jumbo and widebody thread 3: pacific boogaloo
>>1468809Looks similar to Air China
Lufthansa is retiring 6 A380s early.https://www.flightglobal.com/strategy/lufthansa-retires-six-a380s-early-for-reduced-post-crisis-fleet/137800.articleThey are also retiring 7 A340-600s, 5 747-400s, and 11 A320s.
>>1469000At least their 748s are gonna keep flying
>>1469011There's no way they were going to retire them. They're too new and have greater flexibility for use than the A380s.
>>1469059i was kind of hoping that the A380 being cancelled would lead to a bump in -8i orders for any airline still wanting A380s. but even then i knew it was pretty unlikely. seems there isnt anything to give jumbos like the 747 and -8i a new lease on life. how sad.
>>1469092There's no way to overcome the inefficiency of 4 engines vs 2. There were already very, very few airport pairs that were so slot and capacity restricted that they justified using either, especially the A380. But now, there are no pairs that justify it, and even once air travel resumes mostly unrestricted, there will be less demand than before. The air travel market is going to take years to recover.
>>1469094there was some good conversation about that last thread, but it was mostly just speculation. i wouldnt say anything is certain right now, but im not gonna hold my breath for a jumbo comeback. it seems the only way out for the 747 is that one budget airline that was being talked about a while ago, but thats not exactly likely.
>>1469092the way it seemed when the program launched, Boeing was banking on a few airlines to buy the 748 over the a380, but by the time the aircraft came out most of those airlines had either merged or went bankrupt. then after that no one wanted either aircraft.
>>1469139america west had 747s? i didnt know that.
kinda wish UA never merged. them and NW were the only ones i could have seen maybe buying -8is
From the last thread because I love the way it looks:Unpainted metal 747-200 with experimental blended winglets by Aviation Partners Inc.
Best 747SP livery?
>>1469233for me its either gotta be the old Qantas livery or the US Saul bass livery.
>>1469221Interestingly, this same airframe was on service for MK airlines until 2009, still unpainted. Apprently it's rented out for parties and events now (pic from July 2019).
throwback to the time Air New Zealand landed a 747 at Wellington Airport just to see if they could
>>1469271Short girls are best girls
Will A380 be retired just as fast as MD11?
Since the virus started, there have been a lot more 744F, 748F, and even MD11F flying over my house. Usually those MD11 wouldn't fly over my settlement due to noise issue (although 744 is the noiser one...)
>>1469139>>1469188Whoa. And it looks good too
>>1469324How many years did it take to fully retire passenger MD-11s?
>>1469324>Will A380 be retired just as fast as MD11?Faster, because the A380 can't be used as a freighter.
>>14693681990 First revenue service2009 Last retired
>>1469373Wrong : https://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2014/10/26/the-md-11-makes-its-final-scheduled-passenger-flight/17959763/
>>1469296i kinda wish they chose this. the blue cheatline looks good
>>1469188It's always fun to find obscure things
>>1469092>>1469094>>1469097Thoughts?I know it's extremely unlikely for anything like this to ever be made, but would it at least be technically feasible?
>>1469633Original photo of General Electric's 747-400 Test Bed with a GE9X engine.
>>1469633honestly? i wouldn't be unhappy with it, so long as it kept the 747 flying. i remember a while ago Boeing started something called project Ozark with the 747 to try and appeal to some of the gulf carriers. while they haven't said much on it, they've yet to announce it being cancelled so its presumably still going. it could be anything from a new 747 variant with better aerodynamics, engines, and seat flexibility to an -8i nigger rigged with GE 90s
>>1469636is that a -400D?
>>1469662-446Can't find info on both types, being the same, but seeing how it's a -400 type with no winglets that flew for JAL they very well might be.
why are the 747 FE stations so comfy?
>>1469633We already know it's technically possible.
>>1469480I think that was one of their last liveries and it did look good>>1469747The 747 looks better with large engines imo
>>1469773it was a concept livery, iirc. they had another version where the name interrupted the cheat line and the bottom was white, and i think that was their best one. ill see if i can find it.
>>1469773Everything looks better with large engines.
>>1470064>Not posting the superior liverySad!
>>1469094>There's no way to overcome the inefficiency of 4 engines vs 2.A343 showed you otherwise
>>1470229In what way? It's literally less efficient to operate than any of it's competitors from Airbus or Boeing.
