and still is - the 777.

The question "Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?" is nevertheless interesting. Had their been a deep crisis situation of a very special type, where Boeing - or other potential competitors - would not have had the strength to develop a new airplane, construction of the MD11 - possibly with minor improvements - would have continued if there at the same time had been the market for an airplane of its size and with is specifications. Of course, the next question then would be: "Could there have been this market in a crisis so deep that even Boeing (or a comparable competitor) would not have had the strength to construct a new plane?" Moving on in this thread of thinking, the question will soon change to : "Could there have been this market in a crisis so deep that even the United States of America would not have had the strength to construct a new plane?"


This is, to my mind, one aspect of the issue.

Another aspect is:

For which period of time in service should one design any product?

An example:

In Europe, before WWII and after WWII electric locomotives were build so solid that they would be operable during at least (!) 50 years. In both Switzerland and Germany, there are at this time electric locomotives in daily use and on high prestige trains, which are very close to 50 years in age. The Ae3/6 I in Switzerland had been in use for more than 70 years. Quite a lot of contemporanean economists are "angry" that our fathers built that long lasting machines. They are much too good in shape to be scrapped (there had even been a lot of protests when a former DB CEO scrapped a series of heavy goods locos simply because they had become un-economical and although they still were in excellent shape, and he even refused to sell them to others because others might have been able to use them, in another economic context, at reduced cost and better revenue), but more modern engines would perform far better in terms of cost vs. revenue.

A third aspect:
As an example from the airplane industry, I consider the L-1011. As far as I know - and has been written here several times - it was designed and built for about twice the lifetime and start-land cycles than any other plane of its time. It was technologically even far ahead of the DC-10. Nevertheless, it finished its career earlier than the latter, in spite of the fact that it was technologically better. But the 777 does not seem to suffer from this L-1011 syndrome, possibly because it did not experience so fundamental problems as the L-1011 (e.g. RB211 problem).


Ultimately:
Should we try to solve the problems of future generations? In how far are we able to do that? How far should we think ahead? When does our "thinking ahead" start to become a dis-advantage rather than an advantage for future generations?

Lot's of interesting and difficult questions are hidden in your question, 777way.

Best wishes and have a nice weekend!

Ferroviarius

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:49 am
by cathay747
Many good/valid points made above, and I especially like this one:

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 11):
It would have been interesting to see what UA did regarding replacing the DC-10 (That was what the 777 was partly for).

...indeed...UA could have been the wild-card in the success of the MD-11,
and without the 777, I could easily have seen UA use the MD-11 to replace
their entire DC-10 fleet.

But one thing not really touched on in all the above comments is...with no
777, not only do I think that the MD-11 would have sold better, there also
would have been no 764ER! That airplane was designed essentially as a
replacement for the DC-10, and as we all know sold very poorly...only CO
& DL, who did in fact use it as a DC-10 replacement...and with no 777 or
764ER we likely would have seen another MD-11 customer in the form of
KQ, who had decided on the 764ER but then changed their mind to the 777.

All delightful speculation, but of course as pointed out above, the MD-11's
performance shortfalls, at least initially, would have been a huge factor...
however, with greater orders, McD might have been able to get the finance
needed to improve it to a much greater degree.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 12:06 pm
by jfk777
Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 7):
A world without the 777 seems strange, it's just so successful and used that I struggle thinking of what would have happened without it. That said, the A340 in all its guises has been a good aircraft, just not as good as the 777, and the same goes for the MD-11.

If Boeing didn't build the 777 another bigger then 767 twin would have been Boeing built. MD-11 might have sold more but it was still an old design with new engines while the A340 was new.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 11):
* Northwest Airlines had A340s on order - deferred and added used DC-10s then took A330s.
* Continental Airlines had A330s and A340s on order - cancelled; added used DC-10s and then ordered 767s and 777s.

The reasons for the NW A340 and Continental A330 & A340 cancellations were the bad economy at the time. Continental purchased Boeing because of Gordon Bethune's long relationship with Boeing. Boeing also loaned Continental some money at some point at the time and the order was a pay back for that favor.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:22 pm
by stratacruiser
The Comet 4 would have been more popular if the 707 wasn't built as well....superior technology and innovation keeps happening, leaving older, previously state-of-the art technology in it's wake. If innovation in engine technology hadn't occurred to make ETOPs possible, sure, tri and quad jets would still be popular today.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:31 pm
by spyglass
Many opinions here.....isn't it wonderful to just speculate about things we're all interested in? However, there are, and have been, certain individuals whose opinions carried sufficient weight to make things happen....or prevent them. Such a one was Bob Crandall. He wasn't a MD11 fan because of the 3 engines (same with the couple SP's leased for the initial DFW-NRT rte....nothing else was available just then). If MD had cooked up a reworked domestic 10 with a pair of the big CF6-80's and maybe 6ft added to the wingtips, along w/winglets, kept the MTOW under 450k, that likely would've been a hot item, due to the many existing 10 operators. Ditto a reworked -30, an advanced -80 powerplant (say 66k lbs thrust), fuel increase and kept MTOW under 500k, that too might have a keeper.

That said, it should be noted that after Bob C climbed all over the MD folks about performance shortfalls, even when their "fixes" were added to the -11 (and that exceeded the stated spec by about 5%) and DFW-NRT and other long rtes were within easy reach, he still wanted nothing but twins, due to maintenence costs.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:44 pm
by jetblue1965
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 23):

The general convention is that the 77A refers to the 777-200 base model and the 772 refers to the 777-200ER, which was stretched to make the 773. The 77L refers to the 777-200LR and the 77W to the 777-300ER.

I thought the convention is 772 for 777-200 base non-ER, then "77E" for the 777-200ER

but usually i just type 772A and 773A to avoid any confusion

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:24 pm
by Stitch
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 23):
The general convention is that the 77A refers to the 777-200 base model and the 772 refers to the 777-200ER, which was stretched to make the 773.
Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 29):
I thought the convention is 772 for 777-200 base non-ER, then "77E" for the 777-200ER.

That has been my recollection based on posting histories on the site, as well.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 3:20 pm
by ExL10Mktg
There's no simple answer to a question like this as there are many variables. Increased sales of other aircraft, perhaps another manufacturer developing a 777-like alternative, etc. One wrinkle yet to be mentioned: how about the L-1011? Wouldn't there have been more interest in it as well? Maybe Lockheed would have stayed in the commercial field, maybe not. The program was offered to Boeing as the exit was being contemplated. They weren't interested because the 777 was under development, a DC-10/L-1011 size fuselage with 2 engines. How would they have reacted if the 777 was not in the pipeline? An L-1011 marketed by Boeing would have been formidable competition for the flawed MD-11!

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 4:26 pm
by brilondon
Quoting 777way (Thread starter):

Just wondering, if its been discussed before then delete the topic.

Of course it has, but I like it when we can discuss with a person who has something new to offer or to think it through more thoroughly and have a different opinion.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
The A340-300 certainly would have sold better, though I think the pressure on Airbus to improve the A330-300's operating weights to make it more capable would have been much less (as they would have pushed customers to the A340-300).
Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 10):
I would think the A330 would have had more of a sales increase then the MD11 just a few years later.
Quoting zippyjet (Reply 18):
Airbus would have probably come out with something similar to a 777.

Airbus would not have an updated A330 but would have left it with the two original engines that powered it. Since this is still just a hypothetical situation here is how I see it happening:

A330 a regional airliner as originally intentioned.
A340-300/400/500/600 would still be in production as ultra long haul aircraft competing with the 747.
767-300/400 would have still been the aircraft that filled the niche.
There would have been no development of the A350.
The 747 would still be "queen of the skies" and still have a backlog of orders.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:15 pm
by FlyCaledonian
Quoting cathay747 (Reply 25):
But one thing not really touched on in all the above comments is...with no 777, not only do I think that the MD-11 would have sold better, there also would have been no 764ER! That airplane was designed essentially as a replacement for the DC-10, and as we all know sold very poorly...only CO & DL, who did in fact use it as a DC-10 replacement...and with no 777 or 764ER we likely would have seen another MD-11 customer in the form of
KQ, who had decided on the 764ER but then changed their mind to the 777.

The 764 as we know it might not have been built, but I don't think it can be said that no 767-400 would have been built. Before it decided on the clean sheet 777 Boeing offered that odd 767/757 hybrid!

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:30 pm
by ECFlyer
I was on one of the very first 772 TPAC flights (in J, on promotional tickets my company received to highlight the service). Although we forget about it now, the whole cabin was abuzz that we were crossing the Pacific on only TWO engines.

I can imagine that the three/four engine standard might have lived on at most another decade, unless someone else built an aircraft similarly disruptive as the 777 within that time. Within ten years of the 777 launch, fuel prices ratified its basic layout as the de facto long haul layout for ever more...

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 8:37 pm
by S75752
Could the MD-11 have supported 10-Abreast?

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2015 8:46 pm
by SpaceshipDC10
Quoting S75752 (Reply 35):
Could the MD-11 have supported 10-Abreast?

It was basically a DC-10 fuselage and it did support 10-abreast. Those of LTU, World Airways and the very first two MD-11 of DL leased in 1991 had the 10-accross in Y because they originally were intended for Air Europe, the UK charter/leisure airline. Finnair also had 10 seats in Y.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 5:49 am
by Max Q
Quoting ExL10Mktg (Reply 31):
One wrinkle yet to be mentioned: how about the L-1011? Wouldn't there have been more interest in it as well? Maybe Lockheed would have stayed in the commercial field, maybe not. The program was offered to Boeing as the exit was being contemplated.

That's interesting, I know that Boeing were impressed with the L1011 and admired the design, not something they would often admit, furthermore it would have filled a hole in their product line up at the time.



Fascinating to think how they could have developed the Tristar, an Aircraft that never really attained its full potential, it could easily have been stretched, re engined and been given a two pilot cockpit, it would d been a real competitor to the poorly engineered, problem plagued MD11.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:06 am
by stratocruiser
Quoting Max Q (Reply 20):

The MD11's safety (or lack of it) record, if many more had been sold there would have been
more incidents and / or crashes.


This would have limited any more orders, as it did already, it was never a big hit with passenger airlines anyway.

I agree. Leaving aside the economics of 3 engines vs 2 or 4, the MD-11 from it's early days had the reputation amongst pilots of not being the easiest of aircraft to fly, particularly on landing. The Fed Ex accident in Japan a few years ago bears this out.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:48 am
by Flyingsottsman
Quoting LH707330 (Reply 6):
SQ notably swapped from the MD-11 to the 340 when the former had issues.

I didn't think that SQ was a big Douglas user ever. before the 777s I remember them always flying the 747s and before that the 707 when they started flaying to Australia. I think I saw a picture of a DC-10 in SQ colours, when did they fly them and where did they fly them to?

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:30 am
by SpaceshipDC10
Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 39):
I think I saw a picture of a DC-10 in SQ colours, when did they fly them and where did they fly them to?

They flew DC-10 from 1978 to 1983 to Japan, ZRH, LAX and/or SFO. I believe they choose to concentrate on the 747 for long-haul and the A300 for wide-body Asian routes, at least for a while. One has to remember they did with their fleet what EK did and still does later too.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 12:15 pm
by Max Q
Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 40):
Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 39):
I think I saw a picture of a DC-10 in SQ colours, when did they fly them and where did they fly them to?

They flew DC-10 from 1978 to 1983 to Japan, ZRH, LAX and/or SFO. I believe they choose to concentrate on the 747 for long-haul and the A300 for wide-body Asian routes, at least for a while.

Not only that but SIA inaugurated service to the US with the DC10 operating into SFO, tech stopping in Hong Kong or Seoul.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:45 pm
by mayor
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):

Agreed. Once the MD-11 met it's performance targets, it likely would have sold better, especially to existing large DC-10 customers who were using it on long-haul flights.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 13):
In spite of that, the MD-11 sold poorly because it was a sub-par aircraft. Its fuel burn was above promised and thus its range was below promised. There are many things McD could have done to make it work, but they didn't and the MD-11 really killed the company. I
Quoting Okie (Reply 21):
The fuel burn was higher than expected largely because of the poor wing and a generation behind in engine technology.
Something had to give burning more fuel cost money along with giving up payload or distance.

As I recall, at the time, the MD-11 came in over it's projected weight (don't remember the numbers but it was significant) and then, MD offered the operators a special package to rectify the weight problems, but wanted the operators to pay for it. Pretty cheeky. Not sure if anyone ever took them up on the problem. I'm pretty sure DL didn't.


Pretty coincidental, but the C-17 also came in over it's projected weights. MD seems to have had an engineering problem, or it was more of a problem of promising too much without actually know if they could meet the promises.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 7:12 pm
by by738
Quoting Max Q (Reply 20):

That is my issue with this aircraft. Perhaps there might have been more incidents that would have exposed the instability issues.
I dont think BA would have ordered A340's
Not sure why there wouldnt have been a 777 but Boeing would have come up with something

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:43 pm
by SEPilot
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 19):
But there would have been many more MD-11s, only a different plane with a new and longer wing.

