Rewriting History

Profile picture for user Grey Area

Member for

15 years 6 months

Posts: 10,160

At Manchester today, I noticed a couple of strange things. Nothing unusual there, you might think. ;) An MD90 of Hello Jet (HB-JIB) and an MD82 of Alexandrair (SX-BMP) both had text on their engine cowlings identifying them as a Boeing MD90 and a Boeing MD82 respectively. Now, I understand about Boeing now owning McDonnell-Douglas and all associated brands and trademarks but how in the name of sanity can the Boeing brand be placed on aircraft that were built by another manufacturer in the past? It looks like an attempt to airbrush two major players out of the history of aviation and I wonder what next? Boeing DC3s, Boeing DC8s and Boeing Phantom IIs?
Original post
Profile picture for user EK.

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 867

At Manchester today, I noticed a couple of strange things. Nothing unusual there, you might think. ;) An MD90 of Hello Jet (HB-JIB) and an MD82 of Alexandrair (SX-BMP) both had text on their engine cowlings identifying them as a Boeing MD90 and a Boeing MD82 respectively. Now, I understand about Boeing now owning McDonnell-Douglas and all associated brands and trademarks but how in the name of sanity can the Boeing brand be placed on aircraft that were built by another manufacturer in the past? It looks like an attempt to airbrush two major players out of the history of aviation and I wonder what next? Boeing DC3s, Boeing DC8s and Boeing Phantom IIs?
Its just the same as when a airline takes over another or when they merge. Remember Caladonian and Flying Colours merged to create JMC and then got taken over or rebranded as Thomas Cook, nothing remains or Caladonian, Flying Colours or JMC Air.
Profile picture for user Grey Area

Member for

15 years 6 months

Posts: 10,160

Yes, but I don't think Thomas Cook are trying to pretend that it was they and not Caledonian, Flying Colours and JMC who operated those flights in the past, are they? Boeing seem to be claiming that they built aircraft that were actually built by someone else. Which can't be right, can it?
Profile picture for user Bmused55

Member for

16 years

Posts: 10,625

Its a legal thing. Since Boeing purchased MD, anything to do with MD becomes their property. So any MD plane that gets a new coat of paint from now on, if its to have a model label on it, it must be a "Boeing MD/DC" label. Omitting the Boeing is copyright infringement in the eys of the law today. So yes, if a DC-3 were to be repainted now, its label would read Boeing DC3.
Profile picture for user Grey Area

Member for

15 years 6 months

Posts: 10,160

Sandy, that is simply nonsense. Show me the law that says that. Why haven't all the world's Jaguars been rebadged as Fords, in that case?
Profile picture for user Bmused55

Member for

16 years

Posts: 10,625

Sandy, that is simply nonsense. Show me the law that says that. Why haven't all the world's Jaguars been rebadged as Fords, in that case?
Its a collection of several laws. You asked a question, I answered it. It is not nonsense. As for the Jaguars...... you can't realy compare the two situations like for like.... but I'll humour you. The Jag situation is nothing more than marketing strategy. The Jaguar brand has a lot of value to it. Also Jaguar still exists as an entity, under Ford administation. However, when Boeing purchased MD, they ceased to exist as a company. They were absorbed into Boeing. In the aviation industry, a brand name like MD doesn't hold as much value to it as a similar brand in the automotive industry. Why? simple... you don't sell MDs to your ordinary everyday schmuck. Cars on the other hand are. I supose you could say this all boils down to marketing.
Profile picture for user Grey Area

Member for

15 years 6 months

Posts: 10,160

Which laws, Sandy?
Profile picture for user LFC24

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 692

I'm quite ticked off too that Boeing have added their titles to another manufacturer's aircraft, but it's not strange.
Profile picture for user Bmused55

Member for

16 years

Posts: 10,625

Which laws, Sandy?
Copyright good chap, Copyright. Boeing own the MD name, image... the whole kit and caboodle. They can do what they want with it.
Profile picture for user EK.

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 867

Yes, but I don't think Thomas Cook are trying to pretend that it was they and not Caledonian, Flying Colours and JMC who operated those flights in the past, are they? Boeing seem to be claiming that they built aircraft that were actually built by someone else. Which can't be right, can it?
Its 100% legal. Heres a better examply when Ryanair took over Buzz they got rid of the Buzz brand completly, same when EZY took over Go. When a company takes over a company its theres to do prety much what they want to do with it, after all they do own it.
Profile picture for user LFC24

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 692

EK, you said it exactly like it is. :)
Profile picture for user Grey Area

Member for

15 years 6 months

Posts: 10,160

Boeing are claiming the work of others as their own. It may or may not be legal, but you'll never convince me that it's right. And I can imagine the things that Sandy would be saying if Airbus tried to "claim" the VC10, BAC 1-11, Trident, Jetstreams, ATP and BAe 146 in the same way. :diablo:
Profile picture for user tenthije

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 4,887

So any MD plane that gets a new coat of paint from now on, if its to have a model label on it, it must be a "Boeing MD/DC" label. Omitting the Boeing is copyright infringement in the eys of the law today.
Since when is this the case? Cause the MDD takeover was a few years back. Since then every MD plane will have had at least one heavy check with a complete repaint. And with it the new name should have been added as well. This has not happened though with any but a few planes. Martinair's MD-11s still carry the MDD name. Even those that where recently repainted in the new livery.
Profile picture for user wilag