>>1470497You understand that's dependent on seating configuration, right? And it's not backed up by the fact that airlines overwhelmingly chose the A330 over the A343 and the latter is being retired rapidly, while the former (even the ceo variants) are going strong.
>>1470503Yeah. I don't see how you can say the A340 competes with twins now. Maybe it did when it debuted.
>>1470543The A343 specifically, and only in certain co figurations, had better fuel consumption per seat mile than the A330 but only over a long enough range and with the A330 also in a specific configuration. So it was on rare occasion more efficient, but that doesn't mean shit.
Tribute to the best friendship between two airlines
>>1470565god i wish NW was still around. we might have 747s still flying in the US if they were.
>>1470577granted, i know thats probably wishful thinking but still.
>>1470503>Seating configurationDiscussed more than necessary there>Airlines overwhelmingly chose A330 over the 343Because many of them fly the shorter stage length more frequently>Lattter being retired rapidlyNo, A343 is not A342 nor A346>>1470531Maybe a Twin Engine version of 747SP?>>1470543>Yeah. I don't see how you can say the A340 competes with twins now.Of course you can't, A340 is a 25+ years old product
Why other proposed alternative desogn to A380, like MD12X or IL96-550, all have a relatively short body?
>>1470615>Twin Engine SPNow that would be pretty sweet.
>>1469633It's technically feasible but you would not just need new engines but also new wings and a new wingbox. Given the costs, it's extremely unlikely to happen under current market conditions.
>>1470615You are extremely wrong. There are well under 100 A343s left in service. There are over a thousand A332/A333s left in service. The A343 fleet is being drawn down as we speak.And the A330 entered service only 1.year after the A343.
>>1470707We are already 15 years after the last A343 being built and still there are half of the fleet in service. The early end of A343 line was a result of Airbis's incorrect decision to build A345/6 instead.
>>1470893Is it not a clue in your mind that they are being replaced and that there's no secondary market for them?
>>1470903I think you're dealing with the turbosperg who's insisting seaplanes are practical in that other thread
>>1470903They are replaced by A345/A346 before Airbus thought they need a renewal. They end up being wirse than the original generation.As for secondary market, that is small but not non existence. There are airlines that acquire sevond hands A343 for different purposes from time to time.>>1470910What seaplane?
>>1470913The replacement is being replaced. There is no market for them. They are rapidly being retired, especially with the global grounding going on now. This really is t hard to understand. You just make it seem difficult.
>>1470914Them.being replaced 15 years after their last last delovery doesn't really mean the design weren't competitive when they're still on the market together with other planes of similar age
>>1470927You're either illiterate or willfully ignorant. The A330, which came out at the same time and in a partially overlapping role vastly outsold it. So did the 777, which it was its contemporary and most direct competitor.There are far, far, far more A330s and 777s still in service. It was a niche plane that didn't end up selling well because it was outclassed and economically uncompetitive in the majority of cases.
>>1470932I am not trying to argue against A330 being more suitable for mass market application. That is irrelevant to the argument I was making.As for 777, as far as I can tell the 777-200 series weren't too far off from A340 series. 777-300ER is its own class however.That there are still far more A330 and B777 in servive now in the year 2020 due to the current commercial environment is unrelated to the efficiency comparison of the aircraft when they're made. New aircraft being produced including 777 and 787 and A350 and A330neo being on the mid to high capacity side of widebody range also helped the continual survival and growth of the A330ceo line.
>>1470939Not the guy you're replying to but you seem a bit slow
>>1470932>>1470973Nothing some wishful thinking and mental gymnastics can't do. The guy just likes his 4 engined birds a bit too much.
>>1470939Nothing you said there counters any point you think you're refuting.
The Airbus Industrie A340: One plane to rule every airline
Didn't attach pic, I guess
>>1471149I can't disagree. There are thousands of them flying and every major airline has a fleet of them.
>>1471148I have repeatedly mentioned in my post that I was mot refuting the previous post, instead the point is that the previous post did not discredit the original poibt I was making regarding the 4 enginge aircraft efficiency
>>1471154Why are you openly admitting that you never had a point or an argument?
>>1471151The A340 only came out in the 1990s, it hasn't had a chance to bloom yet. It's just a baby.
