AFKL From Netherlands, joined Feb 2008, 219 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5238 times:
I was wondering whether NW would still be operating the DC-9 (some of which were built back in the 60's) if well... it did not have the modern appearance it has. If I were not the aviation nut I was, I would not be able to say from exterior looks, nor from the interior looks (due to the updates) that the plane I was about to fly on could well be 40 years old, yet other similar airliners such as the the BAC1-11 have a distinct 'vintage' look to them, and still being this aviation-ignorant person, I would not be comfortable flying in such an old bird.
So I guess its due to the Mad Dogs we have flying around, which of course are not as old, that passengers are ignorant about this fact, and I clearly know that the DC9's are still very safe planes to fly in, but the flying public will obviously have different personal opinions.
So, what I'm trying to get at, if the DC-9 looked more 'vintage', would it scare potential passengers off, thus resulting in NW having retired its DC-9 fleet earlier?
Sorry if I'm not being very clear (I have the tendency to be that way )!
AFKL From Netherlands, joined Feb 2008, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5211 times:
Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 1): Looks have nothing to do with it. That the aircraft are paid for does.
And I respect that, however, if the plane just generally looked as though it was built in the 60's (which in my opinion is does not), would passengers avoid NW due to the fact of their old planes (as well... people just generally feel less safe in older aircarft), which due to its more modern look is less obvious? And if NW would be loosing revenue from this, would they have retired their fleet earlier?
I am sorry if this is too much 'unconventional history', but I thought it would lead to an interesting discussion. (Though, granted, I've been wrong before ) hehe.
Rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3148 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5163 times:
I'm not sure I understand how a DC-9 looks "modern" but a BAC111 looks "vintage". Sounds like a personal preference or perception. What about 737-200s? Do those look modern? To me, they're hard to discern from more modern 737s, aside from the engines. Yet, a 737 nose has heritage to the 707, and that's "vintage". The DC-9's nose traces to the DC-8, also vintage.
I don't doubt your perception, I just think this is a hard one to generalize, compared to many other factors.
DALMD88 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2582 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5146 times:
I think part of the reason one may consider the BAC 'vintage looking' while the DC9 is 'modern looking' has to do with the short lifespan of the BAC. We only associate the BAC with the 60's and 70's. The DC9 on the other had is regularly seen with more modern Airbus and Embraer models. Also the contiuation of the family with the MD80 models brings it into the current age.
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2834 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5043 times:
This is an aesthetics discussion, and the average traveler knows or cares nothing about the aesthetics of an airliner. They want it to be clean, comfortable, quiet, and expect reliability, all of which NW's DC-9's provide on par with other competitors. The average passenger couldn't tell the difference between a BAC-111, a DC-9, or a 717.
CrimsonNL From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 1891 posts, RR: 42
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4974 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Keep in mind that 95% of the people on board those NW domestic flights don't give a rip about what plane they're on. We in the Netherlands don't have domestic flights! For most of the travelers there its as normal as taking the train.
I do agree that most people are so ignorant that they think that old planes, and any plane from the Russia area is unsafe.
Nothing's worse then flying the same registration twice, except flying it 4 times..
JetJeanes From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1431 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4726 times:
Well yes but keep in mind about everything on that dc-9 has been replaced with modern parts
and about the only thing orginal is its shadow. as far s the bac- i dont know if the public knows if its a crj or a bac1-11 but just our a.netters. but then again i dont know of any bacs left in the us..
I know Nw,s dc-9,s are paid for and they are gas gusslers, but i really just have some doubts Delta would keep them and paint them in their livery as they are bringing on more cr900. through Pinnacle and I think they even own a few now.
Its really hard to believe technology from 50 years ago have outlasted some aircraft in the bone yards half their age. MD just built a great aircraft. You are right it is hard to tell the age of the plane unless you look in the door frame at the plate,. I just dont see these composite aircraft lasting s long as the dc-9s or dc-3 as we will eventually with enough hours start to see cracks in these planes causeing early reitirment but that is my opinon.. i dont think they are built to last 50 years or more like the good old days
Haggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4699 times:
I think I can see the OP's point.... if the planes did not have the updated interiors many people would probably not feel comfortable flying them - as it is most people would probably be surprised if you told them the plane's age given that it feels even quite new once you're inside.
