737-Lovers; Care to explain us why 737 focked up?

JOHN JOHNSON · 10-23-2005, 02:10 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9786388/

Another 737 crash.......

Is this the what you call 737 "The world best aircraft" ever exist?

MD-11 ROCKS!!!

****Disclaimer: For those who offend on the behalf of dead passangers. Please note that I am not bashing toward any of the passangers. I do send my sympathy to those of their families and friends that got killed in this tragedy event. This topic is about the 737! Not the souls! Disclaimer****

Jetsetter · 10-23-2005, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JOHN JOHNSON

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9786388/

Another 737 crash.......

Is this the what you call 737 "The world best aircraft" ever exist?

MD-11 ROCKS!!!

Wow, you really like making yourself look like a complete *******. Did you just compare an MD-11 with a 737?

Note this is a 737-200, operated by a seedy African operator. Considering the 737-200 is 4 decades old while the MD-11 is two, of course a 737-200 is going to crash because they're cheap. And when they're cheap, anyone can get one. And when anyone can get one, of course you going to have a **** stick pilot up front.

Heard of pilot error? Accounts for most accidents. But then again, of course you wouldn't know that. Hell, you can't even tell the seat difference between an MD-11 and a 737.

200 MD-11's verse 1144 737-200's. 5 MD-11 hull losses since 1985. 99 737-200 hull losses since 1967.

1100/2, as the 737-200 has been in service twice as long as the MD-11.

550/2.5, because in a span of 20 years there was 2 and a half times more 737-200's produced than MD-11's.

200 MD-11's vs. 220 737's. About equal right? Hell, its even in your favor.

5 MD-11 losses vs. 100 737-200 losses, divided by 2 and then divided by 2.5.

Simple math. Did you learn simple math John, or were you too busy chewing on the lead in your pencils at school?

5 losses for every 200 made and 19.8 737-200 losses for every 220 made. Let us not forget the number of cycles, which must be at least 1 MD-11 landing to 3 737 landings, even more perhaps, the small ****ty African airlines procuring 732's while no one can afford MD-11's, the entire aging of the airframe, which is double that of the MD-11 population.

Frankly Johnny, your argument is bull****. Like I said, 4200 737's made and 200 MD-11's made. In total, 21 737's for every one MD-11. You just cant compete with that, and your a fool if you think you can.

JOHN JOHNSON · 10-23-2005, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetsetter

Wow, you really like making yourself look like a complete *******. Did you just compare an MD-11 with a 737?

Note this is a 737-200, operated by a seedy African operator. Considering the 737-200 is 4 decades old while the MD-11 is two, of course a 737-200 is going to crash because they're cheap. And when they're cheap, anyone can get one. And when anyone can get one, of course you going to have a **** stick pilot up front.

Heard of pilot error? Accounts for most accidents. But then again, of course you wouldn't know that. Hell, you can't even tell the seat difference between an MD-11 and a 737.

200 MD-11's verse 1144 737-200's. 5 MD-11 hull losses since 1985. 99 737-200 hull losses since 1967.

1100/2, as the 737-200 has been in service twice as long as the MD-11.

550/2.5, because in a span of 20 years there was 2 and a half times more 737-200's produced than MD-11's.

200 MD-11's vs. 220 737's. About equal right? Hell, its even in your favor.

5 MD-11 losses vs. 100 737-200 losses, divided by 2 and then divided by 2.5.

Simple math. Did you learn simple math John, or were you too busy chewing on the lead in your pencils at school?

5 losses for every 200 made and 19.8 737-200 losses for every 220 made. Let us not forget the number of cycles, which must be at least 1 MD-11 landing to 3 737 landings, even more perhaps, the small ****ty African airlines procuring 732's while no one can afford MD-11's, the entire aging of the airframe, which is double that of the MD-11 population.

Frankly Johnny, your argument is bull****. Like I said, 4200 737's made and 200 MD-11's made. In total, 21 737's for every one MD-11. You just cant compete with that, and your a fool if you think you can.