>>1471173Shame it doesn't have much reason to exist nowadays compared to the A350 and 787.
too much talking about stuff that isnt jumbospost jumbos
>>1471349Nice, big D.
>>1471296This Either post pics of jumbos when you're debating, or post only pics, otherwise just stfu
I miss this lively like you guys have no idea. Wish we would have seen it on the passenger version some day.
>>1471547Here on an A340-300.
>>1471547Indeed, today's LATAM livery is awful and dullEven the previous liveries were better
>not a single l1011 in this thread yetI'm disappointed
>>1471585Nice.CURSED IMAGE INCOMING
>>1471654>The DC-10 responsible for the crash of Concorde>Pic took at Paris CDG airportNice, have another cursed DC-10 pic
>>1471585eastern's last livery was probobly its best.
>>1471585Was 1011 a jumbo?
>>1472007It was a widebody.
>>1472009Tristar interiors were aesthethic AF.
>>1472123>wereDon't make me any more sad than I have to be that I never got to ride on one.
>>1472124>>1472126What airlines were these? Bottom might have been Pan Am
>>1472009I think this was a BA L-1011
>>1472123the lack of overheads were a pain.
>>1472124This looks like it may be inside PSA L-1011
>>1472470Happy Tri Star is happy
>>1472989L1011 is pure sex
>>1473007>>1473227Newfag here.I feel it should be painfully obvious why you dislike this, but I don't get it. Is it the quality of the model? The choice of livery?
>>1472989considering how old their fleet is id say this fits right in.
>>1473276Goodness gracious those looked so good in that livery. I remember seeing them at KDFW all the time back in the 90s. I WANT TO GO BACK.
>>1473493aviation took a wrong turn after the 90s.
>>1473873MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT IS THE BLUE BEAUTY BEHIND THE DEATH CRUISER????
>>1473884Looks like a Braniff 707
>>1473899nah, thats a DC-8. windows are larger and further apart and the tail is different. also different engines.
>>1473910DC-8-62 to be more precise
>>1473884DC 8 from Braniff
>>1474252>That British airtours 707 with the Rolls Royce enginesKino
>>1474671>>1474813This is now a canadian Airlines 747 thread
>>1475035I like Canadi>>>/n/
>>1474883Hiding this thread now
OIL PRICE HAS CRASHED LETS GET THE BIG BOYS BACK OUT THE HANGAR
>>1475742That blended nozzle is sexy.
>>1475742>>1475814Why cover up "Bolivian Airlines" though?
>>1475820>"Bolivian Airlines" I didn't understand that. This other shot didn't have it. Was it on a wet lease or something?
>>1475814It looks a lot sturdier than the DC10 tail.
>>1475844No idea but I found the same exxact pic on Airliners.net with that writing on it, clearly removed with a white square on the version posted here.https://www.airliners.net/photo/Northeast-Bolivian-Airlines/Lockheed-L-1011-385-1-TriStar-50/372297
>>1475844Oh so here's the explanation. From an (outdated) article on Spanish Wikipedia (translation of my own):Northeast Bolivian Airways (NEBA) is (was) an airline based on the city of Cochabamba, Bolivia. It is (was) funded by TriStar Capital, from which they lease(d) a Lockheed L-1011 "Tristar" plane. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Bolivian_Airways
>>1469373I flew with one in 2012 by klm
>>1475863>>1475913Thanks for the info.
>>1480327I'm sorry guys I was bored
>>1480391>I was bored I know that feel.
>>1480485HHHHNGH MUH DIK
>>1480485why were older liveries so good?
>>1480699IDK, but you're right, they were much better
>>1480699>>1480776In the era after deregulation, an airline's identity has lost much of its meaning to fliers
>>1480782the 90s were the peak of aviation.
>>1480391End yourself now
>>1481136I guess I'm hopelessly old school, but I preferred prefer the 60's livery.
>>1481505TWA never really had a bad livery.
>>1481505Based old soul. Same here, bro
>>1481505Not a big fan of regular cheat lines, but I love the way they're implamented here.
>>1480485>>1480699>>1481505>ywnb a 747 captain in the 60's Why even be a pilot in the 21st centry?
>>1481505the last one was my favorite for TWA.
>>1481766Why don't any of those seats have headrests
>>1481773im guessing they were detachable like on a car or something.
>>1481773They do have them though.
