Rewriting History

So yes, if a DC-3 were to be repainted now, its label would read Boeing DC3

There are very few, if any, Daks that carried a Douglas DC3 label. Are you suggesting that if we were to repaint one of ours we now need to add ‘Boeing DC3’ to the side?

Just curious.

Tom.

Exactly the reason why this webpage doesn’t look right.
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/f4photos.htm

page looks fine.

Whats wrong with it? 😉

Exactly the reason why this webpage doesn’t look right.
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/f4photos.htm

Why ? Any new spare part already reads : Boeing F-4F Phantom II.

Ah… that would be nothing less than sacrilege, Moondance.

Lovely pics…. :D:D:D

Painted on the side of this…………

but how in the name of sanity can the Boeing brand be placed on aircraft that were built by another manufacturer in the past?

This keep you happy Grey?

Why haven’t all the world’s Jaguars been rebadged as Fords, in that case?

because Jaguars are really great cars…(biased opinion as they’re my fave)

In all honesty, I’ve never really noticed it as I have’nt found it a big deal but now I am probably going to see if a MD plane says Boeing on it!!!

I rest my case…… 😉

It looks like an attempt to airbrush two major players out of the history of aviation and I wonder what next? ….Boeing Phantom IIs?

Exactly the reason why this webpage doesn’t look right.
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/f4photos.htm

I think you’re all missing something here. Boeing has every right to expunge the MDC name from the designs they’ve inherited. However, the two aeroplanes in question are NOT Boeing owned, so Boeing have NO rights to insist how they are painted. But (big but!) the McDonnell Douglas name is now a trademark of the Boeing Corporation, and as such Boeing do have rights to dictate how that trademark is used – note, I’m talking trademark and NOT copyright as inferred by Sandy.

Now the conjecture, because NONE of us really know why those two airplanes have Boeing on them. However, possibilities that come to mind are:

1. Given that Boeing can now dictate how the McDonnell Douglas trademark is used, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Boeing are nolonger allowing the MDC trademark to be painted on aeroplanes

2. Boeing is a far better known name than MDC. As it is now valid to regard the MD-82 and MD-90 as “Boeings” the airlines concerned may have decided to paint the Boeing name on their aircraft rather than MDC as a reassurance to lay-passengers

As to whether DC-3s will now start to appear with Boeing on them… In the worse case (1) above, any owner unhappy with having to paint the name Boeing on their [M]DC aircraft could just omit the designation totally – again, Boeing have no rights to dictate that the aircraft type has to be painted on the aircraft.

Andy

more or less what I meant. Just worded better.

I think you’re all missing something here. Boeing has every right to expunge the MDC name from the designs they’ve inherited. However, the two aeroplanes in question are NOT Boeing owned, so Boeing have NO rights to insist how they are painted. But (big but!) the McDonnell Douglas name is now a trademark of the Boeing Corporation, and as such Boeing do have rights to dictate how that trademark is used – note, I’m talking trademark and NOT copyright as inferred by Sandy.

Now the conjecture, because NONE of us really know why those two airplanes have Boeing on them. However, possibilities that come to mind are:

1. Given that Boeing can now dictate how the McDonnell Douglas trademark is used, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Boeing are nolonger allowing the MDC trademark to be painted on aeroplanes

2. Boeing is a far better known name than MDC. As it is now valid to regard the MD-82 and MD-90 as “Boeings” the airlines concerned may have decided to paint the Boeing name on their aircraft rather than MDC as a reassurance to lay-passengers

As to whether DC-3s will now start to appear with Boeing on them… In the worse case (1) above, any owner unhappy with having to paint the name Boeing on their [M]DC aircraft could just omit the designation totally – again, Boeing have no rights to dictate that the aircraft type has to be painted on the aircraft.

Andy

But if one these new-fangled “Boeing” aircraft crashed, I’m pretty sure we’ll find that it will be an McDonnel Douglas MD80/MD90/MD11 that’ll be reported in the media. If so, I trust that someone will be writing to the media to correct them 😉

That won’t be necessary. At first the media will no doubt report it as a MD-319 (since the media always ****s up). But at some time Boeing will have to make a statement saying what happened and why it is not their fault.

Same as when Concorde crashed. Airbus made the statements and revoked the CoA. Not BAe/Aerospatiale.

Copyright good chap, Copyright.

Boeing own the MD name, image… the whole kit and caboodle. They can do what they want with it.

But if one these new-fangled “Boeing” aircraft crashed, I’m pretty sure we’ll find that it will be an McDonnel Douglas MD80/MD90/MD11 that’ll be reported in the media. If so, I trust that someone will be writing to the media to correct them 😉

The reason for Boeing rebranding MD aircraft is fairly simple. At the time that Boeing took over MD they took on the responsibilites associated with the MD fleet already flying. That is to say that if there were to be an Airworthiness Directive issued regarding a certain type (as an example situation) the aircraft are the responsibility solely of Boeing. As such the authorities recognise the MD-80/90s and all other MD aircraft as Boeings. So therefore since Boeing has to assume responsibility for the aircraft then it is likely that they would want to assume some recognition for the fleet they have under their ‘care’.

Also, if we must be really honest, it was MD that designed the aircraft, but Boeing were the final company to produce both the MD-90 and MD-80 ranges, production didn’t stop until after Boeing had taken over MD.

Sandy…

People are allowed to disagree with you – stop taking things so personally. It’s an old saying but a valid one nevertheless – if you can’t take it, then don’t dish it out. :rolleyes:

I’m not saying that Boeing are doing anything illegal – clearly they are not.

But it doesn’t seem right, that’s all.

Boeing are claiming the work of others as their own.

It may or may not be legal, but you’ll never convince me that it’s right.

And I can imagine the things that Sandy would be saying if Airbus tried to “claim” the VC10, BAC 1-11, Trident, Jetstreams, ATP and BAe 146 in the same way. :diablo:

I am slowly starting to get peeved at this constant jabbing and attempt to discredit anything I say.
😡

This is not about you disagreeing or such. ITs about the constant jabs at me, accusing me of acting differently if it were airbus.

Grey,

Understand where you are coming from, but it happens all the time. I work in IT and HP took over Compaq, hence servers were renamed to HP Prolient and so on. Same kit but under new ownership. Annoying thing was I had to re-certify even thought the internals were the same.

Rgds

Andy

So any MD plane that gets a new coat of paint from now on, if its to have a model label on it, it must be a “Boeing MD/DC” label. Omitting the Boeing is copyright infringement in the eys of the law today.

Since when is this the case? Cause the MDD takeover was a few years back. Since then every MD plane will have had at least one heavy check with a complete repaint. And with it the new name should have been added as well.

This has not happened though with any but a few planes. Martinair’s MD-11s still carry the MDD name. Even those that where recently repainted in the new livery.

Boeing are claiming the work of others as their own.

It may or may not be legal, but you’ll never convince me that it’s right.

And I can imagine the things that Sandy would be saying if Airbus tried to “claim” the VC10, BAC 1-11, Trident, Jetstreams, ATP and BAe 146 in the same way. :diablo:

EK, you said it exactly like it is. 🙂