Views : 81,729
Genre: Autos & Vehicles
Date of upload: Apr 27, 2024 ^^
Rating : 4.936 (44/2,689 LTDR)
RYD date created : 2024-05-13T00:00:42.612983Z
See in json
Top Comments of this video!! :3
McDonnell and Douglas were so different, that a combination of companies was never going to be successful.
Similar stories exist for the merger of Packard and Studebaker. Geographical dislocation being the most obvious.
The debacle of trying to combine the competing personalities of Austin and Morris preceded the larger disaster of British Leyland.
It should have served as a warning. But 'trying times' it seems, led to worse and worse decisions.
Thankyou. Ruairidh. Your documentaries are on point, well researched, and i thoroughly enjoy the pace and tone of your narration.
73 |
Interesting.
I can imagine some very talented engineers, now retired, who may have spent their whole careers doing excellent work on projects that never delivered anything due to the money guys never having the vision to say "go". The sadder thing is those money guys probably retired with more in the kitty having done nothing useful.
58 |
It's fascinating how Mc Donnel messed things up for decades and then found itself on the board of Boeing that was doing well. It's always fascinating to see how an alumni of poor decision-makers sunk three companies, GE, Boeing, and McDonel, and still continues to get paid. I must be living in an alternate Universe...
Thanks, I learned a lot more than I ever imagined how bad it got there.
37 |
Brit here, I REMEMBER VIVIDLY my wife's reaction to seeing DC10 in big letters on the aircraft tailplane we were due to fly out on, she refused to travel! Told the airline person nearest, that she would not fly on that dreadful aircraft. We turned around cancelled our flight and went home. It had a habit of loosing its cargo doors too!! The beginning of Dollar first greed.
5 |
A D-C-10 twin would have provided the perfect transition for airlines and pilots once ETOPs was introduced, while allowing others to run mixed twin/tri-jet fleets with much crew training being common to both. Instead, as often happens, brilliant engineering work was killed off by executives who were paid too much and understood too little.
15 |
A tragic tale of executive incompetence and mismanagement. It continues today, at Boeing, who imported this cancer via the McD
management merger. It almost compares, in slow motion, to the early 60s Convair/General Dynamics 800/990 airliner program disaster, which resulted in the largest loss by a surviving firm at the time. Innovation always battles bean-counters and stock prices, and frequently, embarrassingly, the golden goose is killed in the name of what's "viable."
21 |
Good summary! I went to work out of college on the MD-11 avionics (flight control systems) in 1986 at launch, and at that time, as a young Aerospace/Software/Systems/Autopilot engineer, I did WONDER HOW a tri-jet could succeed in the new age of ETOPS ! It burned too much fuel, and there was an extra 3rd engine to increase maintenance costs. Yet I assumed the executives were smart (wrong!!!). Man, a twin-engined MD-11, with new wings, would have been profitable. Hindsight, sure. Thinking now how many twin-engine MD-11's we could have seen utilized by UPS/Fedex/DHL, as well as passenger duty all over the place. It could have been a great freighter (like the tri-jet MD-11 is) AND a great passenger plane too. The glass cockpit avionics was a good thing, and adding a HUD at some point would have helped.
4 |
@michaelhoffmann2891
2 weeks ago
Airbus dodged a bullet there! MDD went on to ruin Boeing instead.
340 |