>>1471545What's goin on here? Tenerife Part 2?
post the insides of jumbos.
I wish the classic 747's weren't all but dead now.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4aTd78_M5s
It's interesting for me to see old liveries that at one point coexisted with new liveries, such as in this picture.
>>1483699Tristars should have worn the new livery IMHO
>>1471544My favourite part about Fedex planes is that they all have names. That one is named Corrine. It makes them unbearably cute to me.Pic related. This is Jeffrey Wellington.
>>1484377sometimes i look up the tail numbers of older aircraft and see who owned them. that aircraft used to belong to AA. another interesting one is the USAF's 757 they use for air force two used to belong to TWA.
>>1472989Here's my Landor -400. It's essentially a children's toy but I've owned it for ages and still love it.
>>1486417Is it wrong that I kinda wanna lick it?
>>1481546The 747‘s first flight was in 1969 and it only entered service in 1970.
>>1469685I hate the tatty furry seats you get in Boeing planes
>>1488445AF had widebodies?
>>1488528Yes. I was surprised also.
>>1490303NGL, the Dreamliner is one sexi plane.
>>1490563itd look better if it wasnt stubby like the 767.
>>1490563Airlines should replace the Boeing 737 max with the Dreamliners, if they prefer to stay with Boeing
>>1490812Why bother if you don’t need the range?
>>1490812why? explain your thought process.
>>1490812>the smallest capacity of a 787 is larger than the highest capacity of a MaxYou ain't very smart, are you?
>>1490855>>1490863>>1491546I was just trowing this out to get some general feedback, on what others thought of the idea.
>>1491555fair enough i guess. although i think if the 757 lived it would be likely that you would see a few airlines use derivatives of that exclusively.
>>1491982The 757 has always been one of my favorites.
>>1491989aviation would be a lot better if it were kept around.
>>1468802I remember seeing an old drawing of a full double deck stretched 747 with a 5th engine in the tail like a D.C-10 but years of google search has been unable to locate it. Any help?
>>1492377all i can think of is the SP trijet Boeing had going around for a while.
>>1468802this was probably my favorite UA livery. why did they change it?
>>1491999>tfw a re-engined 757 will never existIt was always Boeing's answer to the A321XLR.
>>1494086They merged with Continental. Executives think that it's impossible to just stick with the same corporate image so they always go with a mash-up of both that no one ends up liking. It happens all the time in many industries and it's fucking pathetic.
>>1494112how terrible. i remember when AA put out their concept for a new livery and it looked great, but then they got taken over by USAir and they fucked everything up
>>1494130Contemporary executives believe they *must* combine the merged companies' motifs or one group of employees will seethe so hard it will ruin the new company. The fact is some workers (usually from the smaller company) are going to get fucked in any merger and the paint job doesn't have any impact on them one way or the other. It used to be the dominant company just stuck with whatever branding/livery they were using. If you ever spend time around corporate officers in any company you'll realize how detached their thinking is from regular working people.
>>1494135this is the one they almost went with. sucks that they had to ruin both companies branding by switching to what they have now.
>>1494112Continental was always the better airline. Also the better livery.
>>1494130>>1494135>>1494144AA was fucked by jealous US Airways execs because AA always had the best scheme out of any. Fuck the costs of keeping polished planes polished. It was the best scheme on the market until the merger. Now Southwest owns that moniker.
>>1494231I agree with you
>>1494232>polishing composite airplanesI get it, polished aluminium with a clear coat looked fantastic, but when your new flagship planes are 100% composite, the scheme doesn't work.
>>1494236they could have painted the aluminum parts white or they could have gone with >>1494144 what actually looks like an evolution of the last.
>>1494231>Continental was always the better airline. perhaps>Also the better livery.nah, continental's last livery was boring as hell.
>>1494144It looks okay. The "AMERICAN" lettering on the side is underwhelming
>>1494318fair. i feel like the lettering would have been better in another color. although its still better than what they went with imho.
>>1494144That still looks better than what they have now
>>1494326I like the stark, oversized lettering. It kinda reminds me of >>1490563Then again, I don't think the current one is THAT bad. It's certainly better than most of the euro-white mush we have today, but I do understand the disappointment of going from something so striking and iconic like the old one to something that's barely "okay".
>>1494527what gets me the worst about the new livery is the dropping of the old logo. i feel like that livery would be better if the bottom was blue and the lettering was more distinct. the metallic grey and blue tail is good tho imho.
