Are the Jumbo Jet days numbered?

The DC-10 was a very poor half-assed copy of the L-1011. The L-1011 was WAY ahead of its time.
 
denverpilot said:
Yup. In the L-1011 they did.
Click to expand...

Guess McDonnell Douglas killed a bunch of people when they learned not to put all the hydraulic lines in the back of a DC-10 by the number 2 engine, or learned to put locking mechanisms on the slats, or to come up with a better cargo door locking design?

Guess ATR killed a bunch of people when a 42 fell out of the sky because the de-ice boots weren't large enough and due to improperly written pilot procedures?

To say they KILLED a bunch of people...quite an assumption.:rolleyes:
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
No, 3 flight crew looking to figure out what was wrong and not flying the plane killed people.
Click to expand...


True. True.

But we learned that people will do that and added another set of $0.50 lights after we re-learned humans do stupid crap. ;)
 
Gucci Pilot said:
Guess McDonnell Douglas killed a bunch of people when they learned not to put all the hydraulic lines in the back of a DC-10 by the number 2 engine, or learned to put locking mechanisms on the slats, or to come up with a better cargo door locking design?



Guess ATR killed a bunch of people when a 42 fell out of the sky because the de-ice boots weren't large enough and due to improperly written pilot procedures?



To say they KILLED a bunch of people...quite an assumption.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Technically, yes. It's a team effort. ;)

Today's aviation is a lot better than say, the 1940s and we say the same thing about then.
 
There are a of factors to consider in the "jumbo" market including how you want to define a jumbo. A 777-300ER is larger than a DC-10 or L-1011 and in some configurations seats roughly the same as early 747s. Obviously the 777-300ER has been immensely successful.

The 747 things going for it that didn't pan out for the A380. First, in addition to a leap in size it was a leap in range and opened up new routes. Regardless of if you could fill it, you needed a 747 to compete. Long range DC-10s, L-1011s, and later A300s/767s started to close the gap, but you had a couple decades where a 747 was the only option.

Additionally, prior to deregulation, attracting passengers meant standing out and a 747 was one way to do this. Both the prestige of the Jumbo as well as the service quality a 747 implied made it attractive.

Fast forward to the A380. It is bigger, making it marginally more efficient than its competition but only if you can fill it. It provides no real range benefit over any other aircraft. It is certainly a comfortable aircraft, but the fact is business or first on most airlines is relatively consistent on all of their long haul aircraft; you can but a first class seat on a 777 and not worry about the challenges an A380 brings. More passengers are concerned about frequency and minimizing travel time than an extra 1/2" of leg room, and more small airplanes mean more options for them.

The same changes mean new 747s have an uphill battle, but with 1,000+ produced Boeing can certainly claim the 747 as a success overall. It seems likely Airbus will never be able to make that claim about the A380.
 
TUPilot said:
There are a of factors to consider in the "jumbo" market including how you want to define a jumbo. A 777-300ER is larger than a DC-10 or L-1011 and in some configurations seats roughly the same as early 747s. Obviously the 777-300ER has been immensely successful.

The 747 things going for it that didn't pan out for the A380. First, in addition to a leap in size it was a leap in range and opened up new routes. Regardless of if you could fill it, you needed a 747 to compete. Long range DC-10s, L-1011s, and later A300s/767s started to close the gap, but you had a couple decades where a 747 was the only option.

Additionally, prior to deregulation, attracting passengers meant standing out and a 747 was one way to do this. Both the prestige of the Jumbo as well as the service quality a 747 implied made it attractive.

Fast forward to the A380. It is bigger, making it marginally more efficient than its competition but only if you can fill it. It provides no real range benefit over any other aircraft. It is certainly a comfortable aircraft, but the fact is business or first on most airlines is relatively consistent on all of their long haul aircraft; you can but a first class seat on a 777 and not worry about the challenges an A380 brings. More passengers are concerned about frequency and minimizing travel time than an extra 1/2" of leg room, and more small airplanes mean more options for them.

The same changes mean new 747s have an uphill battle, but with 1,000+ produced Boeing can certainly claim the 747 as a success overall. It seems likely Airbus will never be able to make that claim about the A380.
Click to expand...

To me, "jumbo jet" designates multiple decks. 747 and A380 are the only ones in the passenger markets I would give that designation. 777, A-340... I consider a Heavy Widebody.

As for the model analysis of the market that differentiates the success of the 747 v A380, it is a good very good one, however there is one more factor though less significant. There are freight versions of the 747, not so for the A380. Cargo is King, pax make you some money on the side. DHL should have been their target customer.
 
Last edited:
Art VanDelay said:
The DC-10 was a very poor half-assed copy of the L-1011. The L-1011 was WAY ahead of its time.
Click to expand...

The half assed copy flew before the crown jewel of Lockheed. So who copied who? 446 DC-10 were built compared to 250 L-1011. The follow on MD-11 sold an additional 200 units.
 
Last edited:
Once more airports become slot-controlled, the bigger planes will be successful because no other option to get in...until then, it's simply a tool to say my airline is better than yours
 
3393RP said:
Nowhere in the article does it say production has been halted. Airbus is still building A380s, and there are almost 200 on order. Emirates accounts for 140 of those, but their delivery is increasingly seen as doubtful.

That's not to say production won't be halted at some point in the future.
Click to expand...

But no new orders and a lot of those are "options" to buy...Bombardier was having an issue with production on their planes as well due to so few orders (I believe the q400 was down to like 3 months out at 1 point a few years ago). They need a year or two of orders to keep the assembly line going
 
mrkbbd said:
Once more airports become slot-controlled, the bigger planes will be successful because no other option to get in...until then, it's simply a tool to say my airline is better than yours
Click to expand...

Airline??? The only reason EADS built the A380 in the first place was to have something bigger than the 744. It was a ****ing contest, not an economic decision.
 
denverpilot said:
Yup. In the L-1011 they did.
Click to expand...

Odd, you say that because despite there being 144 AD's on the L-1011 and 11 of them on the Main Landing Gear not a single one says anything about annunciator lights
 
jonnyjetprop said:
The half assed copy flew before the crown jewel of Lockheed. So who copied who? 446 DC-10 were built compared to 250 L-1011. The follow on MD-11 sold an additional 200 units.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's all the MD-11 sold? I would have figured more at the rate they were tested and leaving Long Beach. They must have done a significant test series on each airframe because white tails were flying a lot.
 
Art VanDelay said:
The DC-10 was a very poor half-assed copy of the L-1011. The L-1011 was WAY ahead of its time.
Click to expand...

I don't know which came first, but I've spoken to a few pilots who flew the 1011 and they all loved that airplane. They said it was a sweet flier and way ahead of it's time.
 
Henning said:
To me, "jumbo jet" designates multiple decks. 747 and A380 are the only ones in the passenger markets I would give that designation. 777, A-340... I consider a Heavy Widebody.

As for the model analysis of the market that differentiates the success of the 747 v A380, it is a good very good one, however there is one more factor though less significant. There are freight versions of the 747, not so for the A380. Cargo is King, pax make you some money on the side. DHL should have been their target customer.
Click to expand...


Good point on cargo. The 747 was designed with cargo in mind; the A380 was first and foremost a passenger plane. Because of this the proposed cargo version (A380F) had a lot of additional volume compared to a 747 but only fractionally more weight capacity. Because of this, the heavy freight guys (Atlas, Cargolux, etc.) didn't have much interest but the A380F did get orders from UPS and FedEx. Due to the world economy and delays in the A380 program the A380F was dropped and the UPS and FedEx orders cancelled.

Another cargo issue for the A380 is that with two full decks and only one "level" of baggage, there isn't much room left over once passenger bags are loaded. Carrying extra cargo can bring in big bucks, so you can potentially pull in more revenue with a couple 777s or A330s than with a single A380; even if the A380 is marginally more efficient per seat overall profit is higher with the twins.
 
TUPilot said:
Good point on cargo. The 747 was designed with cargo in mind; the A380 was first and foremost a passenger plane. Because of this the proposed cargo version (A380F) had a lot of additional volume compared to a 747 but only fractionally more weight capacity. Because of this, the heavy freight guys (Atlas, Cargolux, etc.) didn't have much interest but the A380F did get orders from UPS and FedEx. Due to the world economy and delays in the A380 program the A380F was dropped and the UPS and FedEx orders cancelled.

Another cargo issue for the A380 is that with two full decks and only one "level" of baggage, there isn't much room left over once passenger bags are loaded. Carrying extra cargo can bring in big bucks, so you can potentially pull in more revenue with a couple 777s or A330s than with a single A380; even if the A380 is marginally more efficient per seat overall profit is higher with the twins.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the A380 has very low ability to supplement their flights with cargo. When I was a kid around 14 I flew CHI to Frankfurt on a Lufthansa 747 with 7 passengers onboard. I asked the pilot how they could afford that flight. He told me the revenue for the flight is in scheduled cargo, the passengers are all added profit. So whether the flight is full or empty of passengers, it goes at a profit.
 
Keep in mind that that these days, more and more cargo is being flown in the bellies of passenger planes. The reason why Boeing is still building dedicated B-777F cargo planes is because there is no conversion for passenger 777.


