Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:25 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Organization: VTL References: 1 2 3 4 5 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
Steve Lacker wrote: > What is the official deal with that anyway? I've heard some airlines > have started referring to MD-80/90's as "Boeing" airplanes. Does this > mean that we should call it a "Boeing" DC-5? "Boeing" DC-7c? I think > not! Chrysler bought AMC, but if you call someone's 1969 AMX a "Dodge" > you'd better prepare for an argument... (both from Dodge *and* AMX > drivers, actually... :-) The Dash-8 by DeHavilland changed hands a few times in recent times. The government owned it for a while, then it became the Boeing Dash-8. (Qantas still has posters etc showing a BOEING Dash-8.). But now Bombardier owns deHavilland and you'll often see the Bombardier logo on existing Dash-8s. I suspect that part of the maintenance involves putting up the bombardier logo :-) In the case of McD, I think that the anti-trust rules do prevent Boeing from really merging operations. Bombardier was able to join the various manufacturers (Canadair, Shorts, Learjet, deHavilland) in juch a way that they each have their own identities but they also share a lot of infrastructure. (For instance, flight testing is done at Learjet's facilities in Kansas if I remember correctly). An interesting twist is that the Global Express business jet is an actual BOMBARDIER product instead of bearing the name of the division which built it. I suspect that in the longer term, it will be a Boeing DC-9 (or MD80-88-95) I suspect that in the longer term, it will be Boeing who will sign the maintenance and sale contracts with customers etc. Thsi will happen the day you get a customer who places an order for an MD-xxx product at the same time as a Bxxx product.