Beaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 26 Posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3150 times:
In the case of airlines like SAS or Alitalia who still operate a fleet of MD's ,is it financially better to keep them flying ,considering they are written off and have no direct finance-costs other than insurance and maintenance?
While the use of modern and fuel-ecomomic aircraft like Embraer's or new generation 737's /A320's seem logic ,the purchase of them presents a financial burden.
So how do airlines calculate the break point from where it is not any longer justified to run old aircraft,even if they are written off ?
CHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 63 Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3102 times:
I think you mean "written down" - "written off" means something totally different!
In answer to your question, in many cases yes.
Remember the MDs are simple and easy to maintain, built like tanks, and incredibly reliable. The crews like them, and they are popular with passengers too. Fuel economy isnt the only factor in how economical an aircraft type is, as you know. Its the main one, but it isnt the be all and end all.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, RR: 30 Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3008 times:
The stopper will come when noise regulations will require to re-engine the MD-80s in order to meet Chapter 4 standards. Until this happens, I think SAS will continue to use the MD80s. SAS is known to fly airplanes very long, and since there won't be a buyer for those planes who would pay a good price anyway, I see no reason not to fly them for years to come.
IADCA From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2007, 972 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2751 times:
Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter): While the use of modern and fuel-ecomomic aircraft like Embraer's or new generation 737's /A320's seem logic ,the purchase of them presents a financial burden.
So how do airlines calculate the break point from where it is not any longer justified to run old aircraft,even if they are written off ?
The classic case of this is NW with DC-9s. The death knell right now seems to be fuel costs, not airframe fatigue, MX checks, or noise restrictions. So, the answer is that, yes, it's often easier to keep old frames. But, it's pretty simple. Take two quantities:
Q1: fuel + MX + insurance, etc on old aircraft
Q2: fuel + MX + insurance, etc on old aircraft plus acquisition cost, crew retraining, whatever other incidental expenses are incurred in the switch.
Whichever one is lower is the one that gets chosen. But note there's also a degree of guesswork, in that the difference in costs a few years down the line (and expected future alternatives for DC9/MD replacement) also figures in. That is, if the airlines think they'll save more flying MDs for 8 more years and then getting a vastly superior replacement to 320s or 737s, they'll do that. It's not as simple as most people would have you believe, and there are many other factors as well (public perceptions of new planes, old planes, etc).
EBGARN From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 216 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2689 times:
Quoting IADCA (Reply 3): Q1: fuel + MX + insurance, etc on old aircraft
Q2: fuel + MX + insurance, etc on old aircraft plus acquisition cost, crew retraining, whatever other incidental expenses are incurred in the switch.
SAS recently stated that "Q1" is the most financially viable option as long as the oil price stays below $200, compared with the alternative options available today. They plan on replacing them with the next generation 737/A320, and by that time I guess they could replace their 736 fleet as well. This opens up an opportunity for a fleet commonality never seen before in SAS
LAXintl From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 22062 posts, RR: 51 Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2566 times:
Check out this recent post. Per SAS its indeed cheaper to keep operating the MD-80s even with a run up of fuel versus investing in new planes for the immediate future FG:SAS's MD80 Economical EvenIf Fuel Price Doubles (by Jdevora Mar 4 2008 in Civil Aviation)
Here in the US the classic example is NWA which keeps its DC-9s flying some of which have approached 40 years in age. Having no ownership cost offsets the high direct operating cost of the older models versus getting en efficient new model with lower operating cost, but having to deal with its ownership cost.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
EXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2554 times:
I think the MD-80 is still a good plane if you have 150+ seats on it and can sell those seats. AA and DL are having some problems cuz they have 140 seats but Allegiant is up at like 160 with 90% LF, so they are still forecasted to make money even with $100 oil
Sacamojus From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 228 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2356 times:
you take the incremental cash revenues(the savings on fuel or interest expense) minus the incrementa costs over projected life of the aircraft and discount those cashflows back to the current date. This is of course the simple equation and finding cost and potential cost savings is very hard to do and requires lots of data and a crystal ball.
G4LASRamper From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 170 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2275 times:
I don't know where that 160 number keeps coming from, but to repeat the correct numbers again and again in the hopes that they will stick:
I'm in my last week as a Maintenance Planner at G4 so I won't have much current info about them anymore. We just put the third 88 on the line last week and the forth 88 is coming next month from Mexico. This fall I think there are five ex-Finnair 83s coming. So it looks like G4 plans to continue with these old work horses, er, MadDogs for the foreseeable future.
Implementing the upcoming Stage 4 requirements will be interesting to watch. All of our engines are -219s with a couple of -217Cs thrown in. When I started at G4 in June 06 they were actively looking at doing the winglets thing for the whole fleet. But I haven't heard anything about that recently - probably not cost-effective yet.
"A pig that doesn't fly is just a pig." - Porco Rosso
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6019 posts, RR: 55 Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2141 times:
SAS has almost every airliner type in the world. The MD-80 is likely to be the most popular type among pax. For two reasons:
1. 2x3 seating. A lot of pax, both business and leisure, travel two together. They like the two seats on the left hand side.
2. The MD-80 is the most quiet plane inside the cabin. Up front. Only the rare MD-90 beats it.
The fuselage barrel is of course narrower than 737 and 320 planes. But it still has ample roof height for XXL size Scandinavians and also ample baggage bin space. While for instance on a 2x2 ERJ-170/-190 you really feel the cramped space.
Also the large and closely spaced windows add to the comfort of the MD-80. The ERJ on the other hand has small and widely spaced windows placed so low that only kids can actually see anything outside.
So whatever new toys SAS some day finds as replacement, then there will be pax thinking that it is a step backwards. And some might think that when they can "only" have a 737 or 320, then they can just as well fly on LH, KL, AF, BA or one of the other frequent visitors on SAS home turf.
The MD-80 does burn a little more fuel per seat/mile than the newest competitors, but not all that much more. On the rather short routes, on which the MD-80s fly, the fuel cost is not unimportant, but not all that significant.
I expect the SAS MD-80s to soldier on for many years to come. Both A and B have have their order books virtually filled until the middle of next decade, still there is not even a rumor about SAS MD-80 replacement.
During these days, with the lack of 24 Q400s, those MD-80s are busier than ever before.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
TWAL1011727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 597 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 1830 times:
Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 6): AA and DL are having some problems cuz they have 140 seats
Interesting how Delta still has 117 left and the main reason they got rid of 3 was high lease cost.
American has/had near 250 of them. They both have 142 seats (excluding DL shuttle 134seats)
so if they were having problems with them, I think they would be grounding them enmass.
Are you suggesting that the 717 is quieter than the MD-8x or MD-90? They are all the same nose section so the wind noise is the same. The 717 is shorter than the MD-8x and MD-90 so the engine noise, though quieter, can be heard through more of the airplane. My source: I've flown all three for different airlines. All about the same forward of the wing. JT-8s are still loud in the back though.
Simple answer to the above question as many have said, yes if you own them or have low lease rates. I have noticed the MD-88 has fuel burns at Cost Index of 15 at mid weights around 130k of approx 6,000 lbs/hr, heavy weights of 145k of approx 6,500 lbs/hr, and at lighter weights of say 120k of approx 5,500 lbs/hr. These are rough numbers based on flying CI 15 in the 32,000 - 33,000' range at around Mach .75 +/- .01 Mach. What does all of this mean? She drinks it fast climbing but she gets there quickly and isn't so bad in cruise. The trick is to keep her high and on cost profile.
UAL727NE From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 205 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 12 hours ago) and read 1558 times:
Quoting TWAL1011727 (Reply 16): Interesting how Delta still has 117 left and the main reason they got rid of 3 was high lease cost.
American has/had near 250 of them. They both have 142 seats (excluding DL shuttle 134seats)
so if they were having problems with them, I think they would be grounding them enmass.
From what airlinepilotcentral.com says AA has 327 Maddogs! You can start a whole nother airline with those when they retire them.
Gotta love 3 holers!!! MD11,DC10,L-1011,B727 for life!!!!
Bardoman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 1417 times:
Quoting EBGARN (Reply 4): SAS recently stated that "Q1" is the most financially viable option as long as the oil price stays below $200, compared with the alternative options available today.
Think of the profit margins on those planes when oil was below $20, in the late 90s!
Sponsor Message: 
From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2007, 972 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 216 posts, 
From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! 
, 22062 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6019 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
