DC-10 v L1011

[lilius]

Its funny to read "I was a bit crazy" 

I see your point with process of changing a huge fleet type. Very time consuming and difficult with only getting one per month delivered.

I was also expecting that fuelspike that never came. I stressed about it for so long because I had a big fleet of 747-200 to replace but I felt really secure with the 747-400 when it arrived. I think its pretty efficient for its time of early production especially in the default MTOW and LAX must be perfect for it too.

[schro]

You hit the nail on the head with the time that it takes to get planes delivered. The 747-400 would have been a fine plane in DOTM from its release to the end of the game, though, when I look at onboarding a fleet type, I look at the speed that I can acquire them as well - they would have trickled in at 10 per year starting in 1989 and probably not much of a used market for them until 1995+. In order to replace my L1011's 1 for 1, it would have taken 10-15 game years. A300's and 757s were readily available when I made the switch, so I was able to acquire 100+ per year.

Its also the reason I didn't jump on the 757s in the early game - there was a 3-5 year long wait on the new production side and they were scarce as hen's teeth on the used market (so, when I saw one, I bought it, and resold for a high profit). Meanwhile, I was adding 727's like they were going out of style (oh wait, they were).

Speaking to LAX, its actually a more difficult airport to play in than I thought it would be. There's simply not much demand to go anywhere within 1200-1500 miles of there, so your planes can basically do 2 turns per day tops (unless you're going to the northeast US). International demand is decent, but its all in the 5000nm+ range and premium seats aren't super high in demand. Many of my international configured A306's would only have a need for 4F and 14-21 C seats with the rest in the back of the bus. The A306 was sufficient for 1x daily service to most international destinations until the last couple of game years, so I think the 744 would have been too big (and burns double the fuel for 33% more pax).

[alexgv1]

Its also the reason I didn't jump on the 757s in the early game - there was a 3-5 year long wait on the new production side and they were scarce as hen's teeth on the used market (so, when I saw one, I bought it, and resold for a high profit). Meanwhile, I was adding 727's like they were going out of style (oh wait, they were).

I'm currently running your fleet of the last DOTM in the current DOTM#2 (727s and L1011s). I'm planning on running 727-200Advs until the end of the 1980s and I was wondering how long your 727s were really profitable for (even at those fuel prices).

[flightsimer]

just another example of two aircraft that in RW were almost exactly the same but in AWS one is better than the other.

The DC-10 and L1011's held the same amount in RW. The L1011 held ~250 in a three class config while the DC-10 held ~250 in a two class.

The only reason the DC-10 was better in RW than the L1011 was because it got to the market faster due to the RB211 issues with the L1011.

the -30 only has 500nm more range than a L1011-200.

[swiftus27]

Many of you are overlooking manufacturer commonality.  One could have DC9s and 10s.  Lockheed's brief foray into a/c manufacturing didnt end so well.

[thedr2]

Civil aircraft, you mean? They've always made fantastic military aircraft, and still do.

[Curse]

Many of you are overlooking manufacturer commonality.  One could have DC9s and 10s.  Lockheed's brief foray into a/c manufacturing didnt end so well.

There is no manufacturer commonality in this game.

[swiftus27]

There is no manufacturer commonality in this game.

I know... right now there isn't.

But with this illustrious 1.3, who knows what will be out there?

[schro]

I'm currently running your fleet of the last DOTM in the current DOTM#2 (727s and L1011s). I'm planning on running 727-200Advs until the end of the 1980s and I was wondering how long your 727s were really profitable for (even at those fuel prices).

They were still profitable by the end of the game. The real issue wasn't fuel for them, it was staff costs. I had 50% more large pilots than required after I ditched them for 757s, but that was costing maybe an extra 4 million per week which was trivial (as I was still clearing over 100M in profit each week).

If you think about the fuel burn, a 727-200Adv with 17R's at max MTOW will burn around 9k pounds/hour. If you're flying them in an HD config, you'll have 180Y (to get to fair seating condition) or 15C162Y (or whatever the Y balance is). Compare that to a 737-300 sized plane, your fuel burn is about comparable to it on a per seat basis, though you will have more pilots. If you compare that to the 757, which runs around 8k pounds/hour with 200-220 seats, you're looking at a 20-25% lower on a per seat basis for fuel. At $400 fuel (the game's peak), the 727s were still very profitable and there wasn't a huge need to replace them. My main stumbling block with them was that a lot of them were getting to their 16 and 24 year old D checks, and those were getting expensive. If fuel gets to $800ish, you'll probably be feeling the pain, but if you think about it, there's not enough manufacturing capacity to replace all first gen jets in DOTM prior to the scenario ending, so by design of the game world they will likely stay profitable until the end. Considering that US airlines were flying 727s into the early 2000's, the late 80's almost seems early to flush them out. Its all about being able to get a ton of their replacements quickly (the 757 production line had a 3+ year wait until the early 90's when the persian fuel spike took out some of the worst managed airlines).

The other fun thing about the 727s is that they've got better economics on a per seat basis than some of the first gen widebodies.

If fuel begins to become a problem, then you'd want to start trimming the longest routes that the fuel hogs are flying and get them on short haul high frequency stuff where they spend more time being turned than flying.

[alexgv1]

Thanks schro for your comprehensive answer. I think you are right in that operating them would be more of a challenge if the game world was 30 or so years and there was more urgency on fleet replenishment because they would not last this time.

I guess you make a good point about the 3 crew flight deck, that will add up the costs.

Right now I am quite happy running a fleet of all tri-holers, however! 

[flightsimer]

Many of you are overlooking manufacturer commonality.  One could have DC9s and 10s.  Lockheed's brief foray into a/c manufacturing didnt end so well.

brief? Since when is 57 years of commercial manufacturing a brief time?

[swiftus27]

McDonnell Douglas was brought down all because one airline didnt want to read its technical manuals.   They were told not to use a front-end loader and dismount engines from the pylon.  BUT, American Airlines (if I remember correctly) went ahead and did it anyway.   Well, on a flight leaving Chicago, that engine fell off.  The plane flipped and nosed into the ground.... no survivors.   Not McDonnell Douglas' fault.  However, no one ever ordered DC10s again and MD11 sales were poor to fair at best. 

This is why McD was forced to merge with Boeing.  One crashed plane that was not even remotely their fault.

[slither360]

McDonnell Douglas was brought down all because one airline didnt want to read its technical manuals.   They were told not to use a front-end loader and dismount engines from the pylon.  BUT, American Airlines (if I remember correctly) went ahead and did it anyway.   Well, on a flight leaving Chicago, that engine fell off.  The plane flipped and nosed into the ground.... no survivors.   Not McDonnell Douglas' fault.  However, no one ever ordered DC10s again and MD11 sales were poor to fair at best. 

This is why McD was forced to merge with Boeing.  One crashed plane that was not even remotely their fault.

+1

American Airlines maintenance killed MD.

Although they paid for it - they lost commonality with the MD-80, and that is killing them in CASM these days

[ArcherII]

McDonnell Douglas was much more than 300 some DC10s. Don't forget the military contracts and technological assets. One crash can't bring down a company (although would bring down a project), but several additional factors will.

[slither360]

Ok, fine.

American Airlines significantly contributed to the demise of MD.

[flightsimer]

Im calling BS on this whole MD and AA thing.

The DC-10 wasnt a failure because of one American Airlines crash. Yes, American didnt follow MD procedures, but they developed that technique. It wasnt the fact that they took the engine and pylon off in one piece that caused the problem, it was the fact that they started the process and then stopped, just as the engine was no longer secured to the front of the wing, to switch out shifts. It was then left alone for hours which allowed the hyd. pressure in the forklift to decrease and the engine to sag on the rear pin which caused the stress fracture.

The DC-10 was by no means a sound design at first. It had many, MANY, design issues at EIS that caused MULTIPLE high profile crashes. The hyd. system wasnt as safe as other airliners, the cargo doors were designed horribly (this alone caused at least 2 crashes that i know of possibly even more) and a few other issues.

The only reason MD went under was because of the lack of ability to build a good design. The stopped the DC-10 in order to make the MD-11. They failed miserably at first and it missed its target specs by a lot. American ordered it and took delivery of only 19 frames because of this reason. It wasnt just poor for American's needs either, a lot of airlines canceled their orders in favor of the 777 which was being developed at the same time. It wasnt until the MD-11ER was started that the initial -11 was able to meet target with the changes made to the ER.


At the same time, the MD-80 was no longer efficient compared to the upcoming 737NG and A320's and even the 737classics.

so the only reason MD was merged was because they could no longer compete from their own doings. Hardly AA's fault who operated at one point 66 DC-10's and over probably 300 MD-80's.

[slither360]

Im calling BS on this whole MD and AA thing.

The DC-10 wasnt a failure because of one American Airlines crash. Yes, American didnt follow MD procedures, but they developed that technique. It wasnt the fact that they took the engine and pylon off in one piece that caused the problem, it was the fact that they started the process and then stopped, just as the engine was no longer secured to the front of the wing, to switch out shifts. It was then left alone for hours which allowed the hyd. pressure in the forklift to decrease and the engine to sag on the rear pin which caused the stress fracture.

The DC-10 was by no means a sound design at first. It had many, MANY, design issues at EIS that caused MULTIPLE high profile crashes. The hyd. system wasnt as safe as other airliners, the cargo doors were designed horribly (this alone caused at least 2 crashes that i know of possibly even more) and a few other issues.

The only reason MD went under was because of the lack of ability to build a good design. The stopped the DC-10 in order to make the MD-11. They failed miserably at first and it missed its target specs by a lot. American ordered it and took delivery of only a few because of this reason. It wasnt just poor for American's needs either, a lot of airlines canceled their orders in favor of the 777 which was being developed at the same time. It wasnt until the MD-11ER was started that the initial -11 was able to meet target with the changes made to the ER.


At the same time, the MD-80 was no longer efficient compared to the upcoming 737NG and A320's and even the 737classics.

And I'm gonna call BS on this
While they may not have been the most fuel efficient designs, NOBODY can deny that MD had some of the sturdiest birds out on the market. Douglas built their civilian planes with military stregnth, and some of their workhorses are still flying today.

[flightsimer]

And I'm gonna call BS on this
While they may not have been the most fuel efficient designs, NOBODY can deny that MD had some of the sturdiest birds out on the market. Douglas built their civilian planes with military stregnth, and some of their workhorses are still flying today.

i agree DOUGLAS did and i never said they werent sturdy. However, nobody buys aircraft because they are just sturdy. Your right military aircraft are study, but military aircraft are also some of the most inefficient aircraft ever made.

However MD got away from the Douglas approach. Everything MD did was to just "improve" Douglas' origional 1960's and 1970's designs and call them a 1980's and 90's design. They didn't try to improve their product lineup like Boeing and Airbus did.

The MD-80- a DC-9 strech and officially they are still DC-9's i believe
MD-11- a slight strech and update of the DC-10. Brought to the market at the same time as other large twin engine widebodies.

The MD-90 and 717 were the only two aircraft they had that could possibly compete with the 737 and A320 on an economics basis, but they both came too late.

[schro]

For those of you interested in the whole airliner manufacturer saga of this era, I highly suggest reading "The Sporty Game". It along with a few other industry books should give you a very good picture of how the markets developed and why certain planes failed and succeeded.

Douglas was a successful but poorly managed company that oversold its production line for DC-9's and couldn't handle the growth they undertook, thus the merger with McDonnell (5 other companies bid on them at that time, and Lockheed was actually in the lead until the last minute). McDonnell was a family run business that had no experience in the commercial airliner business yet had slightly better management but no idea how to play the sales game. The DC-10 was the first plane that Douglas created when part of McD and they wanted to demonstrate that they could run an efficient and profitable project.

Lockheed's design was superior to that of Douglas's from an engineering perspective, but they paired it with the "too good to be true on paper" RB211 and did not want to spend the extra $100 million in design costs to accomodate the CF6 from GE (as it was a much longer engine than the RB211). American chose the DC-10 first mostly because they had a fairly inept CEO (Spater) at the time that favored the company's standing relationship with Douglas and basically bought the plane based on their relationship. United did the same and were unwilling to use foreign engines (the RB211). TWA, Eastern and Delta all opted for the L-1011 due to its engineering advances and gambled that the RB211 would make its initial performance targets. Lockheed still had a bit of a hangover from the L-1049 as its prior commercial airliner.

Basically, if one airline had chosen a different manufacturer than the way they were selected, the other project would have been killed off and this great debate wouldn't wage on to this day.

With regards to the death of McD, it really didn't have to do anything with the crashes of the DC-10s due to hydrolic failures or user error, it was McD's disinterest and inability to afford being a player in the commercial airliner space. If you think about it, they didn't have any new designs go to production after the DC-10. Everything else was a stretch or evolution of an existing airframe that wasn't competitive in the market place.

MD-11 - A stretch and re-wing of the DC-10. Underperformed promised specs and had its lunch eaten by the 777 and A333.
MD-90 - A stretch of the M80s with IAE-2500s. Major teething/maintenance issues that took a few years to sort out. Delta to dropped their order of 125 down to 16 (after the Boeing purchase and converted them to 737-800s).
MD-95 - Aka Boeing 717- A modernized DC-9-30 - Great plane but no commonality to other types (could be to the MD-90 with the right flight deck, but most all operators chose the MD-88 style deck and only Saudi took 30 of the 717 style flight deck). Mainline pilots must be payed for this one. Their target customers didn't get the chance to buy - the planew as aimed at NWA to replace their DC-9s, but after evaluation, they spent 2-3 million to refurb per each DC-9 to bring them up to modern interior standards instead of ordering new.

Ironically, the MD-11 is the only widebody to have all non-crashed produced aircraft still in revenue service.

The only reason AA ended up with so many Super 80's is that they initially got a dozen or so of them on a free lease from McD because noone would buy them. AA liked them and used them as a tool to get their pilots to accept B-scale wages for new hires so they ended up buying 250 or so. They then inherited another 100 from TWA bringing the fleet up to about 350.

[minerva]

A short personal remembrance that accords with Schro's post about the failings of MD.  My father worked as a production supervisor on DC 10 wings at their Malton plant (Toronto) for MD for years -- at least until laid-off during the 1982 recession. He has always maintained MD was a terribly run company (even compared to BAC in Britain which he also worked for in the early-mid 1970s), and given the (poor) engineering he witnessed, was amazed that the DC 10 had any customers at all. In the early '80s the workers at the plant had a macbre pool on when another engine would 'fall off' in flight. Some of the workers even bet on the third (tail) engine being the next failure. My father became so disillusioned that even when called back by MD he left the aero-production industry altogether.