MD-11 is relatively new. Let's not jump out of the conclusion regarding to age. Just yet. Hold the age-issues.....

I believe that DC-10/MD-11 have ran so many many many miles than Pee Wee 737. So 10/11 outmileage the 737. Considering the payload of dogschit in the cargo bay and it's landing. I think 10/11 takes much stress than the *****-737.

Chewing my pencil? No. Drooling at beautiful ladies' titties/asses! YES YES YES!!! Sweet dream above my head!!! DOH I should have paid more attention with education... Shessh....

If Boeing is NOT dumb enough to ax the MD-11 and we would allready have seen 100+ additional in the service!

DL want 31 more, LH wan more, Finnair want more, and possible USAF! Oh that damn 9/11..... Sheesh if that is not 9/11 and $3 per juice then we would see no problem .......

727 v.s. 737 and 727 ROCKS!!!! I believe 727 and 737 number produced is similar but no "New Generation" on the 727 like the 737-7/8/9 that Boeing axed 727 by replacing the 757 and I rarely see 727/757 crash unlike the 737!

By the way..... Great debate from you!!! Thank you.

Ease down... Please... I just givin' the 737-lover heck of time!

Santos · 10-23-2005, 09:37 PM

I have heard that half of the pax survived. The acft lost its control after taking-off during a thunderstorm.

Below is a pic of a 737 from the airline that operated that aircraft. Note that I am not sure that the damaged aircraft is the one in the pic.

Santos · 10-23-2005, 09:46 PM

I got a better source and I realized that no one survived!

I made a mistake. Sorry.

Jetsetter · 10-23-2005, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JOHN JOHNSON

MD-11 is relatively new. Let's not jump out of the conclusion regarding to age. Just yet. Hold the age-issues.....

I believe that DC-10/MD-11 have ran so many many many miles than Pee Wee 737. So 10/11 outmileage the 737. Considering the payload of dogschit in the cargo bay and it's landing. I think 10/11 takes much stress than the *****-737.

The MD-11 is a bigger airplane, obviously. Bigger airplanes are put up to more stress. It's clear that when a plane lands or takes off its put through more stress than taking a nice little meander at 39,000 feet. If we follow off your Douglas tradition, do you think that an MD-80 is stronger than a 737? Don't base your assumtions on manufacturer, base them on the aircraft. We all know you hate Boeing after your *****-fest about Boeing shutting down the MD-11 line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JOHN JOHNSON

If Boeing is NOT dumb enough to ax the MD-11 and we would allready have seen 100+ additional in the service!

DL want 31 more, LH wan more, Finnair want more, and possible USAF! Oh that damn 9/11..... Sheesh if that is not 9/11 and $3 per juice then we would see no problem .......

Prove it. If Delta wanted three more, then why didn't they procure some? They're obviously out there. Thai, JAL, Swiss, Delta, and American. Where are their MD-11's? Sold. And if Delta was so desperate, then why did the leave an MD-11 (303DN?) over next to maintainence for over a year after its engine caught on fire. LH are happy with their MD-11 fleet, Finnair wants one more, and Alitalia is bringing a few back. Thats about it on the expansion front, other than FedEx's obsession with the plane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JOHN JOHNSON

727 v.s. 737 and 727 ROCKS!!!! I believe 727 and 737 number produced is similar but no "New Generation" on the 727 like the 737-7/8/9 that Boeing axed 727 by replacing the 757 and I rarely see 727/757 crash unlike the 737!

The 727 is an obsolete design. Three engines compared to two. Why update the 727 when an entirely new design can be 1/3 cheaper to operate? Name one commerical trijet being manufactured today. There isn't one. The entire 3 engine idea is obsolete, and now the age of ETOPS reigns, as demonstrated by the 757, 767, 777, A330 and A340. Hell, even the 737 is ETOPS certified now. You can't compare the two aircraft.

JOHN JOHNSON · 10-24-2005, 02:07 PM

Tri-Jet will return one day......

They will have to replace quad with Tri one day anyhow. Twin engine, itself, have proven it's limitation while quad have proven the more flexibility. One will have to make Tri to replace quad engine when energy conservation become too sarfice, Just like back in 70's. Or to increase the air speed and reduce operation costs. That is the what it should be by time we become an elderly anyway.

Ask yourself will we see 500-600 mph (On long range flights) for the rest of our life? I doubt that.

That's my take......

JOHN JOHNSON · 10-24-2005, 02:19 PM

As why Boeing not produce Delta, Lufthanasa, and other airliners MD-11?

Simple..... Do some research in this forum or Airliner.net and you will find plenty of proof.

Boeing conveniced airliners to go with 767-400 or 777 instead of MD's products after merge was made. Don't you remember that we once read a headline on Business newspaper that such as American or Delta cancel McDonnell Douglas and went for Boeing?

Have you notice? Pay Attention to Lufthanasa's fleet. Ask yourself that question. When was their last time they have received Boeing?

That is because LH is angry at Boeing for canceled their MD-11 request and end up in protest against Boeing by buying more Airbuses!

That idiot Phil Condit ordered some of crews to tear up MD-11's toolings after he found out the secret of buying more of MD-11 from LH and had to force cancel it. Even fired someone responsible with that dealing with LH.

USAF in shopping for a new aircraft..... Boeing finally made their deepest (crybaby) confession that they made a GRAVE mistake for destroying the MD-11 tools as they finally realized that they would have won big deal over 330 and 767 with the USAF as long they have MD-11 tools on hand.

I do not hate Boeing. I hate the way management have done and is doing as they are heading for worst direction. It is going to take a long time and costlier to correct the problems.

Really I do have my confidence that one day Boeing will "comeback" Tri-engine back in the market. When? Time will tell.

(Maybe something "All-New" to replace 747 one day?)

ZX1100F1 · 10-24-2005, 03:06 PM

John,
The new A380 is projected to have a higher cruise speed than the MD-11 by about 5mph, the 747-400 is only about 18mph slower and your new Airbus heavies are all in .85 -.86 (or about 565mph) category.

I know that you like the MD-11 (it is fabulous looking) but it isn't that great of an airliner in terms of its ability to make money, it also has a few high and low speed handling characteristic idiosyncrasies.

Statistically (out of all the western built airliners) the Concorde has the worst safety record and the Boeing 777 has the best with no losses to date, the 737 has a safety record this is over 9 times better than that of the MD-11 which is squarely in second place for most unsafe airliner behind the Concorde, even after these statistics are updated and the 3 recent crashes taken into account the safety ranking of the 737 will not change much.

LOT 737-300 · 10-24-2005, 04:35 PM

For all ya people who think that the 737 is unsafe because it crashes alot and it should be grounded. I say that the government make all them honda and toyota cars that are really popular illegal to drive because they seem to be getting into so many crashes.

Anyways, I wouldn't say that the 737 is unsafe, since this, like most airliners will fly quite well if maintained right. Its usually a matter of maintinance and who is flying it I guess.

ZX1100F1 · 10-24-2005, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOT 737-300

Its usually a matter of maintinance and who is flying it I guess.

Now that's a good question!
Who is flying it?

Jetsetter · 10-24-2005, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JOHN JOHNSON

Tri-Jet will return one day......

They will have to replace quad with Tri one day anyhow. Twin engine, itself, have proven it's limitation while quad have proven the more flexibility. One will have to make Tri to replace quad engine when energy conservation become too sarfice, Just like back in 70's. Or to increase the air speed and reduce operation costs. That is the what it should be by time we become an elderly anyway.

Ask yourself will we see 500-600 mph (On long range flights) for the rest of our life? I doubt that.

That's my take......

The future of air travel is up in the air (no pun intended) right now as no one can truly guess. My personal belief is that aircraft will be propelled out of the atmosphere and take advantage of the extremely high speeds and lack of friction in the orbit of the Earth, but one can't judge now.

The four engine design will, like other designs before it, will become obsolete. The four engines on the A380 and 747, and the six engines on the Antonov 225 are purely for propulsion purposes because they need to carry tons of horse **** or whatever they feel like flying that day.

Two engines are all a plane needs now. Not only are they becoming more powerful (the new GE-90's have 110,000 lbs of thrust!) but engines are also becoming more reliable. Even when an engine does fail a plane can remain airborne for hours (I believe the record is held by a United 777 that flew 253 minutes after a failure). Two engine planes are the future, and apparently Boeing (787) and Airbus (A350) realize that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JOHN JOHNSON

As why Boeing not produce Delta, Lufthanasa, and other airliners MD-11?

Simple..... Do some research in this forum or Airliner.net and you will find plenty of proof.

Boeing conveniced airliners to go with 767-400 or 777 instead of MD's products after merge was made. Don't you remember that we once read a headline on Business newspaper that such as American or Delta cancel McDonnell Douglas and went for Boeing?

Have you notice? Pay Attention to Lufthanasa's fleet. Ask yourself that question. When was their last time they have received Boeing?

That is because LH is angry at Boeing for canceled their MD-11 request and end up in protest against Boeing by buying more Airbuses!

That idiot Phil Condit ordered some of crews to tear up MD-11's toolings after he found out the secret of buying more of MD-11 from LH and had to force cancel it. Even fired someone responsible with that dealing with LH.

USAF in shopping for a new aircraft..... Boeing finally made their deepest (crybaby) confession that they made a GRAVE mistake for destroying the MD-11 tools as they finally realized that they would have won big deal over 330 and 767 with the USAF as long they have MD-11 tools on hand.

I do not hate Boeing. I hate the way management have done and is doing as they are heading for worst direction. It is going to take a long time and costlier to correct the problems.

Really I do have my confidence that one day Boeing will "comeback" Tri-engine back in the market. When? Time will tell.

(Maybe something "All-New" to replace 747 one day?)

At Airliners.net you can find information about almost anything, trust me, I'm a member. But what one has to watch out for is the burning "I Hate ____" posts. You have to be selective in what to believe on there.

And of course Boeing is going to try and convince someone with McDD orders to change to Boeing. Why would Boeing want double the price to provide service and parts for the next 60 years for two aircraft when they can do it for one and make more money doing it? Say you have a lemonade stand, and you go and buy out the competition across the street with a cookie. Are you going to keep paying for the competitions lemonade? Hell no, you merge with them, and keep the **** you want.

American was pissed with McDD because the MD-11 fell waaayyyyy short of range requirements. Like back in ye olde days of aviation, AA went with Boeing because of a superior product.

Lufthansa recently ordered 744F's from Boeing for a new Asian cargo carrier in which they have a (63%?) stake in. Lest us not forget the assembly point of the A320 families. Hamburg. Or Airbuses new machining facility. Bremen.

I'd like to see the press release from Boeing's website admitting that they made a mistake in destroying the MD-11's riggings, which should have no effect on the 767 as the 767's are manufactured in Everitt while the MD-11's were from Long Beach.

And I wasn't aware that the USAF ordered A330 tankers.

Boeing are selling planes aren't they? They seem to be doing just fine to me.

The day's of the trijets are gone. Now down to dwindling 727's, the almost extinct race of L-1011's, and the cargo running DC-10's and MD-11's.

ZX1100F1 · 10-24-2005, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetsetter

The four engines on the A380 and 747, and the six engines on the Antonov 225 are purely for propulsion purposes

Schit! That explains everything so clearly now, here all this time I was wondering what the hell all those noisy round things were doing hanging in the breeze.

Don't be so quick to assure us of the demise of the 4-engine jumbo jetliner there Einstein.
There is only one benefit to a twin jet over a 4 engine jet and that is of economics (2 engines are cheaper to buy and maintain than 4), there are so many benefits to having 4 engines that many modern designed aircraft will utilize this engine configuration for eons to come.
Economics is the same reason that we won’t see orbital transporters put into regular service any time in the near future.

Jetsetter · 10-24-2005, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZX1100F1

Don't be so quick to assure us of the demise of the 4-engine jumbo jetliner there Einstein.
There is only one benefit to a twin jet over a 4 engine jet and that is of economics (2 engines are cheaper to buy and maintain than 4), there are so many benefits to having 4 engines that many modern designed aircraft will utilize this engine configuration for eons to come.
Economics is the same reason that we won’t see orbital transporters put into regular service any time in the near future.

In this day and age economics rule the airline industry, and unless your an airline that belongs to an oil rich country who pisses money through their nose, a 777-200F is going to be a more desirable asset than a plane that burns more gas.

I may have not worded it as beautifully as I do some of my other phrases, and I do realize that four engine aircraft are going to be flying around the skies way after you or I die. But these aircraft are being superceded by a new generation of twin-jets.

JOHN JOHNSON · 10-24-2005, 10:39 PM

I refrain such as booing the 737 as long no one booing the DC-9 to MD-11.

Jetsetter, Looks like you have quite aviation knowledges! Come on by and contribute some of threads/posts! That would be awesome to watch ZX1100F1 and you turn up the heat!

Hey, LOT, You made an interesting point......

Disclaimer: Hey folks do not boo the 737 or Jetsetter will be all over you! Watch out! Disclaimer

Spectre · 10-25-2005, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JOHN JOHNSON

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9786388/

Another 737 crash.......

Is this the what you call 737 "The world best aircraft" ever exist?

MD-11 ROCKS!!!

****Disclaimer: For those who offend on the behalf of dead passangers. Please note that I am not bashing toward any of the passangers. I do send my sympathy to those of their families and friends that got killed in this tragedy event. This topic is about the 737! Not the souls! Disclaimer****

why does your horrible designed MD-11 keep landing upside down?

Hapag-Lloyd · 10-25-2005, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JOHN JOHNSON

Have you notice? Pay Attention to Lufthanasa's fleet. Ask yourself that question. When was their last time they have received Boeing?

That is because LH is angry at Boeing for canceled their MD-11 request and end up in protest against Boeing by buying more Airbuses!

Not Lufthansa, but Lufthansa Cargo. There´s a difference. Lufthansa NEVER flew MD-11, their only McDonnell-Douglas plane was the DC-10.

As for Lufthansa buying Airbus jets, first off, what Dave said: they´re (at least partially) made in Germany, plus Lufthansa engineers worked together with Airbus from the very first stages of design on the A340. For various reasons, Lufthansa wanted/needed a four-engined widebody, which Boeing couldn´t/can´t provide.

As far as fleet commonality goes, buying Boeing planes at this stage would be flushing money down the john for Lufthansa. They have a battallion of pilots trained on Airbus jets, who could possibly fly their A330s, A340s, and A380s. Buying Boeing would mean that entirely new crews, training and all, would be needed to man these planes.

Plus, John, have you ever thought of the fact that most airlines, including Lufthansa, are very happy with Airbus jets?

JOHN JOHNSON · 10-25-2005, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spectre

why does your horrible designed MD-11 keep landing upside down?

Hey, That's because it is Halloween month and MD-11 should form intimidations! I guess that 737 may want to follow our example.

Hapag-Lloyd · 10-25-2005, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetsetter

In this day and age economics rule the airline industry, and unless your an airline that belongs to an oil rich country who pisses money through their nose, a 777-200F is going to be a more desirable asset than a plane that burns more gas.

Hang on there, Jetsetter. We´re talking cargo planes. These planes usually burn less fuel than passenger jets because they usually travel at less speed. Plus, putting new engines on an old design (still way cheaper than a cargo 777) has been done before, like on 707s, DC-8 streches, and even 727s.

So, why buy a new 777 when you can go cheaper in overall costs with a used 747, a revamped A300 or A310, or even a used 767? Depreciation / lease costs will be a lot higher on the 777 than the fuel it´ll burn less (should that assumption be true).

JOHN JOHNSON · 10-25-2005, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hapag-Lloyd

Not Lufthansa, but Lufthansa Cargo. There´s a difference. Lufthansa NEVER flew MD-11, their only McDonnell-Douglas plane was the DC-10.

As for Lufthansa buying Airbus jets, first off, what Dave said: they´re (at least partially) made in Germany, plus Lufthansa engineers worked together with Airbus from the very first stages of design on the A340. For various reasons, Lufthansa wanted/needed a four-engined widebody, which Boeing couldn´t/can´t provide.

As far as fleet commonality goes, buying Boeing planes at this stage would be flushing money down the john for Lufthansa. They have a battallion of pilots trained on Airbus jets, who could possibly fly their A330s, A340s, and A380s. Buying Boeing would mean that entirely new crews, training and all, would be needed to man these planes.

Plus, John, have you ever thought of the fact that most airlines, including Lufthansa, are very happy with Airbus jets?

I always take that Lufthanasa and cargo are under one same company. I am full aware and know that Lufthanasa never fly Passanger MD-11 but Cargo.

Very interesting comment regarding to German military flying Airbus as majority.

Do Lufthansa prefer to hire any pilots that was freshed out from military (plane) than one who never have flew or have small amount of flight time at their o

10-23-2005, 02:10 PM	#1
JOHN JOHNSON Mysterious Collector Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 4,196	737-Lovers; Care to explain us why 737 focked up? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9786388/ Another 737 crash....... Is this the what you call 737 "The world best aircraft" ever exist? MD-11 ROCKS!!! **Disclaimer: For those who offend on the behalf of dead passangers. Please note that I am not bashing toward any of the passangers. I do send my sympathy to those of their families and friends that got killed in this tragedy event. This topic is about the 737! Not the souls! Disclaimer** __________________ Who should I consider? Dumbocrat Clinton or Ruptublican Johnny Mc Cain? Jimmy Mc Donald Help me! Last edited by JOHN JOHNSON; 10-23-2005 at 02:12 PM.

10-23-2005, 09:37 PM	#4
Santos South American collector Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Brazil Age: 36 Posts: 2,671	I have heard that half of the pax survived. The acft lost its control after taking-off during a thunderstorm. Below is a pic of a 737 from the airline that operated that aircraft. Note that I am not sure that the damaged aircraft is the one in the pic. __________________ Wish list in 1:400 scale: 1) BETA DC-8-70F (dedicated to Celso please) 2) PANAIR DO BRASIL DC-8 reg.# PP-PDS 3) VARIGLOG MD-11F & B727-100 / 200F 4) VARIG Caravelle 5) TRANSBRASIL 727-100 6) RIO-SUL 737-500 old colors Thank you Aeroclassics for the VARIG Coronados! Last edited by Santos; 10-23-2005 at 09:39 PM.

10-23-2005, 09:46 PM	#5
Santos South American collector Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Brazil Age: 36 Posts: 2,671	Update I got a better source and I realized that no one survived! I made a mistake. Sorry. __________________ Wish list in 1:400 scale: 1) BETA DC-8-70F (dedicated to Celso please) 2) PANAIR DO BRASIL DC-8 reg.# PP-PDS 3) VARIGLOG MD-11F & B727-100 / 200F 4) VARIG Caravelle 5) TRANSBRASIL 727-100 6) RIO-SUL 737-500 old colors Thank you Aeroclassics for the VARIG Coronados!

10-24-2005, 02:07 PM	#7
JOHN JOHNSON Mysterious Collector Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 4,196	The "Wizard of Oz" Crystal Ball told me that..... Tri-Jet will return one day...... They will have to replace quad with Tri one day anyhow. Twin engine, itself, have proven it's limitation while quad have proven the more flexibility. One will have to make Tri to replace quad engine when energy conservation become too sarfice, Just like back in 70's. Or to increase the air speed and reduce operation costs. That is the what it should be by time we become an elderly anyway. Ask yourself will we see 500-600 mph (On long range flights) for the rest of our life? I doubt that. That's my take...... __________________ Who should I consider? Dumbocrat Clinton or Ruptublican Johnny Mc Cain? Jimmy Mc Donald Help me!

