Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
MD80: AA Vs DL  
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3369 posts, RR: 8
Posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 13398 times:

Perhaps this has already been addressed, but why is AA so keen on getting rid of its MD80s ASAP while DL still holds on to them?

Capacity wise, their MD80s can carry the same number of passengers so let's assume for now that they're equal. They have about the same range and from the looks of it they don't even use them for long travel.

I realize the only difference there was the number: AA had 200+ while DL remained below that number. Is the number of MD80s then the factor on why AA wants to replace them so quick?


"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4317 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 13402 times:

I believe the AA fleet is older than the DL fleet. That being said, I was on an MD-90 jumpseat recently. The plane could not get above 30000 feet that day, and we encountered bad turbulence the whole way....and we could not get over it because the plane literally could not climb any higher, and we couldn't get around it. They might have bigger engines, but they don't have a wing to go with the bigger engines according to the Captain.

Needless to say, I am not a big fan of the series. But the DL route structure is set up in a way where the MD 80s are at least somewhat economical, plus they are newer planes than most of the AA fleet. Consequently, the AA fleet is near the end of its lifetime, and thus AA is replacing them. Even Allegiant is getting newer equipment (A320 family).


User currently offlinefinnishway From Finland, joined Jul 2012, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 13275 times:

Why is AA getting rid of them?

Because they want newer and more economical fleet. That is one part of their "New American" program.

Why Delta don't get rid of them so fast? They have many aircraft, own maintenance company and they can even scrap some planes for spare parts. This works well for Delta at least for now.

Airlines just can't get new planes fast enough nowadays, because backlogs are so long. Only way to get newer aircraft fast is to buy used planes.


User currently onlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 852 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 13271 times:

It's a fleet management strategy.

Do you want to spend a lot of money on a new car that gets better gas mileage... or spend a lot less money on a pre-owned car that get worse gas mileage, paint the exterior and put in a new stereo system? And, most family members will not be able to tell the difference as long as it's clean and don't care as long as it's safe and reliable.

Said another way, it's all about the choices of where, when, and how the airline wants to spend its money.

[Edited 2013-07-27 10:40:16]

[Edited 2013-07-27 10:41:38]

User currently offlineMIflyer12 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 13164 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Thread starter):
from the looks of it they don't even use them for long travel.

That is one of the keys to successful use. DL tries to keep its MD-88s on shorter segments/lower daily utilization where the fuel penalty vs. a 738 or A320 is smaller.

Generally, DL's MD-88s were delivered later than AA's MD-80/83s. DL deliveries were '87-'93; AA's came in as early as 1981 (with some from TWA) and the last 'AA original' by 1992. About 40 of AA's newest came via TWA '96-'99.


User currently offlinerivervisual From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 13123 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 1):
I believe the AA fleet is older than the DL fleet. That being said, I was on an MD-90 jumpseat recently. The plane could not get above 30000 feet that day, and we encountered bad turbulence the whole way....and we could not get over it because the plane literally could not climb any higher, and we couldn't get around it. They might have bigger engines, but they don't have a wing to go with the bigger engines according to the Captain.

Unless there was a specific MEL issue with that aircraft or the WX above 30000 feet to the service ceiling was worse there is no reason a MD-90 cannot fly above 30000 feet. I routinely fly the MD-90 and it has one of the better rides during bad weather. It may have it's issues but in the end it's a more fuel efficient MD-88 with more seats.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5309 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 13090 times:

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 4):
That is one of the keys to successful use. DL tries to keep its MD-88s on shorter segments/lower daily utilization where the fuel penalty vs. a 738 or A320 is smaller.

Generally, DL's MD-88s were delivered later than AA's MD-80/83s. DL deliveries were '87-'93; AA's came in as early as 1981 (with some from TWA) and the last 'AA original' by 1992. About 40 of AA's newest came via TWA '96-'99.

I would suspect that while AA will retire its orginal MD-80s as quickly as possible, the former TWA aircraft will be the last to retire.

While the fact that longer flights are now costlier for MD-80s, with the higher fuel consumption, the fact that AA still has MD-80s is due, in part, to AA flying them on longer routes for some time.

Before the early 1990s, the MD-80 was a workhorse on short and medium-haul routes. But, when AA decided to retire a number of DC-10s, the MD-80s started flying longer routes. Out of ORD, they flew to every city in the Pacific Time Zone, except SNA, as well as PHX and TUS. The longer flights meant fewer cycles.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13744 posts, RR: 61
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 13023 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting einsteinboricua (Thread starter):
AA had 200+

Actually, 300+ at one point.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 12955 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Thread starter):

Route network.
AA's hit most markets and did (do?) routes like ORD-SEA. Delta generally keeps them east of the mississippi now, flying up and down the east coast.

The MD90 has replaced nearly all of the long haul 88 flying from ATL. Cities like DEN/ELP/ABQ use to be 88s and are now 90s.



yep.
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2325 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 12933 times:

I love Dc 9 platform !!! they are very nice in turbulence and provided I am not seated behind the wing (those pesky engines are torture!) is a very nice comfortable airplane... used to love the AM Md 83 they used on MEX-LAX route...


Delta doesnt like capital expenditure, hence they will milk those Md´s as long as they can...
TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8764 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12764 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 1):
I was on an MD-90 jumpseat recently. The plane could not get above 30000 feet that day

Really! IIRC I have been to 39k on DC-9 on MSP-ORD. This could be wrong but I do recall it.

M90 might struggle with very heavy fuel loads.


User currently offlinenutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 510 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12653 times:

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 4):
That is one of the keys to successful use. DL tries to keep its MD-88s on shorter segments/lower daily utilization where the fuel penalty vs. a 738 or A320 is smaller.

I seem to recall a discussion on a net a while back where it was identified the the MD80 actually does as well or better than the 738 on short segments under 500 miles. I don't know if that was somebody's opinion or if it was factual but the way that DL uses them would seem to support that.

AA used the MD80 on much longer stage lengths like DFW-SEA and ORD-PDX where there was most certainly a disadvantage vs. a 738.



American Airlines, US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25989 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12620 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 7):
Quoting einsteinboricua (Thread starter):
AA had 200+

Actually, 300+ at one point.

AA took delivery of 260 new MD-80s between 1983 and 1992, plus those inherited from TWA and any other sources.


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5944 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12606 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
Really! IIRC I have been to 39k on DC-9 on MSP-ORD. This could be wrong but I do recall it.

MSP-ORD is a very different scenario (not to mention the dozen other variables that neither of you have told us) than what apodino may have been on.
The MD-90 has the exact same wing as the MD-80, therefor, the FACT is that if all other conditions are the same, it will perform/climb/cruise worse/slower/lower than an MD-80, which was already not a stellar altitude champ, compared to the 737NG and A320 which are newer and more capable.

The MD is still a fantastic airplane, and there are lots of things about the birds that I like better than the 737/320 series, but let's be honest about her shortcomings.


User currently offlinethreeifbyair From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 709 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12580 times:

Quoting rivervisual (Reply 5):
Unless there was a specific MEL issue with that aircraft or the WX above 30000 feet to the service ceiling was worse there is no reason a MD-90 cannot fly above 30000 feet. I routinely fly the MD-90 and it has one of the better rides during bad weather. It may have it's issues but in the end it's a more fuel efficient MD-88 with more seats.

My understanding was that the MD-90 at MTOW can't climb above FL300 because it is simply too heavy. I had a SEA-MSP leg where we were at FL300 for most of the flight. Every seat was taken, lots of baggage, and not much of a tailwind that day.


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5944 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12562 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
Really! IIRC I have been to 39k on DC-9 on MSP-ORD.

By the way, I looked it up; the max certificated cruise altitude of the MD-90 is 37,000, so you weren't at 39,000.

I can't imagine the MD-80 would be appreciably better. AA states the "typical" cruise is 33,000, though I don't know what max is.
I've cruised all the way from DFW to SMF at 28,000 feet. Fun ride.... ugh!

Back on topic, Delta invested in the MD-88 fleet a bit, with cabin refurbs and whatnot. AA (as usual) really let them go, only bothering to install more seats and take seats out as the MRTC program came and went.
So, I'm sure there are many other reasons, but Delta's MD-80's seem like they are up to the task of serving for a few more years, whereas AA's just sorta seem..... old.


User currently offlineWingtips56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 12240 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 15):
I can't imagine the MD-80 would be appreciably better. AA states the "typical" cruise is 33,000, though I don't know what max is.
I've cruised all the way from DFW to SMF at 28,000 feet. Fun ride.... ugh!

I commuted (as a passenger) on that route weekly for 4 1/2 years, and later again for another 9 months. We were usually between 33,000 and 37,000, but there were occasions when we were lower for weather. Those flights were always full, so many times we cruised initially at 28,000 for an hour or so before climbing after burning off some weight. Fortunately SMF is only 27 feet above sea level, or we'd have had regular weight restrictions. (When we did have one, it was primarily due to extra fuel for DFW weather.)

I had read a couple of years ago that the MD-80 was the right economics for the DFW-West Coast runs (perhaps with the exception of SEA/YVR), so that SMF might be one of the last ones to see the 738. That may not be true, but the route is still scheduled only with the MD-80 through to next June.



Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines
User currently offlineAcey559 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1544 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 11942 times:

I've been commuting DFW-ORD a lot recently (though not for much longer, thankfully) and I'm ALWAYS in the jumpseat. They typically tanker a lot of gas up to ORD because gas is cheaper at DFW and the flights are full all day every day. I don't think we've ever been above FL330 because the airplane is always restricted. I didn't think anything of it at first but I figured it was an airplane shortcoming after a while. Heavy pax and bags plus lots of fuel doesn't bode well for the MD-80 but it's a pretty short flight so it's never really an issue. I've always enjoyed the DC-9 series. A forward seat on the 2 side is one of the best seats around, in my opinion.

User currently offlineNWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1150 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 11513 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If I am not mistaken, Delta Air Lines has bought a few retired American Airlines MD-80s for parts.   


Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 11210 times:

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 9):
I love Dc 9 platform !!! they are very nice in turbulence and provided I am not seated behind the wing

Behind the wing of a DC-9/Maddog is the only place I consistently get a queasy stomach on an aircraft, regardless of turbulence.


User currently offlineTrnsWrld From United States of America, joined May 1999, 959 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10789 times:

To the guy above who stated he has been to FL390 in a DC9....I'm not so sure about that. I have never once seen ANY DC9/MD80/MD90 variant above FL370. And even 370 is relatively rare for some of the MD80s. I'm a controller in Chicago and most DC9s that we still work usually cruise along at FL330 or FL340.

As for AA's MD80s, don't forget they also received most of the newest and last built MD series aircraft acquired from TWA. Infact in another thread I remember some people saying some of TWAs newest MD83s are newer than some of AA's 737-800 aircraft. So yes even though I would imagine Delta's MD88 fleet is overall younger, AA still has the newest ones out there.
I think they are all cool planes and its nice to see something still out there besides your typical one engine on each wing and conventional tail kinda plane.


User currently offlineasqx From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 619 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 10396 times:

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 18):
If I am not mistaken, Delta Air Lines has bought a few retired American Airlines MD-80s for parts.

So far there are two, N9302B and N9304C, both 1987 vintage TWA MD-83s. The rest of Delta's parts planes are ex-SAS MD-80s (mostly MD-82s with one MD-87) and two ex-Lion Air MD-90s.


User currently onlinetb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1648 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9874 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
Really! IIRC I have been to 39k on DC-9 on MSP-ORD. This could be wrong but I do recall it.
Quoting TrnsWrld (Reply 20):
To the guy above who stated he has been to FL390 in a DC9....I'm not so sure about that. I have never once seen ANY DC9/MD80/MD90 variant above FL370.

The DC9 service ceiling is FL350. Not sure if that includes the 80's.



Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
User currently offlinepdx From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9841 times:

AA has flown M80's PDX-DFW since (at least) 1986 and PDX-ORD since (at least) 1985 until they ceased ORD nonstop service years a go. Great to see them back in the ORD market twice a day with 738's! They show no signs of ending the M80 service to DFW. They're going strong with five M80 nonstops to DFW this summer. Would be nice to get some newer planes however.

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13520 posts, RR: 100
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8775 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Does anyone have stats on the JT8D? In particular engine operation hours per year (month/quarter would be great!) in chart form.

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 4):
DL tries to keep its MD-88s on shorter segments/lower daily utilization where the fuel penalty vs. a 738 or A320 is smaller.

   Lower utilization also to only fly them at peak demand times/days. If an aircraft is going to sit, they must be depreciated. DL is pursuing a very G4 like strategy where the aircraft are parked.

The issue for DL is that the flying cost of an MD-80 is now bettered by a used A319 or A320 in that strategy. I'm aware DL's A319 CASM isn't so hot, but that is lease costs and configuration.

The other downside is the cost/revenue benefit is partially due to low utilization. If the economy improves quickly, DL will be at a disadvantage due to high variable costs. In some ways, that is the bet AA made.

The other bet AA made was thinking about what the MD-80 maintenance costs would be like if the economies of scale became poor. In effect, a reality DL will see in a few years. For example, as JT8D overhauls decline, there will initially be a reduction in overhaul costs (more used parts available), but then prices will rise as there will be no longer be shops dedicated to JT8D overhaul and the amazing efficiency that produces. So that will be high per cycle costs.

We're not there yet... but give it a few years.

Quoting finnishway (Reply 2):
Why Delta don't get rid of them so fast? They have many aircraft, own maintenance company and they can even scrap some planes for spare parts. This works well for Delta at least for now.

DL is also trying to control capitol costs. Why so tight? I have no idea, perhaps it is to maintain bond ratings. But even Allegiant is seeing used A319s/A320s have lower costs due to fuel savings. As the economy improves and demand grows enough, DL will start replacing the MD-80s.

I'm not betting on a big drop in oil prices as that reduces the incentive to frack which will drive up the prices pretty quick.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineGrisee08 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 395 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9177 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 15):
the max certificated cruise altitude of the MD-90 is 37,000

Same with the Boeing 717... Although most of the flights I've been on have cruised between FL310 and FL330

I remember reading somewhere how NW's DC9-10s were restricted to a certain altitude because of some equipment that had not (and would not be, due to close retirement) been upgraded. It's been so long, but I read this somewhere.



You're Losing The Game!
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 7
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8011 times:

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 4):
DL tries to keep its MD-88s on shorter segments/lower daily utilization where the fuel penalty vs. a 738 or A320 is smaller.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 24):
Lower utilization also to only fly them at peak demand times/days. If an aircraft is going to sit, they must be depreciated. DL is pursuing a very G4 like strategy where the aircraft are parked.

Shorter segments, yes. Lower daily utilization, definately not. The 88s average 5 segments a day which is the very top of the scale right now for the narrowbody fleet. Because they are flying such short segments, most to all under 2 hours, they're being run to the ground cycles wise. We're talking trips like DCA-ATL, ATL-VPS, VPS-ATL, ATL-MSP-, MSP-BOS. Many doing 6 segments a day which is the max the system will schedule an a/c unless it picks up an unscheduled trip which will put it to 7 but it happens often.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlinewedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5950 posts, RR: 6
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7801 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 8):
AA's hit most markets and did (do?) routes like ORD-SEA. Delta generally keeps them east of the mississippi now, flying up and down the east coast.

I'm sure you all remember that DL used the MD-88's extensively between DFW and the smaller cities along the west coast like DFW-OAK, DFW-SJC, etc. before they closed the DFW hub.

Once in the blue moon, DL will send a MD-88 on the MSP-SEA run in lieu of a MD-90...when the MD-90 is scheduled on the route.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4414 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6864 times:

Quoting TrnsWrld (Reply 20):
Infact in another thread I remember some people saying some of TWAs newest MD83s are newer than some of AA's 737-800 aircraft.

I have seen that as well. Looking on airfleets.net would show that the first 737-800 was delivered back in 1999 and the youngest MD 80 was delivered back in 2001.

I don't think so. I believe that the last MD-83 was delivered in 1989 and the first 737-800 delivered to AA was in 1999

Quoting Grisee08 (Reply 25):
I remember reading somewhere how NW's DC9-10s were restricted to a certain altitude because of some equipment that had not (and would not be, due to close retirement) been upgraded. It's been so long, but I read this somewhere.

I have read that not only the DC9-10s, but the DC9-32s were also restricted to flying mainly in the Eastern United because they could not fly above the mountains in the West due to their altitude restrictions.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3489 posts, RR: 10
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6774 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 28):
I don't think so. I believe that the last MD-83 was delivered in 1989 and the first 737-800 delivered to AA was in 1999

That is incorrect. The last MD-83 was indeed delivered to TW in 1999. And while nearly all AA 737-800s are newer than their MD-83s, there are a few that are actually older.

Jeremy


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4414 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6666 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 28):
I don't think so. I believe that the last MD-83 was delivered in 1989 and the first 737-800 delivered to AA was in 1999

This statement was incorrect on my part, as I had been travelling too much and actually not meant to post that.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinemsp747 From United States of America, joined May 2010, 330 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6638 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 28):

I have read that not only the DC9-10s, but the DC9-32s were also restricted to flying mainly in the Eastern United because they could not fly above the mountains in the West due to their altitude restrictions.

Back in the 90's, NW used to run its DC9-30's out west all of the time from MSP. BOI and BIL are two airports I recall seeing them at, and I know you had to go over the mountains to get to BOI. Eventually BOI was upgauged to 727's and then A320's


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25989 posts, RR: 22
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6463 times:

Quoting msp747 (Reply 31):
Quoting brilondon (Reply 28):

I have read that not only the DC9-10s, but the DC9-32s were also restricted to flying mainly in the Eastern United because they could not fly above the mountains in the West due to their altitude restrictions.

Back in the 90's, NW used to run its DC9-30's out west all of the time from MSP. BOI and BIL are two airports I recall seeing them at, and I know you had to go over the mountains to get to BOI. Eventually BOI was upgauged to 727's and then A320's

AC operated their large fleet of DC-9-32s (and their 6 original DC-14s operated temporarily pending delivery of the -32s) extensively on routes that crossed the Rockies, for example YYC-YVR, YEG-YVR, YWG-YVR etc.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8764 posts, RR: 3
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6209 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 15):
By the way, I looked it up; the max certificated cruise altitude of the MD-90 is 37,000, so you weren't at 39,000.

But, the MD80 certification was originally 41k according to a.net posters. Then it was changed...


The 727-200 was certified to 42k....    maybe that was the ride in question.

Quoting Grisee08 (Reply 25):
I remember reading somewhere how NW's DC9-10s were restricted to a certain altitude because of some equipment that had not (and would not be, due to close retirement) been upgraded. It's been so long, but I read this somewhere.

They were restricted under 29k or 30k because of RVSM equipment NW declined to invest in at the end of their service lives.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4414 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6099 times:

Quoting msp747 (Reply 31):
Back in the 90's, NW used to run its DC9-30's out west all of the time from MSP. BOI and BIL are two airports I recall seeing them at, and I know you had to go over the mountains to get to BOI. Eventually BOI was upgauged to 727's and then A320's

I was speaking about before they were retired from the DL fleet a few years ago not last century, I have no idea about now or in the distant past.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7768 posts, RR: 27
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5732 times:

AA has had a much larger and much older MD80 fleet than DL. Is AA going to retire their MD80 fleet much if any earlier than DL? Indications are that majority of DLs MD88s will be around until 2018-2019. DL's strategy has been stop doing HMVs and then burn cycles on the aircraft until they time-out for their next HMV.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 26):
Shorter segments, yes. Lower daily utilization, definately not. The 88s average 5 segments a day which is the very top of the scale right now for the narrowbody fleet. Because they are flying such short segments, most to all under 2 hours, they're being run to the ground cycles wise. We're talking trips like DCA-ATL, ATL-VPS, VPS-ATL, ATL-MSP-, MSP-BOS. Many doing 6 segments a day which is the max the system will schedule an a/c unless it picks up an unscheduled trip which will put it to 7 but it happens often.

Believe it or not, the remaining DC-9-50s are doing 6-8 cycles per day this summer. Look at what N780NC flew in two-day period last week:

7/24 BHM-ATL-DAY-ATL-HSV-ATL-HSV-ATL-LIT
7/25 LIT-ATL-BMH-ATL-HSV-ATL-BNA-DTW-BNA

On 7/15 it did 9 !!!! segments in a day.
AGS-ATL-BMH-ATL-GSO-ATL-TUL-ATL-PNS-ATL

Who says the DC-9 still isn't a workhorse.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 24):
DL is also trying to control capitol costs. Why so tight? I have no idea, perhaps it is to maintain bond ratings. But even Allegiant is seeing used A319s/A320s have lower costs due to fuel savings. As the economy improves and demand grows enough, DL will start replacing the MD-80s.

DL is trying to pay down yet and return dividends to their shareholders. Plus they want to keep a portion of their fleet as flexible/variable capacity. Specifically they want to have a portion of aircraft where they can flex utilization and/or park as conditions warrent. The DC-9, MD88, 757, and 763ER fleet fit this profile.


User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2395 posts, RR: 7
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5625 times:

DL’s MD-88 fleet is generally superior in performance and operating costs, when compared to AA. The MD-88s have all of the final upgrades that were offered by McDonnell Douglas through the life of the MD-80 program.

This includes:

-JT8D-219s
-reduced drag screwdriver tail-cone
-low-drag flap hinge fairings & pylon fairings
-EFIS digital glass cockpit
-upgraded interior/wider aisle
-composite materials

Seventy-one aircraft are owned-outright; the remainder are on favorable lease agreements which were restructured during bankruptcy. These reasons and more factor into why DL is investing in the flight-deck mod, building spare inventory, and positioning itself for continued operation post 2020.