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 696

Grey, Understand where you are coming from, but it happens all the time. I work in IT and HP took over Compaq, hence servers were renamed to HP Prolient and so on. Same kit but under new ownership. Annoying thing was I had to re-certify even thought the internals were the same. Rgds Andy
Profile picture for user Bmused55

Member for

16 years

Posts: 10,625

Boeing are claiming the work of others as their own. It may or may not be legal, but you'll never convince me that it's right. And I can imagine the things that Sandy would be saying if Airbus tried to "claim" the VC10, BAC 1-11, Trident, Jetstreams, ATP and BAe 146 in the same way. :diablo:
I am slowly starting to get peeved at this constant jabbing and attempt to discredit anything I say. :mad: This is not about you disagreeing or such. ITs about the constant jabs at me, accusing me of acting differently if it were airbus.
Profile picture for user Grey Area

Member for

15 years 6 months

Posts: 10,160

Sandy... People are allowed to disagree with you - stop taking things so personally. It's an old saying but a valid one nevertheless - if you can't take it, then don't dish it out. :rolleyes: I'm not saying that Boeing are doing anything illegal - clearly they are not. But it doesn't seem right, that's all.
Profile picture for user rdc1000

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 1,342

The reason for Boeing rebranding MD aircraft is fairly simple. At the time that Boeing took over MD they took on the responsibilites associated with the MD fleet already flying. That is to say that if there were to be an Airworthiness Directive issued regarding a certain type (as an example situation) the aircraft are the responsibility solely of Boeing. As such the authorities recognise the MD-80/90s and all other MD aircraft as Boeings. So therefore since Boeing has to assume responsibility for the aircraft then it is likely that they would want to assume some recognition for the fleet they have under their 'care'. Also, if we must be really honest, it was MD that designed the aircraft, but Boeing were the final company to produce both the MD-90 and MD-80 ranges, production didn't stop until after Boeing had taken over MD.

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 475

Copyright good chap, Copyright. Boeing own the MD name, image... the whole kit and caboodle. They can do what they want with it.
But if one these new-fangled "Boeing" aircraft crashed, I'm pretty sure we'll find that it will be an McDonnel Douglas MD80/MD90/MD11 that'll be reported in the media. If so, I trust that someone will be writing to the media to correct them ;)
Profile picture for user tenthije

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 4,887

But if one these new-fangled "Boeing" aircraft crashed, I'm pretty sure we'll find that it will be an McDonnel Douglas MD80/MD90/MD11 that'll be reported in the media. If so, I trust that someone will be writing to the media to correct them ;)
That won't be necessary. At first the media will no doubt report it as a MD-319 (since the media always ****s up). But at some time Boeing will have to make a statement saying what happened and why it is not their fault. Same as when Concorde crashed. Airbus made the statements and revoked the CoA. Not BAe/Aerospatiale.
Profile picture for user Skymonster

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 1,953

I think you're all missing something here. Boeing has every right to expunge the MDC name from the designs they've inherited. However, the two aeroplanes in question are NOT Boeing owned, so Boeing have NO rights to insist how they are painted. But (big but!) the McDonnell Douglas name is now a trademark of the Boeing Corporation, and as such Boeing do have rights to dictate how that trademark is used - note, I'm talking trademark and NOT copyright as inferred by Sandy. Now the conjecture, because NONE of us really know why those two airplanes have Boeing on them. However, possibilities that come to mind are: 1. Given that Boeing can now dictate how the McDonnell Douglas trademark is used, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Boeing are nolonger allowing the MDC trademark to be painted on aeroplanes 2. Boeing is a far better known name than MDC. As it is now valid to regard the MD-82 and MD-90 as "Boeings" the airlines concerned may have decided to paint the Boeing name on their aircraft rather than MDC as a reassurance to lay-passengers As to whether DC-3s will now start to appear with Boeing on them... In the worse case (1) above, any owner unhappy with having to paint the name Boeing on their [M]DC aircraft could just omit the designation totally - again, Boeing have no rights to dictate that the aircraft type has to be painted on the aircraft. Andy
Profile picture for user Bmused55

Member for

16 years

Posts: 10,625

I think you're all missing something here. Boeing has every right to expunge the MDC name from the designs they've inherited. However, the two aeroplanes in question are NOT Boeing owned, so Boeing have NO rights to insist how they are painted. But (big but!) the McDonnell Douglas name is now a trademark of the Boeing Corporation, and as such Boeing do have rights to dictate how that trademark is used - note, I'm talking trademark and NOT copyright as inferred by Sandy. Now the conjecture, because NONE of us really know why those two airplanes have Boeing on them. However, possibilities that come to mind are: 1. Given that Boeing can now dictate how the McDonnell Douglas trademark is used, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Boeing are nolonger allowing the MDC trademark to be painted on aeroplanes 2. Boeing is a far better known name than MDC. As it is now valid to regard the MD-82 and MD-90 as "Boeings" the airlines concerned may have decided to paint the Boeing name on their aircraft rather than MDC as a reassurance to lay-passengers As to whether DC-3s will now start to appear with Boeing on them... In the worse case (1) above, any owner unhappy with having to paint the name Boeing on their [M]DC aircraft could just omit the designation totally - again, Boeing have no rights to dictate that the aircraft type has to be painted on the aircraft. Andy
more or less what I meant. Just worded better.