Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA, MD-80s, And The Risk Of A Common Fleet  
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8355 times:

We hear all the time on a.net during merger talks that airline A with 150 A320s and airline B with 150 738s are not a good fit for this reason. It would seem, to some, that no matter how large the airline, all narrowbodies should be from one supplier. At least, that's what many espouse.

I put forth that AA's over reliance on the MD80 is what cost them dearly during this past week. They actively spurned other options in the 80s and 90s for their short haul ops, only taking on 738s later to replace 727s, and only just now thinking maybe, just maybe, the 738 could replace some MD80s. And that led to a fleet of over 300 MD80s, which means if there is a grounding you are screwed. Overall, this is going to cost AA $80-100 million from what I can figure (between lost revenue of $40-50 million, and $40 million in compensation).

The same can happen to an airline like CO if they are forced to ground all 737NGs at once. Airlines like UA and DL and NW are much safer, as they have mixed short haul fleets. EU carriers are putting themselves into the same predicament AA found itself in.

Personally, I think that the larger an airline gets, the more important it is for them to have 2 aircraft families in their short haul fleet. I think this weeks AA fiasco is a good example of why, but there's also a matter of economies of scale diminishing with fleet size, better pricing pressure on manufacturers, etc.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
71 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSxf24 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8357 times:

There were no fundamental safety problems with the MD-80.

I think the problem would have been avoided if the FAA had adequate oversight and the airline's had consistent maintenance practices in place.

[Edited 2008-04-13 15:33:25]

User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8338 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):

I put forth that AA's over reliance on the MD80 is what cost them dearly during this past week

What cost AA was having the FAA get to buddy buddy and not maintaining a comprehensive maintenance program . . . NOT the aircraft.


User currently offlineAisak From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 763 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8339 times:

Well, AA operates several types of aircrafts and still the MD-80 grounding has cause a major disruption.

No matter how many aircrafts for how many subfleets an airlines operates.... If one type has to be grounded the airline will suffer.

BA had also a mixed fleet and a couple of summers ago, all the fleet was grounded worldwhile because of the LHR-gategourmet-mess. Fleet is not a risk factor...while commonality does save money.


User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2264 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8291 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
I put forth that AA's over reliance on the MD80 is what cost them dearly during this past week.

I put forth, the whole thing was a bureaucratic, political, paperwork, idiotic FAA screw up that had nothing to do with safety of flight.

Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 1):
There were no fundamental safety problems with the MD-80.



I think the problem would have been avoided if the FAA had adequate oversight and the airline's had consistent maintenance practices in place.

I agree about the FAA.
As for the airlines, .125 of an inch on a wiring harness? Cut me a break. This was an example of a federal agency out of control. They can't run an ATC system, an airline safety system, or even oversee contractors doing same. Fire the people at the top (of FAA) and get some meaningful goals to those in the field.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8470 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8274 times:

As I understand it, the problem was that some plastic ties were spaced 1.25" apart, and not the required 1.00". I've been told that some were also spaced 0.75" apart - but don't know if this shorter spacing is considered a major safety violation by the FAA. What I don't know is if the 1" is supposed to be from the center of each plastic strap, or outside edge to outside edge.

The grounding of the MDs was, in my opinion, simply the FAA being able to say that they are protecting the traveling public after they got caught with their pants down. It's a major PR effort by the FAA at the expense of AA and their pax. Most impressive in their own minds.


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8266 times:



Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 1):
There were no fundamental safety problems with the MD-80.



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2):
NOT the aircraft.

Yes, both correct and valid points. However, IMO Ikramerica wasn't questioning any aspect of the safety of the MD80, but merely and correctly making a very good point that over reliance on any one type of aircraft can have very serious consequences if that particular type is grounded for whatever reason.......the reason itself not necessarily being relevant to safety or otherwise.
IMO it was indeed a very good point.

Quoting Aisak (Reply 3):
BA had also a mixed fleet and a couple of summers ago, all the fleet was grounded worldwhile because of the LHR-gategourmet-mess.

Yes, but that mess had nothing whatever to do with any aircraft itself, much less whatever type......it was purely a catering issue as has no relevance to the point Ikramerica was making.


User currently offlineAisak From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 763 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8239 times:



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 6):
Yes, but that mess had nothing whatever to do with any aircraft itself, much less whatever type......it was purely a catering issue as has no relevance to the point Ikramerica was making.

That was my argumentation for:

Quoting Aisak (Reply 3):
Fleet is not a risk factor...while commonality does save money.