10-24-2005, 02:19 PM	#8
JOHN JOHNSON Mysterious Collector Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 4,196	To answer your questions! As why Boeing not produce Delta, Lufthanasa, and other airliners MD-11? Simple..... Do some research in this forum or Airliner.net and you will find plenty of proof. Boeing conveniced airliners to go with 767-400 or 777 instead of MD's products after merge was made. Don't you remember that we once read a headline on Business newspaper that such as American or Delta cancel McDonnell Douglas and went for Boeing? Have you notice? Pay Attention to Lufthanasa's fleet. Ask yourself that question. When was their last time they have received Boeing? That is because LH is angry at Boeing for canceled their MD-11 request and end up in protest against Boeing by buying more Airbuses! That idiot Phil Condit ordered some of crews to tear up MD-11's toolings after he found out the secret of buying more of MD-11 from LH and had to force cancel it. Even fired someone responsible with that dealing with LH. USAF in shopping for a new aircraft..... Boeing finally made their deepest (crybaby) confession that they made a GRAVE mistake for destroying the MD-11 tools as they finally realized that they would have won big deal over 330 and 767 with the USAF as long they have MD-11 tools on hand. I do not hate Boeing. I hate the way management have done and is doing as they are heading for worst direction. It is going to take a long time and costlier to correct the problems. Really I do have my confidence that one day Boeing will "comeback" Tri-engine back in the market. When? Time will tell. (Maybe something "All-New" to replace 747 one day?) __________________ Who should I consider? Dumbocrat Clinton or Ruptublican Johnny Mc Cain? Jimmy Mc Donald Help me!

10-24-2005, 03:06 PM	#9
ZX1100F1 Buford T. Justice Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Lat:40.33.269 Lon:-111.55.806 Posts: 2,004	John, The new A380 is projected to have a higher cruise speed than the MD-11 by about 5mph, the 747-400 is only about 18mph slower and your new Airbus heavies are all in .85 -.86 (or about 565mph) category. I know that you like the MD-11 (it is fabulous looking) but it isn't that great of an airliner in terms of its ability to make money, it also has a few high and low speed handling characteristic idiosyncrasies. Statistically (out of all the western built airliners) the Concorde has the worst safety record and the Boeing 777 has the best with no losses to date, the 737 has a safety record this is over 9 times better than that of the MD-11 which is squarely in second place for most unsafe airliner behind the Concorde, even after these statistics are updated and the 3 recent crashes taken into account the safety ranking of the 737 will not change much.

10-24-2005, 04:35 PM	#10
LOT 737-300 ЛЭТ Су-37 Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Somewhere near MCO. Age: 20 Posts: 1,157	For all ya people who think that the 737 is unsafe because it crashes alot and it should be grounded. I say that the government make all them honda and toyota cars that are really popular illegal to drive because they seem to be getting into so many crashes. Anyways, I wouldn't say that the 737 is unsafe, since this, like most airliners will fly quite well if maintained right. Its usually a matter of maintinance and who is flying it I guess. __________________ My airport: Nowa Warszawa Int'l NWL http://www.freewebs.com/nwlairport PM me if you want Fantasy Flights. If you are interested in Joining BSA, please drop by our forum and make a post. http://s14.invisionfree.com/Bluesphe...ex.php?act=idx

10-24-2005, 10:39 PM	#15
JOHN JOHNSON Mysterious Collector Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 4,196	Y'all win! I refrain such as booing the 737 as long no one booing the DC-9 to MD-11. Jetsetter, Looks like you have quite aviation knowledges! Come on by and contribute some of threads/posts! That would be awesome to watch ZX1100F1 and you turn up the heat! Hey, LOT, You made an interesting point...... Disclaimer: Hey folks do not boo the 737 or Jetsetter will be all over you! Watch out! Disclaimer __________________ Who should I consider? Dumbocrat Clinton or Ruptublican Johnny Mc Cain? Jimmy Mc Donald Help me! Last edited by JOHN JOHNSON; 10-24-2005 at 10:42 PM.