>>1513664>but it's more difficult and less comprehensive to have an airlines only using DC-8/9/10 as opposed to Boeing and later Airbus lineups.i dont think thats really a fair comparison, since those are different air-frames. IIRC there were a few airlines that used exclusively DC-9 variants for a while.
>however the reason they have "lack of foresight" was because they financially couldn't afford any longer term planning or investment,i dont think thats true at all. the DC-10 and DC-9/MD-80 line did very well, and brought the company plenty of cash at the time. you could argue that these aircraft's success were due in part to good timing, as the DC-10 became the alternative to the 747 and the DC-9 family becoming the alternative to the 727 and 737.
>These problem lingered from the two companies before they even merge, but the merger between the two weaker entities just amplified their weakness in this aspect.not necessarily true, since after a while the company was pretty much a different entity than its parts. the company was strong and more successful as one, and only fell apart due to circumstances mostly beyond their control. (end of the cold war gimping military sales right as they were finishing their new lineup). at the end of the day McD was stronger than both of its components, and if they remained separate they either would have died quickly on their own or died with the end of the cold war, just as McD did.
