Originally Posted by CODC10
Most of the PFEs (Professional Flight Engineers) at Continental retired after the 727s and DC-10s were removed from service. The age requirement for PFEs was less restrictive than for pilots so many were active above the age of 60, having flown just a handful of aircraft types throughout their careers, meanwhile pilots are forced into retirement. PFE salaries were pretty good toward the end of their careers, and some were making more money than junior first officers on the same aircraft!
The second officers on the DC-10s that were not PFEs probably moved into first officer positions on narrowbodies, or were given Early-Out packages around 9/11 and went for jobs elsewhere. DC-10 F/Os are likely among today's narrowbody Captains, and the DC-10 Captains either are working 767/777 equipment in the same capacity or have since retired.
DC-10 cockpit crews loved the airplane, it had one of the most spacious flight decks of its kind, and the three-man cockpit lent itself to a more convivial environment. Besides that, the airplane was very pilot-friendly, and many pilots I know were sad to see it go.
Quite the opposite was true for cabin crews and scheduling, who had become accustomed to frequent age-related reliability issues through the 1990s. I'm sure much of this was due to the myriad fleet of DC-10s CO operated, coming secondhand from 6-8 individual previous operators and maintenance standards.
I echo the other poster's thanks for this response. I was wondering if you or anyone else had heard before that the DC-10 was a challenging plane to fly? I believe I once read that some pilots felt that flying it was sometimes akin to balancing on a basketball.
As for the 'rotting in the desert' question - I've got no expertise with this, but an educated guess is that the engine combos, flight-deck designs (they're 3 member flight crews?) and so forth, might be considered too economically inefficient for most western carriers. I'd love to read a more authoritative response, though.