>>1490563>RAT deployed on finalFor what purpose?
>>1494661Pic was taken at the Boeing plant, test I presume
>>1494727looking at the background that seems to be the case.
>>1494232thank you for reminding everyone how USair fucks over anything they touch.
>>1468802Was the 747-100 designed on drawing boards? I think that's impressive. Today you could probably design a new plane at home. Basically. It would be a bitch to put rivets in each hole.
>>1496315both -100 and -200 were designed on drawing boards.
>>1496315Everything was from that era
https://leehamnews.com/2020/06/04/hotr-moving-up-the-777-8f/Oh so Boeing is going to terminate 747 production including the 8F in three years
>>1496913quite worrying indeed, but this article seems to be mostly speculation. if anything it has more worrying implications for the 777x since it seems to imply that Boeing is desperate to get more customers for it
>>1497095With just 13 UPS 747 left in backlog, if Airbus and Emirates are still taking the rest of unfulfilled end of line A380 according to schedule, then production of 747 could end sooner than A380.
>>1497245doubtful. the number of a380s left to complete is less than that of the 747, so even if the end was announced today i doubt that Boeing would be able to assemble all 13 air frames before airbus, in their current state. its also worth noting that Boeing has said nothing on the line ending so far, and that the article was based off speculation regarding the 777x. id wait for any word from Boeing before making any judgement.
>>1497271its also worth noting that Boeing only completed 7 747 air frames in 2019.
>>1497272>its also worth noting that Boeing only completed 7 747 air frames in 2019.IIRC that's a higher rate than Airbus building their A380Although, apparently Boeing have halted their 747 production while Airbus have not halted the A380 production during the epidemic, which could also affect the time the last example of them being completed. And Emirates apparently also want to cancel some of their remaining orders.If anything, that mean the final production of the two aorcrafts will only be months apart and when one have ended production the other one will probably be proceeding towards the end as well. From the grant scale of thing they can be said as ending production in the same time.
>>1497326granted at the moment it seems that this is all based of rumor. cargo demand is expected to shoot up once restrictions ease so it seems to be foolish to end the line so suddenly. i remember back when people said the line was going to end when one of the parts suppliers wanted to stop production but nothing came of it.
>>149749499ish% of cargo planes are retrofitted passenger planes, the other 1% will be supplied within 5 years and then it will be cheaper to dismount the lines.
>>1498028>99ish% of cargo planes are retrofitted passenger planesi wouldnt say that. even with the 748 the cargo line alone broke even in sales.
>>1498052That's true, but the situation has changed drastically in these last 3 months compared to when the -8 was introduced.Basically every airline on the planet is looking for ways to retire their 747s and A380s. And buying used + retrofitting is slightly cheaper than buying new.Those 2 factors together are the reason the lines of the Queen and King of the skies won't last really that much longer. That space is better used on wide body, twin engine planes.Thank you covid you piece of shit.
>>1498061One good thing for A380 is that it might have made its P2F become worthwhile to consider
>>1498181>One good thing for A380 is that it might have made its P2F become worthwhile to considerIt will never make sense to convert an A380 because a) the upper deck floor is necessary for the structure to fly and b) it grosses out before it cubes out. It can't be used for outsized cargo. The plane will be flying half empty.
>>1498061Not entirely true. Cargo airlines are using their 747s to great extent, and Lufthansa has seen extensive use of the 748 to the point where they were using it exclusively for limited international service during the height of the crisis. I'm not going to get delusional and say that a renaissance is here, but I think we still have time left before the end. At last with the 747, the a380 is a different story.
>>1498234>It will never make sense to convert an A380 because a) the upper deck floor is necessary for the structure to fly and b) it grosses out before it cubes out. It can't be used for outsized cargo. The plane will be flying half empty.That's why this pandemic might help. Because with this pandemic, density of cargo being flown have been significantly lighter. And people now realize heavier cargoes can be flown with other regular freighters instead
>>1494144make the bottom something more distinct from the top and keep the eagle's head on the logo and it would be perfect.
>>1498372They'll be pretty useless after the pandemic. A few airlines that have had the 747 and the a380 have seemed to get more use out of the 747 during this time, which makes me really worry about the a380
>>1498061Covid has only accelerated the inevitable, very much like the Concorde crash.
>>1501451concorde was not killed by the crash, it continued to fly until all of the airframes neared the end of their usable lifespan. by 2003 there was nearly none of them left with any reasonable amount of time left on their airframe.
post jumbo cockpits
>>1475474for a lil more information, the commons post:encountered an ash cloud from the eruption of mt redoubthttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Cockpit_crew_of_KL_867_inspecting_the_PH-BFC_in_Anchorage_(December_1989).jpeg
jambo posting time
Big boy with quality paint coming through.
>>1502774i always liked the look of those JT-9D engines.
>>1502714when did ANA retire their L1011s?
>>1469747>>1469777>>1471777Checking those digits.
>>1469633>tfw there will never be a 747-8i SP with two engines.
>>1504913How far could you go with something like that?
>>1506509the 747-400 cockpit is probably one of the most comfy cockpits ever.
>>1507732>How far could you go with something like that?If you could get two GE9Xs under the wings, it looks like the specific fuel consumption would be about 20% lower per engine. The JT9D does 0.6 lb/lbf/h so for 4 at 46,500 lbf thats about 111.6k lbs of fuel per hour. The GE90 does about 0.54 lb/lbf/h. Assuming you have the same thrust, that would be about 100.4k lbs of fuel per hour. Sheldon Adelson uses the 747SP nonstop direct from LAS to TLV. The great circle distance is about 6400 nm. The 777-300ER has a fuel capacity of 181,283 L. The 747SP has a fuel capacity of 190,630 L. Maybe a twin engined 747-8i SP BBJ with two GE90s could do 8000 nm? You'd need a new wing root because the bending moment would change drastically. That would probably add more weight than you'd save going from 4 to 2 JT9Ds. Yes, that is counter-intuitive. But, you could be 50 tons lighter than a 777-300ER at MTOW which has to make a difference.
>>1510238FAt least there's always flight sims
>>1510238>>1510254its not all doom and gloom, the bloomberg article was mainly based off of Boeing's financial reports, and isnt exactly concrete. especially since that in the past, they would just flat out announce the end of the line rather than dance around the issue. iirc, this whole thing has to do with one of the panel suppliers cutting their production. boeing stated that it would need a certain number of orders to reestablish another supplier, so i think there may be some confusion here.
>>1510396True, but considering the amount of damage the plague of Egypt has caused to the civil aviation industry, I wouldn't be surprised if the 747 was among the first to go.
>>1510396>>1510545I think it's likely they'll mothball the line for a little while and make a decision later about continuing it or finally abolishing it
>>1510659This is the most likely course of action imho. Many of the 744BCFs are near the end, and I think it's likely that they'll see a wave of retirement once the pandemic cools down.Still gonna try and speed up my plans on flying them though.
>>1472989I am retarded, can someone explain how the third engine works? I assume it's just nozzled out of its butthole?
>>1510775S-duct from the intake to the actual engine. Because based Lockheed didn't want to take the lazy way out and just shove a whole nacelle in the rudder. More complex engineering, along with Lockheed autism going for bleeding edge tech, caused it to be late to the show which is why the DC-10 and MD-11 were far more successful than it despite DC-10 having its reputation utterly trashed by safety issues. MD-11s are still used as cargo aircraft by players like UPS and Fedex.
>>1510778hell, the DC-10 isnt even too close to retirement.
>>1509251>Yes, that is counter-intuitive. But, you could be 50 tons lighter than a 777-300ER at MTOW which has to make a difference.Also much less capacity
>>1510659Mothballed production lines cannot be reactivated easily>>1510752There's 777XF
>>1512822>Mothballed production lines cannot be reactivated easilyNo shit???
>>1510775To add to >>1510778, the engine itself is right at the lower end of the s-duct. It might be self-explanatory to many people but for a long time I thought it was up near the intake and most of the duct was for exhaust, not intake
>>1512822the 747 still has many advantages over the 777 for cargo sectors, but even then the 777XF is having production problems, and orders arent doing too well.
>>1510778i was under the impression that the MD-11 never did that well, sales wise.
>>1513039>the 747 still has many advantages over the 777 for cargo sectors, If that's the case the 747 would have more orders>but even then the 777XF is having production problems, and orders arent doing too well.I thought it haven't beeb officially launched yet
>>1513041I think you're right. MD-11 sold about 80% of the L-1011s total number, but I'd always assumed much of the reason it didn't get super high sales numbers was because airlines were happy with their "fixed" DC-10s and it was too early to pay up and replace them when the MD-11 launched. Looks like one of the big problems was that it didn't live up to the range and payload claims, so airlines either bought something else or dropped it after McDonnell Douglass failed to reach the promised performance numbers after subsequent improvements. And then after the merger Boeing killed it because of internal competition with the 767 and 777.
>>1513055>If that's the case the 747 would have more ordersDuhhh there are are no alternative freighters to brand new 777s/747s
>>1513137Just get BCFs
>>1510778Do you guys think Lockheed or another player will have another go at making a pax airplane? With Boeing's reputation taking a beating and increasing pressure from China, I think it's possible.
>>1513386Possibly, but I'm not sure it would turn out much better than current Boeing. Lockheed of the 1960s-80s was hugely different from today's Lockheed. Much like Boeing in all honesty. One of my coworkers used to do software for IIRC their transport aircraft at the Marrietta plant. He left to come work at the small tech startup we're both at about 3-4 years ago. The way he describes it, current Lockmart doesn't sound much better than the horror stories coming out of Boeing's South Carolina plant.My current hopes for competition are pinned on Mitsubishi's new MRJ. If that turns out well, they might try their hand at larger jets. Currently though, their competition is pretty stiff from the established companies: Bombardier (Airbus) and Embraer.
>>1513055>If that's the case the 747 would have more ordersthere are plenty of cargo operators of the 747, but no orders have come in so far because BCFs were cheaper for a while. when fuel prices go up and the 744s get too old its likely that will change.
>>1513478while its true that these factors will likely cause many BCFs to retire, whether or not this will generate enough orders to keep boeings interest in the line is the question. although the fact they still havent announced or said anything regarding the situation makes me question if this really is their intention. they havent even pulled anything from their website, and you can still see info customer info.
>>1513407im not so sure about that. despite all the horror stories, lockheed has proven to be far more competent than Boeing, and has delivered on most of their recent military endeavors. if there was anyone who had the funds and ability to break into the US commercial aviation market, id put my money on them.
bump limit reached. should there be another widebody thread or is this it?
>>1513386External pressure lead to consolidation not new entrance into the marketAnd that "pressure from China" wouldn't change just because you're another American company
>>1513510it was a big mistake to let McD die out and leave the american commercial aviation industry in one company's hands.
>>1513561The mistake was let McDonnell acquired Douglas. Also, the zeroing out of Japan and West Germany aviation industry after WWII.
>>1513592nah, McDonnell and Douglass couldnt have survived on their own and McDonnell had no interest in the commercial sector. McD provided good competition and alternative to Boeing, both in the military and commercial sector. they should have been bailed out with the condition that their upper management and upwards would be sacked and replaced.
>>1513609The merged entity couldn't survive either.Unlike pre-WWII era, milotary and civilian aviation design have less and less overlap, and they even conflict on things like design goal and such, which caused the effect of the merger to be negative to both.What they lack was scale. Scale in commercial aviation sector and scale in military. The merger didn't gave them what they need. They still couldn't form a complete aircraft family like Airbus and Boeing can now offer.
>>1513611>The merged entity couldn't survive either.it lasted much longer than they would have separate. you forget that without Douglass, McDonnell wouldnt have bothered with the civilian sector,and likely would have died to its larger competition and without McDonnell, douglass would have died. its not an issue of overlapping goals, but rather the need for both sectors to keep the company alive. McD did have a popular family of aircraft, the DC-10 and MD-80 both did very well. many people dont realize that McD's biggest problem started when the cold war wound down and military orders stopped coming in as frequently, while the MD-11 and MD-90 werent in full production yet. competition didnt kill McD, poor timing and lack of foresight did.
>>1513658In my opinion the merger only gave excuses to DoD and others to continually support them instead of writing them off sooner. They could have attempted to merge with other military/civilian aviation companies instead, to gain the necessary synergy.DC-8, 9, 10 were both popular on their own, but it's more difficult and less comprehensive to have an airlines only using DC-8/9/10 as opposed to Boeing and later Airbus lineups.Timing and "lack of foresight" killed the company, however the reason they have "lack of foresight" was because they financially couldn't afford any longer term planning or investment, and also have not enough resource in the company itself to withstand less good time. These problem lingered from the two companies before they even merge, but the merger between the two weaker entities just amplified their weakness in this aspect.