There's nothing quite like a trijet.
User currently offline727forever From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 794 posts, RR: 5
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5603 times:

Quoting rivervisual (Reply 5):
Unless there was a specific MEL issue with that aircraft or the WX above 30000 feet to the service ceiling was worse there is no reason a MD-90 cannot fly above 30000 feet. I routinely fly the MD-90 and it has one of the better rides during bad weather. It may have it's issues but in the end it's a more fuel efficient MD-88 with more seats.

I'm sorry to say, FL300 is a typical max altitude for the MD-90 if fuel and carrying extra fuel. Even the MD-80 if fuel and topped off will be limited to FL300-FL320 initially, but will burn into a higher max altitude fairly quickly. The MD-90 may not for the entire flight.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
Really! IIRC I have been to 39k on DC-9 on MSP-ORD. This could be wrong but I do recall it.

M90 might struggle with very heavy fuel loads.

Someone else responded but I will add. The DC-9 was limited to FL350 and the MD-80/90 are FL370. That said, this number is an airframe limitation, but they are often performance restricted much lower.

Quoting Grisee08 (Reply 25):
Same with the Boeing 717... Although most of the flights I've been on have cruised between FL310 and FL330

The 717 is also limited to FL370, but is often too heavy for the wing to have a safe margin that high. The structural limitation is due to pressurization as the MD series has a 7.86:1 normal differential which is lower than Boeing and Airbus. The 717 has the same wing as the DC-9-34 which is a lot smaller than the MD-80/90 wing, but has the same problems with the lighter weight airframe.

727forever



727forever
User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2395 posts, RR: 7
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5573 times:

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 35):
AA has had a much larger and much older MD80 fleet than DL.

Not anymore. DL's fleet is 2/3rds the size of AA and about equal if you include the MD-90s. A far cry from when AA nearly tripled DL.

As for age, AA have 61 frames built pre-1990; DL have 46. AA have 39 MD-83s built between 1997-1999; DL have ZERO MD-88s built after 1993. In another year, AA's fleet will likely be younger than DL's...

Quoting Flighty (Reply 33):
But, the MD80 certification was originally 41k according to a.net posters.

This is false. Originally, the DC-9-81 was certified for a service ceiling of 37,000 ft. At the time, (1980), this was the highest certified ceiling for any subsonic, narrow-body airliner.



There's nothing quite like a trijet.
User currently offlineGrisee08 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 395 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5377 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Flighty (Reply 33):
They were restricted under 29k or 30k because of RVSM equipment NW declined to invest in at the end of their service lives.

Yep, That's it.. Thank you!

Quoting 727forever (Reply 37):
The 717 has the same wing as the DC-9-34 which is a lot smaller than the MD-80/90 wing

What is the difference between a DC9-34 wing and DC9-32 wing? I never understood that, and wondered why they didn't just say DC9-30 series wing.



You're Losing The Game!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25989 posts, RR: 22
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4996 times:

Quoting Grisee08 (Reply 39):
What is the difference between a DC9-34 wing and DC9-32 wing? I never understood that, and wondered why they didn't just say DC9-30 series wing.

The wings are the same size, but (if Wikipedia is correct) the DC-9-33 and -34 had the "wing incidence increased 1.25 degrees to reduce cruise drag."


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26137 posts, RR: 50
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4806 times:

Regarding the utilization levels, both AA and DL fly their MD-80s for almost identical hours annually.

2012 DOT Form 41 shows utilization levels.

DL averages 8.6 block hours and 4.5 cycles daily on their MD-80s. AA had 8.7 hours but lower daily cycles of 3.6 on theirs.

The cycle variance is due to average stage lengths where DL does 593miles on average, while AA does 811.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineNWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1150 posts, RR: 3
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4807 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 727forever (Reply 37):
The 717 has the same wing as the DC-9-34 which is a lot smaller than the MD-80/90 wing.

The 717 is basically the same size as a DC-9-40 which is shorter than the MD-80 or MD-90. Therefore it doe not need as large a wing as the MD80/90.   



Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
User currently offline727forever From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 794 posts, RR: 5
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4455 times:

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 42):
The 717 is basically the same size as a DC-9-40 which is shorter than the MD-80 or MD-90. Therefore it doe not need as large a wing as the MD80/90.

While true the 717 is basically the size of the -40, the larger wing wouldn't have hurt except for that pesky additional weight. Imagine how efficient those BMW engines would be if they were allowed to push the airplane up to 370 all the time like the MD-87. I'm sure the analysis was done by folks with better knowledge than any of us.

727forever



727forever
User currently offlinethreeifbyair From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 709 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4377 times:

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 38):
As for age, AA have 61 frames built pre-1990; DL have 46. AA have 39 MD-83s built between 1997-1999; DL have ZERO MD-88s built after 1993. In another year, AA's fleet will likely be younger than DL's...

At which point we'll start having the bimonthly "When will DL retire the MD-88?" threads...    

On a related note, why did AA (or was it TW - whichever airline ordered that last batch) not order the -88? Commonality? MD offering -83s at a more attractive price?


User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7768 posts, RR: 27
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4131 times:

Quoting 727forever (Reply 43):
While true the 717 is basically the size of the -40, the larger wing wouldn't have hurt except for that pesky additional weight. Imagine how efficient those BMW engines would be if they were allowed to push the airplane up to 370 all the time like the MD-87. I'm sure the analysis was done by folks with better knowledge than any of us.

