FDXLAG

Nope my point was MD-10s are more labor intensive than MD-11s. Not sure what your point was. Judging from your last 3 posts in this thread you seem to be on both sides of the technology creates Jobs issue.

Busboy

My point was that the MD-10 vs DC-10(technological advancement) cost FDX pilot jobs. And probably, in a lesser amount, mechanic jobs. It was in response to the statement that was made about more jobs being created with every technological advancement in aviation.

Obviously, you agree.

MeXC

Just think how low unemployment would be if we had never invented the tractor!

Seasick Sailor

Creating Jobs is not the real issue. The real issue is creating economic wealth for everyone. Jobs that produce wealth should be the objective. I could provide for two jobs by hiring one man to dig holes in my backyard and another to fill those holes. But in that instance there would be no creation of wealth, only it's destruction.

DLax85

....+1

The first bullet cannot be understated --- can you imagine the resources & costs involved in recovering then launching 165 airplanes within 6-7 hrs -- at night, with t-storms and a few runway changes

Busboy

That's why I brought up the DC-10 to MD-10 conversion. The converted airplanes don't carry more freight, don't fly farther, don't fly faster or with less fuel. The technological advance was made almost exclusively at the cost of jobs. And, the economic impact was felt throughout the entire Western Hemisphere. The flt engineers not only lost their flying jobs...They had to give up their hole filling jobs in VCP.

threeighteen

Wasn't talking about pilot jobs, just aviation jobs.

There was no doubt a net gain for the company with the MD10 conversion, but there was also a net gain for labor, despite the loss in flight deck positions. Someone had to design all the stuff that went into the conversion, someone had to market it, someone had to install it, someone has to maintain it, etc etc etc.

The MD10 conversion program created valuable jobs. period.

FDXLAG

And someone had to replace all the 40 year old main landing gear that was not, I repeat not, the cause of any of our landing gear collapsing mishaps.

Busboy

Really? Lets see...

DC-10---3rd pilot every time the aircraft moved for 40+/- years. And, as the DC-10 specific type rating wouldn't allow crews to also fly the MD-11...It required more crews, overall.

MD-10---Temporary design, market, install(mainly with cheaper foreign labor) for a few years during conversion. And, part of the sales job was the reduction in maintenance with the updated cockpit avionics.

Not a long term net gain of valuable jobs. Period!

MaydayMark

Haven't heard anything about new MD-10 landing gear? When did that happen? The last I heard they were VERY EXPENSIVE when they were being manufactured (forged) many years ago. They haven't made them in years and there were none sitting around "just in case" someone needed them?

I'm kind of a landing gear geek. I've attended Boeing (former McDonnell Douglas), ALPA & NTSB meetings about MD10/11 landing gear problems. Are there better inspection programs for high cycle gear? We actually retrieved old out of service gear to test new technology inspection procedures.

The -10 landing gear is different from the -11 landing gear (not just the center gear). There is a company in Burbank that overhauls FedEx landing gear. FedEx unbolts the gear from the wing and ships it to Burbank (tires, wheels brakes and all). The overhaul company entirely disassembles it into 100+ (?) parts, overhauls each of them ... reassembles it all and ships it back to FedEx to bolt the entire assembly back on another airplane wing. It looks like a brand new landing gear when they're done (w/10,000 cycles on it?).

I wonder if that's what you're talking about?

FYI ... the DC-10-30 landing gear and the MD-11 landing gear are the same. FedEx upgraded the MD-10 brakes to the MD-11 tires, wheels, brakes and axels.