MaxQ2351 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1882 times:
Quoting Boeingguy1 (Thread starter): but are the MD-80s really the gas guzzlers some A.NET members point them out to be?
No, they really aren't. When they were brand new, they were leaps & bounds ahead of the competition in "gas mileage".......competition being the 707, 727, and the such.
The MD-90's I'm sure are noticeably more efficient than the MD-80s, but the MD-80's are still not all that bad. With regard to AA's MD-80's.....all of their MD-83's came off the line with the JT8D-219's, and they have since upgraded all of their MD-82's with the JT8D-219's also. More power for the same pounds per hour burn as the -217.
Since AA has over 300 Super 80's, they know they're going to have to hang on to them for a long time. Their youngest bird is....7 years old now I think. Built in 1999 and delivered to TWA. Anyhow, as discussed on previous boards, AA has discussed possibilities for increasing the efficiency of the Super 80 fleet. The easiest modification they are currently fitting the fleet with is the "flat" tail cone (aircraft in foreground):
How that's more efficient?? I don't know!! It just is!! Maybe swing over to Tech/ops to find out why. The other modification idea that has been tossed around is, of course, winglets. But the feasibility of retrofitting over 300 aircraft?? Judge for yourself. Maybe if AA could swing a deal with Boeing to winglet-retrofit some of their Super 80's if they are one of the launch customers for....Y3 I think it is (737-1000???)
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1724 times:
The MD80 family of airplanes are not as fuel effecient as the newer offerings from Boeing and Airbus, but their fuel burn is not excessive and the operating costs of the MD80 remain within an acceptable range. Of course, fuel costs are only one part of an airline's operating costs for any given flight.
But, if fuel costs remain at the very high levels that we are currently seeing, or if they go even higher, the fact that the MD80 is not the most fuel effecient narrow body around becomes a more important issue.
AA has a huge MD80 fleet and DL has a huge MD88 fleet.....it will take years and years for DL and AA to replace these aircraft, not to mention billions and billions of dollars. Most expect both DL and AA to take more 738s in a few years time (once finances permit) and most expect that both airlines will replace the majority of their respective MD80 fleets with the successor to the 737NG or A32X......as both are loyal Boeing customers, it will likely be the Boeing Y1 that is selected.
Parabolica From Spain, joined Mar 2006, 85 posts, RR: 14 Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1675 times:
Good Afternoon Gentlemen
I too have been puzzled by the trashing the MD-8x/9x gets here on a.net. In my former life, I flew AMS - MPX each week, usually on the KLM service using the wide variety of 737's they operate. However, due to booking and availability I was frequently put on an Alitalia MD.
In my opinion, the Douglas product was unbelievably more civilized compared to it's Seattle counterpart. The DC handled the inevitable turbulance over the Alps much better, appeared to climb faster, had a wider and more comfortable interior and most importantly of all, was significantly quieter.
The A318/9/20/21 is visibly from this century compared to both of those old soldiers, but man what a rattle trap. What is that intermittent noise that comes from below just before engine start up? Deploying and stowing flaps, opening the undercarriage doors, and of course engine noise are very high compared to the old DC.
Of course it (the A320) is a vastly more efficient and modern airliner, uncomparable really, but I can't help but think it makes airlines happier than passengers. When I get a chance to sit on a DC-9 and its progeny, I am a happy person, even if it costs me a bit more. Damn sexy looking thing too.
oh please let there never be cell phones in airliners...
Rikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1471 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1623 times:
With the vast amount of MD-8X in the US legacy fleet, would it not be to some advantage to re-engine the aircraft? UPS did this with their fleet of 727-100's, and I am sure a more modern RR Tay engine could be made stage IV noise compliant, let alone other engine choices....
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1582 times:
Quoting Rikkus67 (Reply 7): With the vast amount of MD-8X in the US legacy fleet, would it not be to some advantage to re-engine the aircraft?
Re-engine projects for the MD80 have been talked about with no clear answer. The first issue is whether there is an appropriate engine out there to use for a re-engine project. The second issue is cost; re-engine projects are very expensive as not only new engines are required, usually many of the airplanes systems have to be updated or reworked to accommodate the new powerplants. Most of the MD80s in service are already 15 to 20 years old....its unclear if a big investment into the airframes makes much sense. As you probably know, there have been very few re-engine projects carried out - the DC8 Super 60/70 project was probably the most successful, but it was clear that the DC8S would have a long "second-life" hauling cargo which is why the investment made sense.
As mentioned, the MD80 is not a fuel guzzler but its not as effecient as the A32X or 737NG models....only if fuel prices remain at this very high level or go even higher would a re-engine project even be considered.....and in the long run, my guess is that the airlines would instead find a way to acquire new airplanes instead of investing into the older MD80s.
Rikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1471 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1534 times:
Does anyone know what the Dee Howard conversion cost ended up being for UPS per airframe?
Other successful re-engining programs included the Convair 240-340-440 series from piston to turboprop, also the lackluster powerplant switch from turboprop to jet undertaken by Dornier on the 328 (new builds, not rebuilds...)
Cessna 172; King Air 100; Twin Otter; SAAB 340; Dash 7; Dash 8-100,-200,-300,-400; CRJ-200,700,900; ERJ-170; F-28; DC 9-
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1522 times:
Quoting Rikkus67 (Reply 9): Does anyone know what the Dee Howard conversion cost ended up being for UPS per airframe?
Its a good question, I always wondered if the UPS 721 project made any financial sense in the long run.....or would have UPS been better off acquring new or second hand 733s (for example) for freighter conversion.
MoMan From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1048 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1360 times:
The MD80s get a bad rap unnecessarily; I believe a lot has to do with the lack of IFE that customers complain about.
Considering that AA has put a larger priority on international routes as of late, an aircraft replacement for the Mad dogs seems to be a very low priority. AA's press releases have said that retiring the oldest MD80s was an efficiency move; since they had increased seats and dropped unprofitable routes they no longer need the jets. If there was the demand at the right price, AA would keep the birds flying.
All this fleet replacement, and he-said, she-said is just gossip. I would judge the average AA Captain to have as much knowledge about fleet replacement as the IT worker in AA headquarters. Managment has never acknowledged a fleet replacement is being considered and briefly hinted at a re-engine study.
AA will be flying Mad dogs in 2020 (at least I hope!)
Sulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2029 posts, RR: 35 Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1357 times:
Quoting Parabolica (Reply 6): The A318/9/20/21 is visibly from this century compared to both of those old soldiers, but man what a rattle trap. What is that intermittent noise that comes from below just before engine start up? Deploying and stowing flaps, opening the