Henning said:
Exactly, the A380 has very low ability to supplement their flights with cargo. When I was a kid around 14 I flew CHI to Frankfurt on a Lufthansa 747 with 7 passengers onboard. I asked the pilot how they could afford that flight. He told me the revenue for the flight is in scheduled cargo, the passengers are all added profit. So whether the flight is full or empty of passengers, it goes at a profit.
Click to expand...
 
jonnyjetprop said:
Keep in mind that that these days, more and more cargo is being flown in the bellies of passenger planes. The reason why Boeing is still building dedicated B-777F cargo planes is because there is no conversion for passenger 777.
Click to expand...

To not make them simple to dual mode seems odd to me as airline service has been subsidized by freight and Mail since the beginning.
 
jonnyjetprop said:
Keep in mind that that these days, more and more cargo is being flown in the bellies of passenger planes. The reason why Boeing is still building dedicated B-777F cargo planes is because there is no conversion for passenger 777.
Click to expand...

And because no one is getting rid of 777's in the numbers needed to make an aftermarket conversion work.
 
jonnyjetprop said:
Not true. The older 777-200 are being disposed of. There's one being cut up in Sanford now.

http://www.airfleets.net/listing/b777-5.htm
Click to expand...

Sure, the beat, super high cycle, worn out 777 A market planes are. Still, they aren't being done in high enough volume to make anyone want to pay to develop the STC at this point. Once you see 777-200ER's on the market in triple digits, you'll probably see a PF version.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Sure, the beat, super high cycle, worn out 777 A market planes are. Still, they aren't being done in high enough volume to make anyone want to pay to develop the STC at this point. Once you see 777-200ER's on the market in triple digits, you'll probably see a PF version.
Click to expand...

Very true. Plus the few that are on the market are straight -200s or early -200ERs with relatively low gross weights. Thus they don't have as much appeal to the cargo folks. Higher weight ERs and LRs will be much more appealing but those airplanes are still hard at work!
 
Can't speak from actual numbers, but I can tell you there's a lot more 777's on the airfield at LAX than when I started here (2002). Used to be that (if you tossed out the Southwest 737's), the 767's were the most common, a few 747's, A330's - a few A340's and of course the new A380's. 777 with the distinctive "canoe" tail and triple truck main gear was something you slowed down and looked at.

Now they're common enough that I don't give them a second look.
 
Old Fart said:
Can't speak from actual numbers, but I can tell you there's a lot more 777's on the airfield at LAX than when I started here (2002). Used to be that (if you tossed out the Southwest 737's), the 767's were the most common, a few 747's, A330's - a few A340's and of course the new A380's. 777 with the distinctive "canoe" tail and triple truck main gear was something you slowed down and looked at.

Now they're common enough that I don't give them a second look.
Click to expand...

I used to ride them with V-Aus, business class was very nice, it's a big plane.
 
My good pal bob flew west not long ago. He flew P2V s out of Brunswick, then flew just about everything Eastern had for 33 years. He started in a super Connie and wound up in a 1011. He claimed these two were his favorites with the 1011 being " an absolutely fantastic airplane " ! His eyes would glaze as he spoke of the 1011.
 
The DC-10 and L-1011 were both interim designs that existed simply because it was not possible at the time to produce a wide body jetliner with two engines rather than four. Neither of them came anywhere close to being as elegant as the tri-engined 727 but then I suppose elegant widebody jetliner is an oxymoron in itself. :rolleyes:
 
jonnyjetprop said:
The half assed copy flew before the crown jewel of Lockheed. So who copied who? 446 DC-10 were built compared to 250 L-1011. The follow on MD-11 sold an additional 200 units.
Click to expand...

Look at the development history. Who started first ? Thanks to American Airlines Douglas got all the poop on the L-1011 and undersold Lockheed with their half-assed attempt. The DC-10 KILLED a lot of people - make no mistake about that.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Look at the development history. Who started first ? Thanks to American Airlines Douglas got all the poop on the L-1011 and undersold Lockheed with their half-assed attempt. The DC-10 KILLED a lot of people - make no mistake about that.
Click to expand...

Unless you can find a better source, it seems they were both developed roughly at the same time from a request from American Airlines.

DC-10: 32 hull losses with 1261 fatalities
L-1011: 11 hull losses with 539 fatalities

Since there were almost twice as many DC-10 built, one would expect twice as many accidents and fatalities. We're there design defects? Yes, and they were fixed early in the planes life. Of course, the DC-10 had a much longer service life too.

My guess is that you flew the L-1011 and I flew the DC-10. Nothing will change our minds on this.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Not all of them. ETOPS is quite extensive, and varies from carrier to carrier.
Click to expand...


Must have been lost... :wink2: (in all seriousness, every 777 left the factory ETOPS. Some don't have the range others do, though)


upthere_zpsd612a7ad.jpg




Henning said:
The 777 is a heck of a good platform.
Click to expand...


That doesn't even begin to describe the 777. It's an incredible machine. I tap the glare shield and give thanks to the engineers who built it every time I'm up in the northern lattitudes, 1000 miles from anywhere, and thank them for designing such an aircraft.
 
The thing that killed the L-1011 is that they never attracted enough buyers to break even on the development costs. The Eastern 501 crash is hardly attributed to the aircraft and really didn't have much of an impact on the viability of the thing. The L-1011 actually does pretty well. It had a couple of uncontained engine failures and unlike the DC-10, the control system allowed the pilots to finish the flight without casualty. There was a Saudia tire explosion in 2000 that caused a decompression (and lost a couple) but I don't know of any other in-the-air fatalities other than the Delta 191 microburst crash which occured two years after Lockheed gave up on building the things.

That's in stark contrast to the absolute disasterous story behind the DC-10. Douglas tinkered with an already designed door which was of dubious design to begin with (the first airframe being tested failed in a way that would be repeated TWICE more, the last time losing all souls on board the plane). That was coupled with horrendously poorly designed hydraulic flight control system that resulted a couple of times in total losses of all aboard and the famous Al Hayes UA 232 Sioux City crash.
 
jonnyjetprop said:
Unless you can find a better source, it seems they were both developed roughly at the same time from a request from American Airlines.

DC-10: 32 hull losses with 1261 fatalities
L-1011: 11 hull losses with 539 fatalities

Since there were almost twice as many DC-10 built, one would expect twice as many accidents and fatalities. We're there design defects? Yes, and they were fixed early in the planes life. Of course, the DC-10 had a much longer service life too.
Click to expand...

Yeah but if you look at the actual incidents the -10 looks a lot worse. Mechanical issues took more -10's out and killed more people.

You're wrong about the design defects. The bulk cargo door issue really wasn't ever solved. It wasn't even addressed after they NEW it was a problem in testing, they just blamed it on the ground crew failing to secure the door. They decided not to do anything about the fact that the floor design in a decompression of the hold was going to likely make the plane uncontrollable. They were extremely lucky with the Windsor incident that nobody was seated in above where the door was and that the plane remained marginally controllable afterwards. Then with a wink-and-nod agreement with the FAA they failed to make any substantive changes which resulted in the subsequent all-hands loss in France. The control system problems were certainly known after the Chicgao crash. The Aviation Safety people were blowing the whistle for years leading up to Sioux City.

Let's see how the L1011 faired...one crash due to Microbursts which could have indeed happened to any aircraft on that approach. One crash due to pilot stupidity (in fact, a similar crash happened in a DC-8 later on). Some fatailities (but not a hull loss) from a tire exploading. The others were things like bombs and fires on the ground.

Note a similar uncontained #2 engine failure happened on the L-1011 which wiped out two of the hydraulic systems on board, but unlike the bogus DC-10 design, the L-1011 continued to be controllable and made a landing without casualty.

Frankly, I'll fly an L-1011 if it's still around. I'd have to really think twice about getting on board a -10.
 
Henning said:
Wow, that's all the MD-11 sold? I would have figured more at the rate they were tested and leaving Long Beach. They must have done a significant test series on each airframe because white tails were flying a lot.
Click to expand...
I think the big issue was that the MD-11 never really hit the performance (cost savings) numbers that McDonnell-Douglas promised. They kept going back to re-modify them to try and save weight/fuel.

The MD-11 does what it does very well. It's a great airplane, but one that definitely bears watching at all times, especially in the approach and landing phase. It does not fly like any other airplane out there, and will bite you hard if you let it get away from you in the least.

"Boeing builds airplanes... Douglas builds character..."
 
Sluggo63 said:
I think the big issue was that the MD-11 never really hit the performance (cost savings) numbers that McDonnell-Douglas promised. They kept going back to re-modify them to try and save weight/fuel.

The MD-11 does what it does very well. It's a great airplane, but one that definitely bears watching at all times, especially in the approach and landing phase. It does not fly like any other airplane out there, and will bite you hard if you let it get away from you in the least.

"Boeing builds airplanes... Douglas builds character..."
Click to expand...

Look at the numbers of MD11's crashed at FedEx vs UPS. I'm surprised they managed to keep the same type between the DC-10 and MD-11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top