My understanding is that the McDonnell management was against spending the money for a new wing; however it may well be that it would have been very difficult for them to raise the money.

One point not mentioned yet is that the 777 required engines larger than anything built before, and larger than many people thought possible at the time. Boeing was really the only airframe manufacturer with the clout to get the enginemakers to build an engine that big (and all 3 of them did.) I do not think they would have done so for either MD or Airbus.

As to the main question, if Boeing had not built the 777 I do think the main beneficiary would have been the A340; it was clearly superior to the MD-11 and would have trounced it just like the 77W later trounced the A346. But Boeing would have done something else, like build the 777. They would not have left the gap between the 767 and 747 unfilled.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:01 pm
by par13del
I guess the other point would be the fact that they were separate companies, Boeing was loosing ground with the 767, the -400 did not garner much interest, so something was going to get built.
The line up was the 767-300ER / 400 then the 747, the 777 was placed in-between, a better 767 and an obvious competitor to the MD-11, just wonder why they did not start with the better ranged 200ER.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 11:47 pm
by Viscount724
Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 36):
Finnair also had 10 seats in Y.

I believe only a couple of AY MD-11s mainly used on leisure routes were 10-abreast in the entire Y cabin. The others were 9-abreast in the forward Y cabin and 10-abreast in the rear cabin.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:43 am
by FlyCaledonian
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 44):
As to the main question, if Boeing had not built the 777 I do think the main beneficiary would have been the A340; it was clearly superior to the MD-11 and would have trounced it just like the 77W later trounced the A346. But Boeing would have done something else, like build the 777. They would not have left the gap between the 767 and 747 unfilled.

But Boeing did leave the gap unfilled in the past, which is why the L1011 and DC-10 came along. For quite a while in the late 1980s Boeing was offering 767 derivatives. If they'd produced one that got enough airline interest they would have gone with that, and there would have been no 777 (at least in the early 1990s). Remember, the 747SP only came about once Lockheed and Douglas started developing their products from being transcontinental planes to intercontinental ones and Boeing wanted to offer something smaller than the 747-200B.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 44):
One point not mentioned yet is that the 777 required engines larger than anything built before, and larger than many people thought possible at the time. Boeing was really the only airframe manufacturer with the clout to get the enginemakers to build an engine that big (and all 3 of them did.) I do not think they would have done so for either MD or Airbus.

Which is exactly why Airbus came up with the A330/A340 solution, offering the A330 as a TriStar 1/100 and DC-10-10 replacement and the A340 as a TriStar 200/500, DC-10-30/-40 and 747-100/-200B replacement. It's why I wonder whether United, without a 777 to launch, might have been tempted by the A330/A340 for domestic/international operations, or if it might have gone for a 767/MD-11 approach.

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2015 11:08 am
by Max Q
Quoting par13del (Reply 45):
I guess the other point would be the fact that they were separate companies, Boeing was loosing ground with the 767, the -400 did not garner much interest, so something was going to get built.
The line up was the 767-300ER / 400 then the 747, the 777 was placed in-between, a better 767 and an obvious competitor to the MD-11, just wonder why they did not start with the better ranged 200ER.

I think your chronology is a little inaccurate, the 777 was developed and produced before the 767-400 and was already a major hit.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 47):
But Boeing did leave the gap unfilled in the past, which is why the L1011 and DC-10 came along. For quite a while in the late 1980s Boeing was offering 767 derivatives. If they'd produced one that got enough airline interest they would have gone with that, and there would have been no 777 (at least in the early 1990s). Remember, the 747SP only came about once Lockheed and Douglas started developing their products from being transcontinental planes to intercontinental ones and Boeing wanted to offer something smaller than the 747-200B.

Agree, on more than one occasion Boeing has been forced to develop an aircraft to cover a gap in its product line they neglected, as you say they did this with the 747SP, 777 and later with the 737NG

RE: Would MD11 Be Popular If 777 Wasnt Built?

Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2015 11:41 am
by bmacleod
Definitely McDonnell would be going ahead with a stretched MD-11, the MD-XX.

http://d121tcdkpp02p4.cloudfront.net/clim/49303/md-xx.jpg

[Edited 2015-09-06 04:47:18]