Date: 19 Dec 96 03:06:31
From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
References: 1 2 3 4
Followups: 1
View raw article
or MIME structure
>> The MD-95 is almost surely dead.
>Agreed.
Stonecipher apparently says it will be built. Coincidentally, this
week's AW&ST says the nose structure for the first MD-95 arrived in
Long Beach (from McDonnell Douglas Aerospace in Huntington Beach).
Assembly of the first MD-95 is due to start in April.
>The MD-8xs out there will go on flying through their life
>cycle whether or not McD belongs to Boeing or not. Does the mere fact that
>they are no longer in production render them "devalued?"
The market value of F100s and F70s took a steep dive when Fokker went
under, and hasn't really recovered even though the spares operation
was quickly sold and is on solid ground. I'm not sure if that's a
good comparison or not, but think of fleet commonality. Reno Air, for
example, has an MD-80/MD-90 fleet, and they derive a lot of the same
benefits as Southwest does from an all-737 fleet.
Today, if you were starting an airline in a similar business, which
aircraft would you choose? Even buying used, the MD-80/90 is now at a
disadvantage to the 737 and A319/320/321, because in time you'll want
new planes and with the MD-80/90 you may not be able to get them, even
though Boeing/MacDAC is saying they'll continue production.
>In fact, I would say that the introduction of the MD-90 did more to
>devalue the MD-80 than stopping MD-80 production would.
I think the MD-80 could have been worse if there were not a fairly
painless path to a more state-of-the-art aircraft.
>> Seems fair to me, at least on the commercial side. The only Douglas
>> piece which *might* have some staying power is the MD-11F
>With both American and Delta showing marked DISinterest in the MD-11, I
>suspect that it is dead as a passenger aircraft already ...
That's why I specifically said MD-11*F*. I agree, the passenger MD-11
is essentially dead.
>... and if the commercial version of the C-17 comes on line, wouldn't
>it better serve the needs of FexEx etc. than an MD-11F?
The MD-17 (commercial C-17) may lift greater weights, and has that
nice rear cargo door for really big stuff. I don't see where either
is of great value to a package carrier like FedEx or UPS, though.
FedEx also has built up a huge fleet of MD-11s and DC-10s, and the
commonality is worth a fair amount to them. I've heard that they are
nevertheless interested in the MD-17, but if true, I'd think it would
be for a different mission than the MD-11F, and thus would not
preclude more MD-11F purchases.
>My impression has been that the USAF really won't be needing a tanker any
>time soon. Last I read, the re-engined KC-135 is supposed to be in service
>until around 2030!!
They also have the KC-10s, which I think are being upgraded to a
cockpit similar to the MD-11 and/or C-17.
>If a new tanker IS required, I'd bet on a 767 derivative.
That sounds like the winning bet.
--
Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com
|Work kls@netapp.com
|WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/
Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills
