Tweet
Originally posted by TeeVee
View Post
-
I'd love to know where you found that. The 717 didn't even cost that much in this century. 25M in 1979 was the equivalent of about 80M today. It seems plausible that an old analogue widebody might be had in 1979 for 80M at the heavily discounted price large airlines actually pay. -
Originally posted by Evan View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-9.
and while the accuracy is questionable, i couldn't find anything closer.
but assuming 25m is correct, given inflation, that would mean you could by a new 300+ jet today for 80m. again, not a snowball's chance in hell.
bottom line is that despite all the "quotes" and rumors, i'm still not convinced that aa was paid replacement cost by its insurer.Comment
-
AFAIK the KC-10 contract price was 88.4M in 1998, which is about 40M in 1979 dollars. Given the premium the goverment pays for R&D and the blank check nature of defense procurements, plus the bargaining power large airlines have over the rack prices, I think it is conceivable. These were bellcrank and steamguage machines with less computing power than your average iphone. I'm pretty sure the far more advanced MD-11 sold for around 100M in 1990.Originally posted by TeeVee View PostComment
-
Things to consider:Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
- The DC-10, L1011 and the A300 competing in a tight market.
- The 70's was a buyers market for big jets
- The 70's recession put downward pressure on pricing.
The DC-10 was in fierce competition with the L1011. Lockheed was also involved in an internal fight to get their production costs down to preserve the L1011 program. The average production cost for an L1011 between 1972 and 1979 was $14M. The average revenue generated from an L1011 sale was $16M. So you extrapolate an average delivery price of $30M. The L1011 was a premium piece of sophistication compared to the DC-10. AMerican had huge negotiating power, certainly in the 20% discount range. When you consider all this it seems entirely plausible that a AMerican would be paying $25M for a DC-10 in 1979.Comment
-
From the same Boston Globe article:
Jul 24, 1979
Page: 27
"A consortium of underwriters quickly paid American Airlines more than $38 million in cash to cover the loss of the aircraft. That represents a healthy book profit for American: The book value of the plane, after depreciation, was only a little more than $10 million."Comment
-
Remember, the 747 initial price was $25million, in 1969! Now it's $330 million today. Oh how the mighty dollar has fallen.Originally posted by TeeVee View PostComment
-
Interesting. The average wage in the US in 1969 was $7000. In 2011 it was 42000. ( 7x). According to your figures the 747 increased at almost twice that rate. i'm not sure how this correlates to boeing worker wages. It would be interesting to see the profitability of the plane through time.Originally posted by phoneman View PostPreferring not to be the subject of a threadComment
-
A bit late, but I've been traveling a while: There was talk earlier about the lack of gpws alerts (only Sink Rate, not Terrain etc). Isn't GPWS deactivated / altered with Gear Down? (Sorry if I missed an earlier post identifying this)Preferring not to be the subject of a threadComment
-
Yes, but the 2013 747 is a very different aircraft than the 1969 one.Originally posted by ZedFear View Post
It can take more passengers and/or freight, farther, with fewer crew and less fuel.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
-
AFAIK, the gear doesn't modify the logic of the GPWS except for the "TOO LOW - GEAR!" warning.Originally posted by ZedFear View Post
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
-
Not altogether a true statement, as an old 200 driver, you are going to have at least 3 crew members on a trip scheduled over 8 hours anyway! More freight, more pax, less fuel, then yes. But the amount of times a 400 or -8 are dispatched with only a crew of 2 is less than 2% of the time.Originally posted by Gabriel View PostComment
-
Also the later versions of the 747 used specially developed aluminum alloys for the wing which more expensive but with improved crack/fatigue resistance over alloys previously used. I can't recall the designations of these alloys.Originally posted by Gabriel View PostComment
-
I know. But wouldn't a 747-100 or -200 be dispatched with 4 crew in the same situation where a -400 or -8 would be dispatched with 3? (And with 6 where the -400 or -8 would need 4?)Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
I mean: How many crewmembers would a 747-100 or -200 would need for a 8+ hours flight where a -400 or -8 would need 3?
Is each of the 3 required crewmembers in a -100 or -200 allowed to go to the crew rest area for a few hours in turns, leaving the cockpit with 2 of the 3 required crewmwmbers (only 1 of whom is a pilot)?
Maybe they are. I had never thought of this.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
-
The ATC audio has been released by the FAA:
Trump is an idiot!
Vote Democrats!!Comment
-
TOWER: UPS Airbus crashed approximately two mile final.Originally posted by Chris Kilroy View Post
UNKNOWN: Uh... do want us to hold our standby positions?
TOWER: ...the aircraft isn't coming to the airport...
UNKNOWN: You mean it already crashed?
TOWER INTERNAL MONOLOGUE: No, I just came back from the future in my time machine to warn you about that
TOWER: uh..firmative
Aside from that bit of comedy, not much here.Comment
Comment