As for the exterior - maybe. I think it helps that the T-tail design is the same as with the newer MDs and with the CRJ - so we're still used to it. A 707 today would probably look weird due to the antenna at the tail. So if the DC-9 were the last remaining plane in a T-tail config, that might play a role, too. But I think the interiors plays a larger role here - which is probably why NW updated them to begin with .
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3682 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4644 times:
Well as said earlier, look really has nothing to do with moder design. Look at the 737, to me 737 NG with winglets, look just as modern as an A320, CRJ and E170-190, but it is base off the 707 and 727 design. Also look at the A340 500,600. The A340 is Basicly a stretch A300 with four large engines. I even call them a mixer of DC-8 & A300, but they are some off the most modern, luxurious, and state of the art airliners flying today.
Stratosphere From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1653 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4306 times:
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 5): This is an aesthetics discussion, and the average traveler knows or cares nothing about the aesthetics of an airliner. They want it to be clean, comfortable, quiet, and expect reliability, all of which NW's DC-9's provide on par with other competitors. The average passenger couldn't tell the difference between a BAC-111, a DC-9, or a 717.
PGNCS is exactly right. Passengers really are ignorant. That is why NWA took the data plate from the door jam and put in the cockpit so that pax could not see the age of the aircraft. Pax look at the interior and they have no idea what goes on after that. However I do and I don't fly on scab maintained NWA aircraft.
The interior of those birds is essentially indistinguishable from that of the 717. Remarkable job they did on those.
The only part of the planes that looks old is the tiny engines. The rest of the plane looks just like...well...a 717.
There's a certain basic look to all jetliners. They are sleek, beautiful machines, but not just to be pretty. They have to look like that in order to fly efficiently. The 707's nose still flies today at the front of every 737. To those of us in the know, we'll always know an old bird when we see one because we can identify them. But if it's kept well-maintained, shiny, and polished, the flying public would never know without a look in that awful puke-green cockpit.
Xaphan From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 129 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3478 times:
One of the more humorous examples of how passengers perceive "modern" airliners, was shown when several of us were waiting to board a then new Eastern 727-100 in KSDF. Eastern had just begun their rebranding with the "WhisperJet" cs (hockeystick). At the time, Eastern had no jetways at Standiford Field. The first passenger in line to board on the ramp was annoyed when the gate agent announced there would be a 15 minute delay in boarding. He became very vocal about his fear that Eastern might swap equipment, and he would not be able to fly aboard a WhisperJet. He was assured his flight would indeed be the fabled WhisperJet. When the boarding announcement was finally made, and the door opened, he bolted ahead of the rest of us, and ran up the internal steps of a nearby CV-440! Evidently he didn't notice the large propeller right beside the steps he was climbing. Trying not to laugh too loudly, I yelled at him that our flight was over here. I suppose he could have bragged to his friends that he at least got to fly a WhisperProp.
Moek2000 From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 128 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3136 times:
I think the new NW livery makes the DC-9 look modern regardless of its age...You take 2 DC-9's and put them side-by-side, one with the silver NW livery and the other with Northwest Orient livery and you'll see what I'm talking about...
MHG From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 784 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2591 times:
Quoting CrimsonNL (Reply 6): Keep in mind that 95% of the people on board those NW domestic flights don't give a rip about what plane they're on. We in the Netherlands don't have domestic flights! For most of the travelers there its as normal as taking the train.
As long it has jet engines attached to it people consider it as modern and safe.
There´s no logic in that as we all know. But that´s how general folks look at it.
No matter whether you´re in the U.S. or Europe or anywhere else !
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3630 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1825 times:
The DC-9's look modern to you because they are still flying and you are used to seeing them. The fact that they're wearing modern liveries doesn't hurt.
You would feel the same way about the BAC-111 or the DC-8 or hell, the Comet if they were still flying around in large numbers today and wearing modern color schemes.
Many airplanes designed in the 1960's are still flying around and they don't look "vintage" either simply because they're your whole frame of reference. That's what you know as "modern" because that's aviation today.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!