>>1513664>but it's more difficult and less comprehensive to have an airlines only using DC-8/9/10 as opposed to Boeing and later Airbus lineups.i dont think thats really a fair comparison, since those are different air-frames. IIRC there were a few airlines that used exclusively DC-9 variants for a while. >however the reason they have "lack of foresight" was because they financially couldn't afford any longer term planning or investment,i dont think thats true at all. the DC-10 and DC-9/MD-80 line did very well, and brought the company plenty of cash at the time. you could argue that these aircraft's success were due in part to good timing, as the DC-10 became the alternative to the 747 and the DC-9 family becoming the alternative to the 727 and 737. >These problem lingered from the two companies before they even merge, but the merger between the two weaker entities just amplified their weakness in this aspect.not necessarily true, since after a while the company was pretty much a different entity than its parts. the company was strong and more successful as one, and only fell apart due to circumstances mostly beyond their control. (end of the cold war gimping military sales right as they were finishing their new lineup). at the end of the day McD was stronger than both of its components, and if they remained separate they either would have died quickly on their own or died with the end of the cold war, just as McD did.
>>1513683McDonnell Douglass would have been the only company large enough to be a reasonable alternative for Boeing in the american market, it would have been beneficial to keep them around so the entire american commercial market was made up of more than one company.
>>1469296would pan am have lived if they sold off their European routes and focused on the pacific instead? seems like after they tired to focus on europe it backfired pretty bad.
>>1513683>Different airframeYes, in term of aircrafts they're not fair comparison, but as a business as an airlines or as an aircraft maker, that's something that must be taken into consideration as it have kots if financial implication>DC-10 and DC-9/MD-80 did very well, brought the company plenty of cashYes, they are projects with one time success. Not projects that buildup the company's offer/lineup/profile to a point that can sustain them even in adverse time.>Different than its pastYet it still don't have good enough financial and didn't have the necessary scale>>1513685>Would have beenI'm not arguing against merger. But each of them need to find a better partner. The reason why even the merhed entity fail was because they're the second largest civil aircraft maker in the USA and the third larhest military aircraft maker in the USA while only one civil aircraft maker in the USA was needed and only two military aircraft maker in the USA was needed. The merged entity need to either be the top US civil aircraft maker or the top two US military aircraft maker in order to success, or go beyond the US.
>>1513732>that's something that must be taken into consideration as it have kots if financial implicationbut your idea of having an airframe family did come true in a sense with the DC-9. the airframe was modified and slotted into several roles just as the 737 was. unless youre implying that Boeing aircraft are logistically interchangeable, which they arent. >es, they are projects with one time success.MDs success wasnt one time, they made it through several decades and grew to be an entirely separate entity. than the sum of their parts. saying that McDonnell and Douglass shouldnt have merged is somewhat silly, since that merger itself was an objective success. the company grew larger than what either previous company had, and saw plenty of success with multiple air frames. it was only later where their growth stalled later on due to circumstances unrelated to that merger. i dont think you really understand how McDonnell Douglass operated post-merger. to say that they failed because of that merger isnt really true at all.
>>1513743Family, as in 737 727 707 747, or 737 757 767 777 747, or A320 A330 A340 They aren't the same and they don't share a lot of parts, but cross changing pilots between aircraft made by same company and maintain part slot are still.simpler this way for small to mid size airlines>objectively successStill the last place in the market
>>1513502Let it fall to page 10 then make another.
Feel like pure shit just want them back
>>1513749>but cross changing pilots between aircraft made by same company and maintain part slot are still.simpler this way for small to mid size airlinesnot remotely. why do you think there are some airlines that choose to operate only one or two of these types as opposed to all of them? logistics doesnt work out like that. >last placeonly at the tail end of the companies existence. to think that the DC-9 or -10 line was a failure is just objectively wrong. maybe you should look into these things more.
>>1514289>>1513749>cross changing* cross trainingThat was a typo>only at the tail end of the companies existenceThat's why they disappeared when the market no longer have enough place for them. They were not exactly a failure but they didn't succeeded sufficiently to spill over and bring them to become a scale larger than other companies which is required to outlast them.