Re: pair (sorry, couldn't resist the pun)

From:         weiss@wright.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss)
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles
Date:         29 Nov 92 08:04:20 GMT
References:   1 2 3
Followups:    1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure


In article <airliners.1992.26@ohare.Chicago.COM> kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes:
>In article <airliners.1992.23@ohare.Chicago.COM> weiss@mott.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) writes:
>>However, Boeing has a history of being the best aircraft in the
>>world in terms of maintenance; Airbus apparently makes planes that are almost
>>as difficult to repair and inspect as McDonnell-Douglas.
>I have not previously encountered negative comments regarding
>McDonnell-Douglas products in this context, however, and in fact have
>heard that the DC-10 is rather well-liked because it's somewhat like
>a big Chevy V-8 -- solid, and easy to fix when it breaks.  (Problems
>with the design of the hydraulics notwithstanding.)

All of my repair information comes from my girlfriend's brother, who works as
a maintenance guy for SkyWest (a commuter airline that operates also as the
Delta Connection in Los Angeles, Palm Springs, Phoenix, and Las Vegas
primarily).  He said that DC-10s are notorious for repairs being all-day
operations, whereas Boeing's 737-300 and -400, 747-300 and -400, 757, and 767
have self-diagnostic systems that go so far as to direct the location of the
repair instructions down to the page, turning the repairs into a half-day
operation instead.  Note that I cannot verify this information, but I see no
reason to dispute it.

>Seems to me that Lockheed, the L-1011 in particular but perhaps the
>Electra in its time as well, tended toward somewhat more finicky
>products that compensated by giving better performance.

Now there's one I should ask my cousin.  He was a test pilot for the L-1011
when he was first hired by Lockheed.

>With regard to the MD-12, MacDAC seems to remain in the race nearly as
>much as Boeing and Airbus, though their ability to carry through with
>an actual aircraft is certainly less certain given their finances.  In
>any case all three are paper planes until the airlines get themselves
>into better financial shape.

My understanding is that the capital exists within Boeing, and can certainly
be "created" within Airbus, but MacDAC has been losing faith quickly from its
investors.  At least, that's what the LA Times seems to indicate.  Rumor had it
that if the MD-11 did not get cert back in October '91, MacDAC was going to
have to file for bankruptcy.  Again, this was LA Times info.
-- 
\ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | /
-  Michael  weiss@seas.ucla.edu   |  School of Engineering & Applied Science  -
-   Weiss   izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu  |   University of California, Los Angeles   -
/ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \