Pic of the day.

Profile picture for user A330Crazy

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 6,072

A picturs of my fav tri-jet Enjoy. :-) Attachments: http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3d43cdf06fe8a65c.jpg
Original post
Profile picture for user Saab 2000

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 3,279

RE: Pic of the day. Great picture...the L-1011 is my favourite tri-jet as well.
Profile picture for user KabirT

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 7,536

RE: Pic of the day. MD 11 is the best.... :9 Attachments: http://www.keypublishing.com/forum/importedfiles/3d4410284d3c7a89.jpg
Profile picture for user mongu

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 2,491

RE: Pic of the day. The MD-11 was so "good" that it ruined McDonnel Douglas. Instead of building a new fuel efficient jet (like Airbus did with the A330 or A340) they put winglets and EFIS on the ancient DC-10. Okay, the upadate was a bit more than that - but it can't compete with the Airbuses, which is why everoyne replaced DC-10's with either 767, 777, A330 or A340.
Profile picture for user KabirT

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 7,536

RE: Pic of the day. But MD 11 was giving competition...that was the reason why Boeing bought McDonnel Douglas.
Profile picture for user serendib

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 329

RE: Pic of the day. >But MD 11 was giving competition...that was the reason why >Boeing bought McDonnel Douglas. Nonsense. Boeing bought McD to have a foothold in the lucrative military aircraft market. Sam.
Profile picture for user KabirT

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 7,536

RE: Pic of the day. myabe that also Sam...but this MD 11 factor was very much up in the front.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 2,253

RE: Pic of the day. >myabe that also Sam...but this MD 11 factor was very much up >in the front. Then why did they almost immediately stop production of the MD11?
Profile picture for user serendib

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 329

RE: Pic of the day. >myabe that also Sam...but this MD 11 factor was very much up >in the front. Kabir, You are way off the mark. No one factor determines the acquisition of another entity. If that were the case Boeing would be in the doldrums today given the fact that the MD-11 is no longer in production. Boeing's acquisition of McD is purely strategic in nature. Facing direct competition from Airbus, Boeing took the safer route which expands their line-up and also has a foothold in the military aspect of the business. This in turn guarantees the survivability of Boeing which will not be susceptible to ups and downs in the airline industry. Sam.
Profile picture for user KabirT

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 7,536

RE: Pic of the day. i agree with you Sam....but maybe from the civil aviation point that was there aim....to take out the MD 11 after they saw the huge succes of the DC 10.
Profile picture for user serendib

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 329

RE: Pic of the day. >i agree with you Sam....but maybe from the civil aviation >point that was there aim....to take out the MD 11 after they >saw the huge succes of the DC 10. Kabir, The problem with you argument is two-fold. Firstly, the DC-10 was not a threat to Boeing in a larger scale; Boeing was more concerned with Airbus than with the success of the DC-10. Secondly, if Boeing thought the MD-11 was a cash cow it would still be in production today. Sam.
Profile picture for user KabirT

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 7,536

RE: Pic of the day. [updated:LAST EDITED ON 30-07-02 AT 04:12 PM (GMT)]Sam actually i read this somewhere....thats why i am sticking to it. DC 10 was a initial threat to Boeing and so was the MD 11. DC 10 sold in respectable numbers, Boeing was concerned with that...and when they took out the MD 11, Boeing did feel a need to stop the MD 11 from being a succes. Boeing just didnt want any major competiton in the US civil aviation market.
Profile picture for user serendib

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 329

RE: Pic of the day. >Sam actually i read this somewhere....thats why i am >sticking to it. DC 10 was a initial threat to Boeing and so >was the MD 11. DC 10 sold in respectable numbers, Boeing was >concerned with that...and when they took out the MD 11, >Boeing did feel a need to stop the MD 11 from being a >succes. Boeing just didnt want any major competiton in the >US civil aviation market. Kabir, Even though you read it somewhere does not justify it being correct. My conclusion is you read wrong from dubious sources. Like I said before it is not ONE single factor that determines the acquisition of another entity. You still with me? Now, no doubt Boeing was a little concerned with the popularity of the DC-10 viz-a-viz Boeing aircraft, but that is a normal occurance in any business. Now, would the success of ONE aircraft be the primary decison to buy out McD? Absolutely not. Like someone pointed out earlier the MD-11 was deemed a failure right from the start, there was nothing innovative about the aircraft. It was just a soupped-up DC-10. From an Aero-enginnering point of view, the MD-11 was not as efficient as the Lockheed 1011. The acquisition of McD had a lot to due with Boeing wanting a foothold into the military market. Almost 90% of McD's revenue was generated through military sales and Boeing wanted to diversify its business which would make it less susceptible to the ups and downs in the commercial aviation industry. DC-10 was NOT major competition. How is one aircraft become a major threat to a global powerhouse like Boeing? Now, if you said Airbus was/is a threat I can understand your logic. Sam.
Profile picture for user KabirT

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 7,536

RE: Pic of the day. Sam i am not disagreeing with what you are saying that Boeing wanted a strong foothold in the military sector. Maybe what i read was wrong, we are both entitled to our opinions.
Profile picture for user serendib

