Coolchris122 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2505 times:
Is Northwest really that safe of an airline both in financial and technical issues? They still fly DC-9's and DC-10's. I think they are the only major U.S. carrier that does so. Also, could they be short on money to not buy new aircraft? Anyone who can explain this, please do so.
FlyCMH From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 2307 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2272 times:
I personally feel very safe flying on Northwest's DC-9's. While they are getting up there in years, they still have some life in them, and it seems that Northwest maintains them very well. I flew back to Columbus from Detroit on one of their DC-9-30's yesterday. There was a problem with the radio, so a replacement part had to be brought in an installed. We had to wait inside the aircraft for a little over an hour, but the flight itself was fine. Besides, takeoff on a diesel 9 is great.
NWA From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 1200 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2256 times:
yea, this seems to be bash NW week. I have seen dumb posts, but this has to beat them all out. NW is one of the safest airlines flying, and the maintiance has was awards for how good they are. they are not even close to being short on money. want to know why? because they use the aircraft they have paid off!! its a concept that must be brand new, because people here seem to think that its the dumbest thing on earth. they have one of the largest cash reserves in the industry, so before you post somthing like that, read up on it first K?
23 victor, turn right heading 210, maintain 3000 till established, cleared ILS runwy 24.
FrequentFlyKid From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2186 times:
I am one of those "newer is better" kids, but I don't think the DC-9 or Northwest is unsafe. Maybe its the high tech age I grew up in, but it's been beaten into us since birth that newer, high tech, computerized things were better. As an example, I would rather fly a 73G then a 733 for the lone reason they are newer. However, I don't think 733's are unsafe by any means. I do agree that the post is kind of stupid.
Bmi330 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1455 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2145 times:
is it mabe not the case that the nwa aircraft are so well taken care of they dont have to renew all the time also would you not fell safer on a tried and tested machine than a protatype or new machine plus when was the last time a nwa plane crashed? infact have they ever had a major incident? There is also the chance you are safer on an older aircraft because there crew's and mantince people have already delt whith most things or everything that can go roung or could anticipate problems better before they happen. I could go on but I dont want to ramble on even more.
Azjubilee From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4176 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2111 times:
NW has had its share of incidences to make the news...
There was an MD80 that crashed in DTW in 1987.
There was also a rwy incursion between a DC9 and a 727 while on the ground in thick fog in DTW in the early 90s. Since those there have been minor incidences... so no, NW is not perfect, but they sure have a better record than AA and US and other US carriers.
ATA L1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1419 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2101 times:
Some of our fellow brotherren need to be educated on Aircraft. Aircraft are not like cars they go through major inspections often and its life is based on cycles and hours not years. Some 30 year old aircraft might be in as good shape or better than a 5 year old one, its all called maintenance practice.
GD727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 925 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2105 times:
Northwest, not safe? Not true. Old aircraft are ANY less unsafe than new aircraft? Also untrue. Heck, I feel even safer on older planes, It is my belief that they are more solidly built. Especially the DC-9 and DC-10, I feel safer on them than a new A-320 or 737NG.
RogueTrader From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2094 times:
Don't you think some of you NW guys could take it easy on this kid?
coolchris122 looks like he was just asking a question without intending to bash NW.
Its a great opportunity to turn this into a positive and point out that
a. older planes are just as safe new planes
b. planes don't wear out in the same way as cars, and a well maintained plane is partially rebuilt every few years
c. NW is a conservative carrier and this has many advantages
d. most flyers don't know much about what they're flying on anyway
e. these a/c may be particularly well suited to NW's routes
I think its a good question and deserves a thoughtful answer.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8171 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2047 times:
However, like it or not NW will have to seriously consider replacing the DC-9's sooner or later.
There are two reasons for this:
1. The plane's engines aren't going to pass muster with the new ICAO jet engine noise and exhaust emission rules coming into force in a few years.
2. Despite NW's great efforts to keep the DC-9 in good shape, the planes' takeoff and landing cycles are getting way, way up there.
This is why I think NW has probably started planning for the post-DC-9 fleet. If Boeing does succeed in buying into Fairchild-Dornier, I personally think NW may start expressing serious interest in buying the F-D 928 series to replace the DC-9 starting the latter half of this decade. The current Boeing 717-200 would be perfect for NW's post-DC-9 needs, but I have serious doubts NW wants this plane.
HlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2015 times:
I don't recall any of Northwest's crashes at least in the past 25 years due to maintenance problems. Let's see the last crash by a Northwest aircraft?? yes the fog at DTW when a DC-9 and 727 collided- pilot and ATC error was the case along with poorly marked taxiways, basically not much damage to the 727 other than the wing, DC-9 written off. Flight 255 crashed due to pilot error and not mechanical, incidentally it was an MD-80. Yes I think NW needs to replace their DC-9s but none have fallen out of the sky yet. Is United really safe is the question? Since NW last crash (collision 1991) United has had two crashes (not counting sept 11) both that I recall were mechanical error- the 733 in Colorado Springs and the DC-10 in Sioux City.
What about American? Three crashes since, (not counting Sept 11) the 757 in Colombia (fog and mountain), the MD-80 (thunderstorm in Little Rock) and the A300 (right now ruled as a mechanical/structural problem). Also the American Eagle ATR that crashed in Indiana a few years back after icing up causing the entire fleet of ATRs to be moved to warmer climates that winter. Then there was also the DC-10 in Chicago in the late 70s that was a mechanical error.
USAir- quite a few since- one due to mechanical/structural (still a mystery) 737 outside of Pittsburgh.
Delta-The L1011 at DFW was before 1991 and was due to thunderstorms, but what was the reason for the 727 crash a few years later at DFW? Their affiliates ASA and Comair both had crashes with their Emb 120s in the 90s- ASA had one outside of ATL I thought due to mechanical and Comair had the crash outside of Detroit- still sort of a mystery in 1997.
Continental had the DC-9 crash at DEN, I can't remember the reason for it either, that was sometime in the late 80s.
Southwest is the only US airline that I can name in the US that has over 100 planes and could really be considered more safe than NW.
Nwa757300 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 301 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 1962 times:
"Also, could they be short on money to not buy new aircraft? Anyone who can explain this, please do so."
I could have sworn we've discussed this in depth but NW is getting a new plane like every other week this year. They are the only major to take delivery of all aircraft they have on order. They're retiring 14 727s this year that's almost half of that fleet. They get 7 757-300s, almost 30 airbus, 2 747-400s etc....
I think NW is doing it's part on fleet renewal.
Azjubilee From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4176 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (13 years 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1924 times:
No resentment whatsoever... just pointing out that WN has had a few incidences that are worthy of talking about. I also just wanted to pint out that WN is as vulnerable to mistakes as the next airline. That's all...