Trade-off of optimizing the aircraft for shorter flights versus longer flights. With much of the shorter routes, the aircraft never needs to go that high.


User currently offlineMIflyer12 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4079 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 41):
Regarding the utilization levels, both AA and DL fly their MD-80s for almost identical hours annually.

2012 DOT Form 41 shows utilization levels.

My contention on utlization isn't that AA uses MD-80s less than DL uses MD-88s, but that DL uses MD-88s daily less than it does 738s. The MD-88s get more short routes and spend more time on the ground; the more efficient planes spend more time at cruise.


User currently offlinemaxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 1159 posts, RR: 7
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4004 times:

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 38):
This is false. Originally, the DC-9-81 was certified for a service ceiling of 37,000 ft. At the time, (1980), this was the highest certified ceiling for any subsonic, narrow-body airliner.

Well, that's incorrect as well. The 707-320 series and all DC-8s were certified to 42,000 ft. I flew them both well before 1980.


User currently onlinetb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1648 posts, RR: 9
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3928 times:

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 38):
This is false. Originally, the DC-9-81 was certified for a service ceiling of 37,000 ft. At the time, (1980), this was the highest certified ceiling for any subsonic, narrow-body airliner.
Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 47):
Well, that's incorrect as well. The 707-320 series and all DC-8s were certified to 42,000 ft. I flew them both well before 1980.

The 727 is certified to 42,000 as well, you won't catch me going up there in one, but it is certified to it.

I am surprised at the lack of performance (most likely contributed to the wing) I have learned about in this thread about the MD-90. I've been looking at some flights on flightaware and a lot of them are planned to start off at FL260 for a while before bumping up to FL300 or maybe 320 down the line on flights to the West Coast. Yikes. Even one of my anemic -9 powered 72's isn't that bad on long legs.

DL must be getting a heck of a deal on the 90's, they are good at that.

[Edited 2013-07-30 07:52:10]


Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
User currently offlineAT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1050 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3848 times:

I will be sad to see the MD80 series leave American, and then Delta.
I love them for shorter hops, and the 3 x 2 (or 2 x 3 in AA) allows for great seating flexibility.

One thing I have often wondered is does the asymmetric seating do anything to the center of gravity of the plane since one side will be slightly heavier?


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26137 posts, RR: 50
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3634 times:

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 46):
My contention on utlization isn't that AA uses MD-80s less than DL uses MD-88s, but that DL uses MD-88s daily less than it does 738s.

That statement is true for both AA and DL. 738s were utilized significantly more versus the M80.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinemaxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 1159 posts, RR: 7
Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3361 times:

Quoting AT (Reply 49):
One thing I have often wondered is does the asymmetric seating do anything to the center of gravity of the plane since one side will be slightly heavier?

No. The arm (distance from the center line to the seats) is very short. The effect on lateral balance is inconsequential.

Now if you moved those rows of three seats out to the wing tip it would be a different situation. And very breezy as well!


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8764 posts, RR: 3
Reply 52, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3336 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 50):
That statement is true for both AA and DL. 738s were utilized significantly more versus the M80.

Note, turn times are not included in utilization. In a "15 hour day," the 737 will get more flight hours on it because of longer trips, fewer turns. That's before we consider true decision-based utilization, and finally red-eyes, which MDs are less capable of.
  


User currently onlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6931 posts, RR: 9
Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3349 times:

M80: AA has nicer seats and F class, DL has nicer ambiance (cabin lights, bathrooms, etc.)


"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3993 posts, RR: 12
Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3244 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 38):
Not anymore. DL's fleet is 2/3rds the size of AA and about equal if you include the MD-90s.

And if you add to that the 717s that are coming up, don't know how many but quite a few for sure, the combined DC-9/MD-80 derivatives fleet at DL will be larger than the current MD-80 fleet at AA. DL will be the only airline flying the 717 and the MD-90.

Ben Soriano



Ben Soriano
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13520 posts, RR: 100
Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3149 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Is Wikipedia correct in that the average age of the MD-80 fleet at delta is 22 years?

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 26):
Shorter segments, yes. Lower daily utilization, definately not. The 88s average 5 segments a day which is the very top of the scale right now for the narrowbody fleet. Because they are flying such short segments, most to all under 2 hours, they're being run to the ground cycles wise. We're talking trips like DCA-ATL, ATL-VPS, VPS-ATL, ATL-MSP-, MSP-BOS. Many doing 6 segments a day which is the max the system will schedule an a/c unless it picks up an unscheduled trip which will put it to 7 but it happens often.

Still lower than B6's utilization.   Ok, you have a valid point. That is higher utilization than I anticipated. But that high of utilization would have lower CASM with an A319. Since those are available used... I wonder what DL's strategy is.

Unless this is true:

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 35):
DL's strategy has been stop doing HMVs and then burn cycles on the aircraft until they time-out for their next HMV.

If no heavy maintenance, that reduces the variable cost of the MD-80s as the per cycle wear costs less. If there is no heavy maintenance, we're definitely on the end run. But that would have MD-80s being retired and the 2013 MD-80 fleet is the same size as the 2010 MD-80 fleet at DL per Wikipedia. So that implies DL is still performing heavy MX. If you have other information, I'm all ears...

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 35):
Specifically they want to have a portion of aircraft where they can flex utilization and/or park as conditions warrent. The DC-9, MD88, 757, and 763ER fleet fit this profile.

