Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A320 Vs. MD-80  
User currently offlineFutureB6Capt From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 108 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7307 times:

This isn't a slam towards B6 at all (hence my username)-but why do you think they decided to go with the A320 instead of MD-80 series. Md-83's have similar range, weight, passenger capacity, and are a lot cheaper than A320's were. I realise the fuel costs are a little greater, and A320's are a little wider, but enough to make a difference?

-FutureB6Capt

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePhatfarmlines From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1358 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7293 times:

The MD-80 does not fit into the B6 strategy. Remember, B6 is looking for new equipment that is currently in production.

User currently offlineGoboeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2698 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7293 times:

I'm not an expert on either aircraft, but an MD-80 cannot go from JFK to LGB or wherever else on the west coast they fly to from there and IAD. I'm sure that is just one of many reasons that the newer A-320 series was selected.

Nick


User currently offlineLegendDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7268 times:

Some MD's do have the range (Alaska's long range MD's that flew to Russia) but overall it is an old and outdated design, small bins, small lavs, difficult to upgrade to the personal TV screens and nothing at all like what B6 wanted to get into. Plus, you can't beat Airbus lease rates...

User currently offlineDeltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1650 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7267 times:

To add to what Goboeing and Phatfarmlines said, indeed the MD-80 has been out of production for awhile and definetly does not have the range to do transcons. The plane was designed to do short hops and compete with the 737 classics.

User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4469 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7196 times:


The plane was designed to do short hops and compete with the 737 classics.

Would that be the 737-300/400/500 or the 737-100/200? I keep forgetting what Boeing is calling the "classic" 737!  Nuts


User currently offlineBWIA330 From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 919 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7175 times:

I guess I should be asking the question of why Jetsgo choose the MD-83's infront of the A320's? I always thought that the 320's would be cheapter to run than than a Md-80

Regards

BWIA330


User currently offlineLegendDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7153 times:

They are somewhat cheaper to operate because:
A) They are Old and larger airlines want to get rid of them and have someone take over the leases.
B) With the hugh DC9 MD80 family slowly being retired, there are many certified pilots available to hire.
But they are not passenger friendly at all, but when you have LCC's trying to cut any cost to keep their structure cheap, what do they care about passenger comforts?


User currently offlineBlsbls99 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 21 hours ago) and read 6972 times:

I've flown on many MD-80 flights, and I have to say it was comfortable as a passenger. Then there's the added bonus that there is only one chance in five that you get a middle seat.


319 320 313 722 732 733 735 73G 738 739 742 752 763 772 CRJ D9S ERJ EMB L10 M88 M90 SF3 AT4
User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26484 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 20 hours ago) and read 6961 times:

>This isn't a slam towards B6 at all (hence my username)-but why do you think they decided to go with the A320 instead of MD-80 series. Md-83's have similar range, weight, passenger capacity, and are a lot cheaper than A320's were. I realise the fuel costs are a little greater, and A320's are a little wider, but enough to make a difference?<

As has been stated, the A320 was available new, and B6 did not want a single used plane.
Also, the range is not similar at all. The A320 can do trans-cons, the MD-83 can make it about 2000 miles before crapping out.
The MD-83, however, is actually lighter than the A320 and 737 and uses less fuel, that is one of the reasons it was attractive to airlines. Also, they carry less cargo, and that is an issue for some carriers.

>Some MD's do have the range (Alaska's long range MD's that flew to Russia)<

ANC-GDX (Magadan, Russia), which was the first leg on their Russian Far East flights, is only 1698 nm, which is in the range of the MD-83 and not close to the length of US trans-cons

>but overall it is an old and outdated design<

Not really, considering you they can easily be had with glass cockpits and newer software. Hell, the MD-90 has versions of A320 engines on them.


> small bins, small lavs, <

Considering the 717, which is related to the MD-80, can take Boeing's Big Bins, so can the MD-80 be readily converted. As far as lavs go, all airplane lavs are small

>difficult to upgrade to the personal TV screens<

No, they should be as easy as anything to upgrade, it is just a matter of the airlines that fly them not doing it. If B6 can put screens in the E190, they can put them on the MD-83.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineTavong From Colombia, joined Jul 2001, 836 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months ago) and read 6627 times:

Well in fact the main problem has stated bofre is that B6 want's NEW equipment, otherwise the MD-80 derivatives (mopdernized) would be a good choice, the fact is that at this time MD-80s altougth still great planes can't face with the level of planes that the A32X/737NG derivatives in range, and passenger confort (it's by far more economic to add confort to and A32X-737NG than in an MD-80) , maybe of the MD-90 where still arroud it would be a good choice if it could be developed has a family like MD-80 was but it's an IF, the cheap leasing fares of the MD-80s makes them some kind of atractive proposal for starting airlines but not if yo're speaking about the B6 model.


Gus
SKBO



Colombian coffee, the best...take a cup and you will see how delicious it is.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17038 posts, RR: 66
Reply 11, posted (9 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6483 times:

The plane was designed to do short hops and compete with the 737 classics.

Would that be the 737-300/400/500 or the 737-100/200? I keep forgetting what Boeing is calling the "classic" 737!


737-100/200 = "Original"
737-300/400/500 = "Classic"
737-600/700/800/900 = "Next Generation"



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A320 A Good MD-80 Replacement? posted Mon Apr 10 2006 07:14:36 by BigJimFX
Production Numbers- B73 "classics" Vs. MD 80/90? posted Thu Jun 30 2005 16:55:42 by Brucek
Super 80 Vs MD-80 posted Sun Oct 6 2002 16:34:57 by Micstatic
DC-9 And (vs.) MD-80 posted Tue Sep 12 2000 17:28:23 by Iwantanl1011
MD-80 2-3 Vs 3-2 Seating posted Sun Apr 25 2004 05:22:10 by SafetyDude
MD 80 VS B737 posted Sat Dec 20 2003 13:01:19 by AZMD80
MD-90 Vs Super-80 posted Sun Oct 19 2003 22:06:13 by BCAInfoSys
Md 80 Vs The Ilyushin Il-62? posted Mon Jul 9 2001 08:30:36 by 174thFWff
MD 80 Series VS 737-100/200/300/400/500 posted Sat Dec 30 2000 22:14:18 by TWA
How Cramped Are MD-80,717 727,737,757,A320,dc-9 posted Sat Feb 26 2000 05:51:31 by VirginA340