User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8225 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
I put forth that AA's over reliance on the MD80 is what cost them dearly during this past week.

What cost them dearly is their maintenance practices, not the MD80.


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8180 times:

Having a fleet that large of MD-80s wasnt the problem, it was the airlines fault for not doing the checks, same with Southwest and others, it just so happened that the plane with the problems happened to be their main aircraft. If everything had been done correctly the first time there wouldnt have been a problem.

User currently offlineBoston92 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8151 times:

It seems to me that the only ones who understand, are the OP, myself, and AirNZ. We all get tha the MD80 is a safe aircraft, and blah blah blah. That was not the point. Ikramerica never blamed this huge fiasco ON the MD80, but blamed it on the OVER RELIANCE of such aircraft. If they had 10 MD80's, would this have been news? No. If they had 1500 MD80's and had to cancel 20,000 flights, leaving 3 million pax inconvenienced, would there be a difference? Yes, of course. In all three cases, the MD80 is not at fault, but there would have been three different outcomes.


"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8144 times:



Quoting Boston92 (Reply 10):
Ikramerica never blamed this huge fiasco ON the MD80, but blamed it on the OVER RELIANCE of such aircraft.

But that wasn't the problem. Their maintenance practices were the problem, not the number of aircraft.


User currently offlineJaysan From India, joined Apr 2008, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8145 times:



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 6):
Yes, both correct and valid points. However, IMO Ikramerica wasn't questioning any aspect of the safety of the MD80, but merely and correctly making a very good point that over reliance on any one type of aircraft can have very serious consequences if that particular type is grounded for whatever reason.......the reason itself not necessarily being relevant to safety or otherwise.
IMO it was indeed a very good point.

 checkmark  What happened with AA and there MS80's in my opinion was a one off in which the FAA was caught with there pants down and was presurred into making an example out of AA. At no time was the MD80 fleet in any type of danger.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8108 times:

So many people have missed the point. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, but at least try to understand the point.

I don't give a damn why all the MD80s were grounded. The fact is, they were.

This puts any airline at risk of the same thing. Having an entire fleet of aircraft grounded.

Quoting Aisak (Reply 3):
Well, AA operates several types of aircrafts and still the MD-80 grounding has cause a major disruption.

AA effectively flies one type of mainline short-haul aircraft: MD80. They have a smaller fleet of 737NGs which replaced the 727s, but only the 727s. Throughout the 80s and 90s, AA shunned A320s and 737s. When they acquired airlines with 737s, they quickly got rid of them.

AA has 330+ MD80s and only 77 737NGs, or over 4:1 ratio. That means the MD80 fleet exposed them to massive cancellations.

You can also see that AA's MD80 fleet is larger than the total short haul fleets of other carriers, and thus the idea that you truly need 330+ MD80s to achieve economies of scale is overblown. AA could achieve great economies with 200 MD80s and 200 737NGs, with the basically the same capacity (under 150 seats so only 3 F/As). And they'd limit their exposure.

DL has 71 737s and 131 MD80s. Not even 2:1.
NW has 94 DC9s and 130 A320 series. Not close to 2:1.
UA has 94 737s and 152 A320 series. Not even 2:1.

US has a mixed fleet but has decided to go all A320 series, including new A321s, which will really, really put them at risk of something like this.

CO has 737s only. The do have two 'sub fleets' of classic v. NG, but that's dwindling too, as more NG come and more classics go out. They already dumped the MD80s a few years ago.

But CO+UA immediately mitigates this situation.
DL+NW solves it too while letting them jettison the oldest planes at the same time.

Part of being a really large company is limiting your exposure to any one problem that might come up. I think AA has learned a lesson this week about that.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBoston92 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8107 times:



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 11):
Their maintenance practices were the problem, not the number of aircraft.

Wrong. They would not of had to cancel flights for 250,000 pax if they had only had 150 MD80's (In that case, they would have had to cancel flights for 125,000 pax). Their maintenance practices generated an "uh-oh", the extensive number of MD80's, made it go from an "uh-oh" to a catastrophe.



"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
User currently offlineScorpy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 401 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8067 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
So many people have missed the point. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, but at least try to understand the point.

I don't give a damn why all the MD80s were grounded. The fact is, they were.

This puts any airline at risk of the same thing. Having an entire fleet of aircraft grounded.

I think its a good point, we can also look to the DC10's being grounded before this as well. Most businesses do try to mitigate risk like this - for example in the IT industry having redundant data centers in multiple locations. American express had one in the world trade center but by having multiple data centers spread over the country the terrorist attacks had a big impact, but did not shut their business down. IMHO its the duty of a large organization to practice this sort of risk mitgation.

There is also another aspect - there could be issues getting spare parts, or financial difficulties for a vendor, and plenty more than can be easily thought of that could deliver the same impact.


User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3766 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8070 times:



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 9):
Having a fleet that large of MD-80s wasnt the problem, it was the airlines fault for not doing the checks, same with Southwest and others, it just so happened that the plane with the problems happened to be their main aircraft. If everything had been done correctly the first time there wouldnt have been a problem.

You're half right. It wasn't AA's fault for not correctly following the AD, it was the local FAA branch's for not correctly interpreting the original AD in the first place. The local FAA branch instructed AA improperly on how to remedy the original AD. It was the FAA's fault, AA just took the fall for them.



PHX based
User currently offlineJaysan From India, joined Apr 2008, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8040 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
The fact is, they were.

This puts any airline at risk of the same thing. Having an entire fleet of aircraft grounded.

This is a valid point. The last time i remember a fleet being grounded was the concord and prior to that the DC-10. You are definetly at risk relying on a single fleet type however, in my opinion, the cost savings out weigh the risk and it is a calculated risk i would be willing to take.


User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1619 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8008 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
which will really, really put them at risk of something like this.

There was the screw problem (did this cause a total grounding?) when Alaska crashed and this. What other problems have the MD-80 (or any one series/type) suffered? How old are the aircraft?

I think I see your point, however, it happens so rarely, it's not worth having different type for this reason. Of course I don't have facts to back it up, but the savings of having one aircraft type over 20 years with 2 total shut downs of the type would seem to negate the need to diversify.

I don't recall too many massive shut downs of fleets. It's a good thread for me to find out.

Would they also need different engines? Does any airline run a single engine type? Could it shut down the entire airline and/or fleet?

M


User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3766 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7997 times:



Quoting ChiGB1973 (Reply 18):
There was the screw problem (did this cause a total grounding?) when Alaska crashed and this. What other problems have the MD-80 (or any one series/type) suffered? How old are the aircraft?

That was AS's fault for not utilizing proper maintenance procedures, not the aircraft's fault.



PHX based
User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1619 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7970 times:



Quoting 777STL (Reply 19):
That was AS's fault for not utilizing proper maintenance procedures, not the aircraft's fault.

Alright. Just a massive check that didn't ground too many.

http://money.cnn.com/2000/08/04/news/alaska/index.htm

M


User currently offlineScorpy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 401 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7956 times:



Quoting 777STL (Reply 19):
That was AS's fault for not utilizing proper maintenance procedures, not the aircraft's fault.

even if its a maintenance problem, its still good risk mitigation. if your MX organization provides improper maintenance on a type and its grounded, if you're mitigated with two types then you only have half your fleet out of order; and if the fleets are large enough then you still have commonality with both.


User currently offlineSuper80DFW From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 1697 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7901 times:

When AA grounded the 325 MD-80's, AA was left with 219 single-aisle mainline aircraft; 142 are 757, and 77 are 737's. How many 737-800's will AA receive per year after 2008?


"Things change, friends leave, life doesn't stop for anybody." -- EAT'EM UP EAT'EM UP KSU!!
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7894 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
This puts any airline at risk of the same thing. Having an entire fleet of aircraft grounded.

If the current grounding had been the result of a previously unknown safety defect, your rationale would be accurate.

But it wasn't.

The aircraft were grounded because AA failed to properly respond to an FAA airworthiness directive issued in 2006.


Quoting Boston92 (Reply 14):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 11):
Their maintenance practices were the problem, not the number of aircraft.

Wrong. They would not of had to cancel flights for 250,000 pax if they had only had 150 MD80's (In that case, they would have had to cancel flights for 125,000 pax). Their maintenance practices generated an "uh-oh", the extensive number of MD80's, made it go from an "uh-oh" to a catastrophe.

No, AA's failure to comply with an 18 month old AD was the cause.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7832 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
I don't give a damn why all the MD80s were grounded. The fact is, they were.

This puts any airline at risk of the same thing. Having an entire fleet of aircraft grounded.

I agree that many people have dodged your real question Ikamerica.

IMO, the FAA is just not going to order one of the major airlines to ground its fleet if the consequence of said grounding are the financial destruction of the airline. There are some caveats I would like to add to that statement, but I will assume we are just sticking to generalities.

In the case of American's grounded MD-80s, they still had hundreds and hundreds of healthy airplanes still flying and they were able to make due. But let's say it was Southwest and their 500+ 737s. They don't have any other fleet types to pick-up the slack, and grounding the entire airline for a matter of days or weeks could put tens of thousands of Americans out of work, disrupt the economy in more states than not, etc, etc, etc. I see the FAA as to weak to pull that trigger unless aircraft are literally falling out of the sky daily. (One of my caveats)

So ultimately, I don't think there is any value in having a "back-up" fleet type because if anything, it might make the FAA more inclined to inflict harsher groundings on one or the other fleet. Over long periods of time, I have little doubt the most economical fleet planning decision would be to stick with the fewest fleet types but maintain them properly to avoid such groundings. Multiple fleet types sounds like an insurance policy that would never pay for itself.


25 Boston92 : No one cares about the CAUSE. The ONLY reason why this was a PROBLEM was because AA grounded 330 planes, instead of WN 40, and UA 70. If AA had only
26 Halls120 : Let's see - an AD to be carried out covering 330 planes and you have 18 months to do it. Seems like they could have accomplished it over that period.
27 Sailas : I think this shows USA's airline industries biggest problem. Too much demand, and with high oil prices and high airplane prices, one easily, if the mo
28 Scbriml : It takes a long time, and costs lots of money. The costs are always a balance between flying a less-efficient, but paid-for plane, vs paying for a mo
29 Columba : Maybe last week events will lead to the conclusion with AA that it is better to replace the narrowbody fleet with 2 different aircraft. If you have to
30 Sailas : Ill agree it takes a long time, but you just prooved that it is possible with good time management and planning. Why wait so long when you can start
31 Sailas : But i think its ridicoulos for an airline to buy 330 airplanes, which they clearly are not capable of handling. But its like people have also said it
32 Columba : LH does not have any A320-100s but they have some of the oldest A320-200s (1988). Some of the older 737s and A320s will be replaced with new A32x fam
33 Brilondon : The manufacturer should be the one who is on the hook for compensation as well, as they were the one who designed the wiring harness that was at faul
34 Halls120 : The AD that addressed the issue was, I believe, issued eighteen months ago.
35 AAJFKSJUBKLYN : This just makes me angry. So far from the truth...AA has one of the best safety records, and most diligent safety programs around. Its the incompenta
36 Revelation : Yes, and if AA had split their domestic fleet 50/50 with B737, the odds are pretty good that FAA could have found fault with the comprehensive mainte
37 SEPilot : From what I have read on other threads and other sources, AA HAD performed the repairs required by the AD on ALL of its aircraft, and the repair had
38 MBJ2000 : Sorry, but I respectfully disagree, you still ignore the OP's question! Let me explain it differently: a) How high is the probability that with 1 "fa
39 Smi0006 : I think I understand exactly what your asking, forgive me but I know very little to nothing about AA fleet, or their recent issues with the FAA. And t
40 Revelation : Sh*t like this happens all the time. One local soaring club lost the use of a towplane for the bulk of a season in a very similar fashion. It took a
41 Revelation : Yes, and in one case you have a well defined, long term cost benefit, and in the other, you have an ill-defined, short term cost risk. I think the la
42 SEPilot : That's my point. If we could get the focus on THAT, which is the real problem, maybe something could be done about it. As it stands, one inspector ca
43 Smi0006 : I wonder if / how many airlines have taken this into account when planning their fleets? if diverse (and for this scenario low risk) airlines have si
44 Concentriq : Ikramerica: I think you shoudl start a new thread and re-phrase your point. Feels like it was missed by many.
45 SEPilot : To speak to the original point, the only time in recent history that an entire type was grounded was the DC-10 after the AA crash in Chicago, and that
46 Crewchief : In the AA case, the issue could better be phrased "Is the risk of failure (loss of use for X days) on one aircraft type worth additional spending top
47 7673mech : The overall cost savings of fleet commonality vs. $$ lost during a grounding is the reason why many carriers have a common narrowbody fleet. Fleet gro
48 Ikramerica : My point was AF and BA are just like AA. They have gone to the A320 completely. AF is even dumped relatively new 737-500s to get there. AF: 140+ A320
49 United787 : Great question and interesting topic. I think SEPilot answered your question: it seems as though the benefits to a simplified fleet far outweighs the
50 Tavong : Well they also bought TWA and got even more M80s *lol* But now getting back to the point is that anyway, the risk of a common fleet in my opinion wil
51 RFields5421 : As noted above - most airlines will be significantly hurt is a major aircraft type in their fleet is grounded - Ryanair comes to mind with the B738,
52 RFields5421 : From several items I've seen on the news, it takes about 10 years of fuel savings of 10% to pay for the cost of a new aircraft. Yes, if someone is ad
53 LMP737 : How much of a mix do they really have? AA has the 737NG and the MD-80. UAL has the A320 and 737 . Delta has the MD-88/90, 737 classic and 737NG. NWA
54 Ikramerica : I did the numbers...
55 Cubsrule : Maybe someone has made this point and I just missed it reading through, but here's a thought... Other things being equal, having 400 M80s rather than
56 SEPilot : If you take the additional costs of another type in the fleet and extrapolate it out over the 20 years or so that AA has relied primarily on the MD-80
57 Baron95 : And where do you stop? 2 narrowbody airframes. How about engines? Engines can be a grounding cause as well? What happens if an overzelous FAA require
58 RJ111 : Fair points, but swings and roundabouts really. The grounding of an aircraft is very rare.
59 Baron95 : And what do they have in comon besides the mixed fleet? They've all benn bankrupt in the very recent past. What does WN and AA (per your account) hav
60 TrijetsRMissed : I think people are understanding the point, but to suggest an airline should deliberately diversify its fleet for the sole sake of having other optio
61 LMP737 : If any of those carriers had any single fleet grounded for whatever reason they are going to bleed money. The simple fact remains all carriers are mo
62 Halls120 : So why didn't they complete compliance with an eighteen month old AD? Perhaps the FAA did in fact overreact. But why couldn't AA carry out the AD ove
63 Revelation : I didn't say that did happen, I said it could happen. It has happened with smaller operators in the past.
64 TrijetsRMissed : The amount of MD-80's that had the work completed largely outnumbered those that did not receive it. For both AA and DL. Maybe 18 months was not long
65 Halls120 : It works out to about 18 aircraft a month. Seems like that would have been easier than grounding 300 aircraft in one week, but what do I know.
66 Baron95 : They did. The FAA just, all of a sudden, didn't like the way it was complied with. Listen, to deny that the FAA is totally over reacting due to polit
67 Halls120 : Sorry, but when the FAA issues an AD, one has to comply. AA chose to take shortcuts, and it cost them. Were the FAA buttheads? Yes. But that still do
68 MoMan : AA has 299 active MD80s Don't believe the hype about economies of scale. There exist no economies of scale in the long run. The MD80 has been a great
69 Ckfred : But remember tha the AD went out in September of '06, and AA finished the work in November of '06. The AD was vague, and the FAA didn't begin to revi
70 SEPilot : Because an FAA inspector got a hair up his butt. They did, and the FAA approved it. Then another FAA inspector came along and decided he didn't like
71 AADC10 : I think fleet commonality is a little overrated on this board. If the MD-80 fleet was split into three separate narrow body types, the numbers would s
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...
Alitalia's 777's And The Rest Of Their Fleet. posted Wed Mar 27 2002 21:45:35 by Alitalia777
SQ, IAH And The Lack Of Ads posted Thu Mar 6 2008 05:53:57 by Thomasphoto60
AA's MD-80s posted Sat Jan 19 2008 14:23:55 by Jalapeno
AA MD-80s At JFK posted Fri Dec 7 2007 21:36:15 by RJpieces
The Future Of AC's Fleet. posted Wed Sep 19 2007 09:16:22 by Boeingluvr
Global Oil Reserves And The Future Of Aviation posted Thu Aug 23 2007 00:14:13 by Airbuster
The Future Of Boeing's Fleet? posted Sat Jul 14 2007 13:52:41 by Dsa
AA's MD-11's And DC 10's posted Sat Jun 2 2007 06:33:09 by UtilianPilot07
Future Owners For AA's MD-80s? posted Sun Apr 15 2007 15:54:26 by AviationAddict
Midway Airport And The Installation Of Jet Bridges posted Fri Feb 16 2007 04:11:28 by TWA1985
The Future Of AC's Fleet. posted Wed Sep 19 2007 09:16:22 by Boeingluvr
Global Oil Reserves And The Future Of Aviation posted Thu Aug 23 2007 00:14:13 by Airbuster
The Future Of Boeing's Fleet? posted Sat Jul 14 2007 13:52:41 by Dsa
AA's MD-11's And DC 10's posted Sat Jun 2 2007 06:33:09 by UtilianPilot07
Future Owners For AA's MD-80s? posted Sun Apr 15 2007 15:54:26 by AviationAddict
Midway Airport And The Installation Of Jet Bridges posted Fri Feb 16 2007 04:11:28 by TWA1985