Now that I understand. Nothing wrong with using amortized fleets on a partial utilization (as I noted, as per G4). That to me makes sense. Need an aircraft on only Monday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday? One doesn't use the one with a high lease rate. But that works only for the last D-check interval. Otherwise, one is paying for too much maintenance for too few passenger miles once the bill comes due.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2395 posts, RR: 7
Reply 56, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3110 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 40):
the DC-9-33 and -34 had the "wing incidence increased 1.25 degrees to reduce cruise drag."

   That's correct; as they were developed after the DC-9-40, which has the same wing incidence. A DC-9-34 is basically a DC-9-32 with the DC-9-40's aerodynamic improvements, but without the stretch. (The -33 is the cargo variant). Furthermore, the 717's -34 wing also has a new wing/body fairing and the new style flap hinges with the prongs.

Quoting threeifbyair (Reply 44):
On a related note, why did AA (or was it TW - whichever airline ordered that last batch) not order the -88? Commonality? MD offering -83s at a more attractive price?

Good question. The short answer is the range of the MD-83. The long answer: Boeing was happy to sell the remaining MD inventory on hand in LGB. TW received favorable terms and options for the MD-80's platform, carrying over a strategy MDC implemented in the mid '90s. More or less, all aircraft from late 1995 had every MD-80 improvement, minus whatever the client requested be omitted. For example, TW omitted the autobrakes. The final 39 aircraft were basically "MD-88ERs" for TW.

Quoting tb727 (Reply 48):

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 47):
Well, that's incorrect as well. The 707-320 series and all DC-8s were certified to 42,000 ft. I flew them both well before 1980.

The 727 is certified to 42,000 as well, you won't catch me going up there in one, but it is certified to it.

Thank you both; I stand corrected. Admittedly the 707/KC-135 was before my time. But if I'm accurate, commercial passenger operators in the western world were not operating above FL370, when the MD-80 entered service in 1980. I can't recall ever flying at FL390 in 727, for example; even if it was certified for it.



There's nothing quite like a trijet.
User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2395 posts, RR: 7
Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3086 times:

Quoting tb727 (Reply 48):
I am surprised at the lack of performance (most likely contributed to the wing) I have learned about in this thread about the MD-90.

I consulted closely with MDC during the time of the MD-90's development. Mgmt's goal for the MD-90 was to get the best ROIC by the most efficient means possible. With the resources given, engineering felt they could make it work without a new wing, given the airfoil's better than average aerodynamics, and the old wing's superiority over previous competing models, such as the 727, 737 classic, and Fokker 100. Also worth adding, the primary clients (DL, SK, AS), were not asking for a new wing when LOI's were signed.

Looking at operating cost and fuel efficiency, the MD-90 does stack up well with the A320. It's lack of range is largely due to the smaller fuel tank. That said, it's hard not to argue that a new, larger wing would have brought a new life to the MD-90 program.

Quoting tb727 (Reply 48):
DL must be getting a heck of a deal on the 90's, they are good at that.

They're paid-off by the time they finish mods and enter service. I'd say it's a pretty good deal.  
Quoting American 767 (Reply 54):
the combined DC-9/MD-80 derivatives fleet at DL will be larger than the current MD-80 fleet at AA. DL will be the only airline flying the 717 and the MD-90.

It would not shock me to see DL operate over 300 MD variants at some point.

At the very least, we can expect:
- 117 MD-88s
- 76 MD-90s
- 88 717s

Total: 281 aircraft

For the MD-90 and 717, another 15 years of operation is not unlikely. Older 717s may even be retired before any MD-90s... at least they will approach their cycle limits much earlier.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 55):
Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 35):
DL's strategy has been stop doing HMVs and then burn cycles on the aircraft until they time-out for their next HMV.

If no heavy maintenance, that reduces the variable cost of the MD-80s as the per cycle wear costs less. If there is no heavy maintenance, we're definitely on the end run.

I believe the "no HMV" strategy is only being applied to specific aircraft types in DL's fleet. Right now, D95s and 752s are under the gun. Soon it will be the domestic 763s and probably the older A320s.

The MD-88s are unique in that they will benefit from the life extension program. Ships 904 and 905 and others are well beyond the original certified limit of 50k cycles, yet these aircraft have no immediate plans for retirement. Of course everything is fluid with the price of oil.

It's possible DL could extend the life of the A320s, however given the types' history, (or lack thereof compared to the DC-9), it will be a more laborious process.



There's nothing quite like a trijet.
User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 58, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3046 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 24):
The other bet AA made was thinking about what the MD-80 maintenance costs would be like if the economies of scale became poor. In effect, a reality DL will see in a few years. For example, as JT8D overhauls decline, there will initially be a reduction in overhaul costs (more used parts available), but then prices will rise as there will be no longer be shops dedicated to JT8D overhaul and the amazing efficiency that produces. So that will be high per cycle costs.

but this risk is reduced by Delta because, generally, the bulk of the 219s and its respectable parts are done in house. IIRC TechOps doesn't have any 219 MRO engines anymore. I believe they are all Delta engines now. (and thus Delta components)
This could be an issue for the airframe side, but i don't know if AM does anyone other than Delta's HMVs.

Quoting threeifbyair (Reply 44):

On a related note, why did AA (or was it TW - whichever airline ordered that last batch) not order the -88? Commonality? MD offering -83s at a more attractive price?

IIRC the last batch of 83s are basically 88s but have the 82/83 cockpits. I believe they have the tailcone, 219s and the composites of the 88s.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 55):

If no heavy maintenance, that reduces the variable cost of the MD-80s as the per cycle wear costs less. If there is no heavy maintenance, we're definitely on the end run. But that would have MD-80s being retired and the 2013 MD-80 fleet is the same size as the 2010 MD-80 fleet at DL per Wikipedia. So that implies DL is still performing heavy MX. If you have other information, I'm all ears...