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 329

RE: Pic of the day. >Sam i am not disagreeing with what you are saying that >Boeing wanted a strong foothold in the military sector. >Maybe what i read was wrong, we are both entitled to our >opinions. Kabir, You are entitled to your opinion no doubt, but issue at stake here is not about opinion. It is about fact. There is no arguing about it, there is fact and there is fiction. No opinions. Sam.
Profile picture for user KabirT

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 7,536

RE: Pic of the day. [updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-08-02 AT 08:59 AM (GMT)]maybe this will sort out a few things..... By Steven Pearlstein Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, July 24, 1997; Page E01 European authorities yesterday bowed to economic and diplomatic realities and reluctantly gave their blessing to a merger of the two remaining U.S. makers of commercial airplanes. Top officials of Boeing Co. and McDonnell Douglas Corp. were at Washington's Mayflower Hotel when they received word that the European Commission had endorsed the merger of their two firms, once fierce rivals in the defense, space and commercial airplane businesses. With approval from both European and American antitrust authorities, shareholders of the two companies are expected to approve the $15 billion transaction at meetings in Seattle and St. Louis tomorrow. "We have reached a satisfactory conclusion with Boeing," said Karel Van Miert, the competition commissioner of the European Union who early on had vowed to scuttle the deal if Boeing did not make significant concessions to reduce its dominant hold on the world market for commercial jets. Van Miert's tough stance, backed by top European leaders, had threatened to spark a nasty trade war between the United States and Europe. U.S. officials had characterized the European review as an unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of two U.S. companies and a blatant attempt to boost the prospects of Airbus Industrie, the European airplane consortium. To win Van Miert's approval, Boeing reluctantly agreed not to enforce the agreements it had won from three U.S. airlines to buy only Boeing jets in the next 20 years, and to refrain from entering into other such contracts in the future. All three airlines -- American, Continental and Delta -- issued statements yesterday saying Boeing's gesture would have little effect on their purchasing decisions. "Boeing seems to best fit our needs," said Continental spokesman Dave Messing. "It wouldn't change our plans, and we wouldn't go out and order Airbus jets next week," said American Airlines spokesman Tim Smith. But Boeing's refusal to give up the exclusive arrangements through months of negotiations spoke eloquently of the cutthroat nature of the airplane market, where airlines are continuously playing suppliers against one another in an effort to win better prices or faster delivery or last-minute changes in the airplanes they have ordered. At a news conference at the Mayflower, Boeing Chairman Philip Condit said he gave the go-ahead for the concession during a nine-way telephone conference call that he conducted from a phone booth last weekend in Boston, where he was visiting his daughter. He conceded that the threat of fines and confiscation of airplanes left him no choice but to accede to Van Miert's demand or scrap the merger entirely. For his part, Van Miert backed off his original demand that Boeing put McDonnell Douglas's commercial aircraft division up for sale for six months to see if a firm other than Boeing was willing to buy and operate it. The divestiture idea was being pushed hard by Airbus executives, who feared that Boeing would gain added leverage in converting old McDonnell Douglas customers to Boeing customers in the future. But Van Miert finally dropped that demand after a high-level delegation of U.S. officials convinced him that there were no likely buyers and that the six-month hiatus would jeopardize the jobs of 14,000 McDonnell Douglas workers in Long Beach, Calif. Van Miert's concession on divestiture still was not sitting well in some European countries, particularly in France, where there is a growing resentment over U.S. economic hegemony in the world. "The Americans have made some last-minute concessions, but in my mind they don't go far enough," Pierre Moscovici, the French European affairs minister, told French radio. And in Toulouse, France, where Airbus completes production of its aircraft, spokesman Alain Dupiech said the company was disappointed in the decision and greatly regretted the "arrogant and confrontational attitude" taken by Boeing and U.S. government officials. U.S. officials said yesterday they were prepared to retaliate against the European Union with trade sanctions if it had attempted to scuttle the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger. Although acknowledging that European antitrust law is more stringent than U.S. law, they feared the hard-line position was being driven more by political and trade considerations than strict legal analysis. "There was a general concern that the Europeans were moving in a very politicized direction right from the start," one senior American official said. "And we made it plain that there would have been a serious response in the trade area if they continued to pursue that strategy." Condit yesterday tried to defuse the transatlantic tension by noting that companies such as Boeing, with customers and suppliers on every continent, would benefit from having its transactions reviewed by a single, international authority rather than having to seek approval from several countries with divergent and competing interests. "In a global economy, a single set of rules is, in fact, preferable," Condit said. "Over time, we have to keep working in that direction." Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/boeing/boeing.htm *******
Profile picture for user serendib

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 329

RE: Pic of the day. I am lost Kabir. What has this article got anything to do with our banter? Sam.
Profile picture for user greekdude1

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 2,956

RE: Pic of the day. The MD11 WAS NEVER a threat to the 747 and was never going to be to the 777 either. The MD11 was going nowhere long before Boeing bought Douglas. It's no wonder American got rid of them no less than 10 years after they bought them, and replaced them with 777's. Their performance was a disappointment from the start. In fact, they had to fine tune it several times after roll-out, but performance was still disappointing. Because of all this, is why it was pretty much relegated to the Cargo Sector. Most passenger carriers operating the MD11 today, either operate the 777, 747 or both along with with it. I do like the MD11, would like to see it continue to operate as a passenger plane. However, as Serendib has shown, the MD11 was not the forefront of the Douglas acquisition, it was mainly military. GD1