Are you just a troll or do you really believe that the DC aircraft were not competitive? Of course Boeing makes a better product but there are still lots of DC jets flying. If it was such a poor aircraft company, then why did Boeing buy them? As I said earlier, I have been a McDonnell Douglas stockholder since 1974. It was the very first stock I bought because I felt it was a company that could do great things. And they did.
I didn't say they didn't make great airplanes, I said they weren't cost competitive. Nobody bought MD90's or 717's, even though they were much better than the MD80's they sold the hell out of. Maybe because they cost too much?
If not for the Bizarro world of military procurement, Boeing would have sold off the Long Beach plant in 1997 and Moved C-17 production to Dallas or Wichita or 20 other lower cost aviation manufacturing centers of excellence.
As it worked out, they got to charge us taxpayers for the priveledge of building C-17 on the beach, and keep a plant open an extra 15 years that should have been turned into condos.
First of all, the C-17 contract is fixed price, not cost plus so there is no incentive to drive up cost.
Second, the Long Beach C-17 payroll is around $400M per year for 15 airplanes and union labor rates are at the most $1 or $2 per hour higher than Seattle or St. Louis, if that. Much of it is built in Macon Georgia. How does that generate "Billions" in savings? Do the math. It would cost a lot more to move the factory.
C-17's cost around $160M to purchase, numbers higher than that include lifetime support.
If you've owned Douglas stock since 74 I'm jealous, you made out like a bandit in the 90's, at least until the merger.