88s are still getting HMVs done (by AM in Mexico   )

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 57):

I believe the "no HMV" strategy is only being applied to specific aircraft types in DL's fleet. Right now, D95s and 752s are under the gun. Soon it will be the domestic 763s and probably the older A320s.

and even then it depends on the the ship. Younger 57s that will be around are still getting HMVs.
But generally they won't go beyond (IIRC) HMV-4 maybe 5



yep.
User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2395 posts, RR: 7
Reply 59, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3037 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 58):
IIRC the last batch of 83s are basically 88s but have the 82/83 cockpits.

The late-build MD-83s do have the MD-88's EFIS flight-deck. They are MD-88ERs, through-in-through.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Spence




There's nothing quite like a trijet.
User currently offlinemaxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 1159 posts, RR: 7
Reply 60, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2810 times:

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 56):
Thank you both; I stand corrected. Admittedly the 707/KC-135 was before my time. But if I'm accurate, commercial passenger operators in the western world were not operating above FL370, when the MD-80 entered service in 1980. I can't recall ever flying at FL390 in 727, for example; even if it was certified for it.

If it's certified for 42.000, it's certified for 42,000 regardless of passenger, cargo or operator. I routinely flew the DC-8-62 at 390 on South American routes during that era. (after burning off 3-4 hours of fuel). The Boeing 720B was able to climb to 410 at near maximum weight; my friends that flew it called it "Boeing's hot-rod". I never flew the 727-100, but I did fly the -200, and the early -7 powered wouldn't make 390 empty. But I can assure you airlines operated above routinely above FL370 from the beginning of the jet age.


User currently offlineDalmd88 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2614 posts, RR: 14
Reply 61, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2731 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 55):
If no heavy maintenance, that reduces the variable cost of the MD-80s as the per cycle wear costs less. If there is no heavy maintenance, we're definitely on the end run. But that would have MD-80s being retired and the 2013 MD-80 fleet is the same size as the 2010 MD-80 fleet at DL per Wikipedia. So that implies DL is still performing heavy MX. If you have other information, I'm all ears...

As others have stated the DL MD88 fleet is still getting HMV's I don't think there are many lines in work during this summer season, but that should change come fall. I think in the fall we do the prototype for the cockpit upgrade. that includes a much needed FMS upgrade. The system is pretty much out of memory space. The database for nav info is just getting too large. Without the upgrade the planes would be limited to a specific region of the country per the database upload.

As far as other fleets in the no HMV strategy only the oldest 757 aircraft are not getting another round of HMV's and of course the DC9 fleet.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26137 posts, RR: 50
Reply 62, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2535 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 52):
Note, turn times are not included in utilization.

And when did anyone say it was?

Utilization = block hours.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently onlinetb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1648 posts, RR: 9
Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2496 times:

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 57):
They're paid-off by the time they finish mods and enter service. I'd say it's a pretty good deal.  

I love it. That's the way I like to see airlines operate. Now if they would just call me...   



Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2325 posts, RR: 9
Reply 64, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2412 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 58):
88s are still getting HMVs done (by AM in Mexico   )

Dont know why the sad face? AM had a very large fleet of MD´s and they had them for 3 decades, so they know MX very well.... and surely it must be cheaper..

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2196 times:

I've always wondered why DL kept thers longer than AA. It would
be nice to see AA keep there's as long as DL. It would also be nice
to see fly them regularly back to MIA like DL does and use the
738s on more profitable routes.


User currently onlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6931 posts, RR: 9
Reply 66, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2161 times:

Quoting mia305 (Reply 65):

DL negotiated the M88 leases when they were in BK in the mid 2000s.

Don't forget, DL has the -88's which can operate profitably on short sectors (like ATL-BNA) and they have only over 100 of them left. AA had over 300 of older -82 and -83 just a few years ago and flew them on mid cons from the ORD, which don't strike me as nearly as profitable as operating a newer 738 on the route. The exceptions are the ex-TW -83's which are newer, delivered between 1996-1999. The future of those A/C I'm sure are in jeopardy as well.



"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
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...
AA VS DL & UA In BK Contracts posted Wed Feb 1 2012 19:44:16 by ripcordd
AA Vs. DL: 737-800 Overhead Video Monitors posted Fri Jul 30 1999 15:40:41 by ORD
Active Widebody Fleet Of UA/CO Vs DL Vs AA In 2010 posted Sat Apr 24 2010 12:58:51 by CV880
AA MD80 Now Vs Early 707/DC8/CV880 In 74 posted Wed May 21 2008 18:42:08 by TAN FLYR
Questions Regards AA and DL MD80 & 90 Status posted Sun Oct 7 2007 18:20:45 by KochamLOT
AA/CO Vs. DL/NW Over Pension Bill posted Thu Aug 3 2006 16:35:14 by BigGSFO
AA Or DL Vs. Jblu Hub And Spoke posted Fri May 27 2005 20:38:06 by Pmg1704
VS/DL "Great Minds Fly Alike" Partnership Details posted Mon Jun 24 2013 07:39:47 by anstar
OAG Changes 3/22/2013: AA/B6/DL/UA posted Tue Mar 19 2013 09:46:55 by enilria
ORD Market Share: AA Vs. UA posted Sat Mar 9 2013 18:11:00 by FreshSide3