Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: news From: weiss@wright.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) Subject: Re: pair (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles X-Original-Message-Id: <8761@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Date: 29 Nov 92 08:04:20 GMT In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >In article 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 - / | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \