September11 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3623 posts, RR: 23 Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 11890 times:
I'll say cheaper to use 1999-built MD-83 on ORD-SFO route than 1990-built A320. I hope I am correct.
NW747-400 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 488 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 11796 times:
September11: not necessarily correct from a powerplant standpoint. Even the new MD80 series use JT8 series engines, all of which are medium bypass with a ratio of 2:1 (1:1 in 727). Lower bypass ratios are less efficient at subsonic cruise speeds. The A320 series utilize high bypass turbofans (4:1 bypass ratio or higher) and are much more efficient.
There are other factors of course, just my 2 cents though.
SU184 From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 231 posts, RR: 12 Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11433 times:
PIA747: Don't get your point, why would airlines like Austrian, old-Swissair, Alitalia,... and others replace their MD80's with A320 family or 73G's if they were not more efficient and cheaper to operate in the longer term, add to their efficiency the noise level of the MD80's, some airports charge their fees taking into consideration the noise category, you cannot operate MD80's from several airports during the night curfew that is imposed, in certain cases you can take-off but you have to pay extra noise fees.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11367 times:
I believe MD83 is equipped with the upgraded JT8 which is lighter and more fuel effecient.
The JT8D-200 series found on all MD-80s is a relatively low bypass turbofan. The A320's engines, and the 737NGs, are significantly more efficient.
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 15733 posts, RR: 48 Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11315 times:
The MD-80 has a narrower cross section which could make it more efficient than the A320.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79 Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11257 times:
>The JT8D-200 series found on all MD-80s is a relatively low bypass turbofan. The A320's engines, and the 737NGs, are significantly more efficient.<
While the MD-80's are lower bypass, they are also lower powered and lighter. Also, the MD-80's frame is lighter. There really is no comparison on range and cargo carriage, where the 737/A320 win hands down.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
FLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4510 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 11103 times:
I found here: http://www.icao.int/icao/en/ro/allpirg/allpirg4/wp28app.pdf that the MD-80 and A320 have roughly the same direct operating cost per hour (as of summer 2000), while the 737G has a little lower, and the 738 even lower DOC/hr.
Fuel consumption seemed to be the main factor in determining the differences between DOC/hr.
MD-80: 799 gal
MD-87: 741 gal
A320: 886 gal
A319: 821 gal
73G: 690 gal
738: 564 gal
As that list was done in 2000 before fuel shot up, jetfuel prices were pegged at $.70, so while the operating cost order remains the same, double the fuel costs listed on the website to find a more accurate DOC.
FLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4510 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11063 times:
Well they're from the ICAO, and the 73G is still cheaper to operate than its direct competitor, the A319...
The 73G is a little misleading as it is lumped together with the 733 for whatever reason (none of the other planes are joined like that).
Captaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 58 Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11047 times:
Actually, the MD-80 has a slightly higher cost per hour according to the above figures, compared to the A320, but the A320 carries a few more passengers, and substantially more cargo. Therefore, the revenue potential for the A320 is greater than with the MD-80.
The fuel efficiency of the 73G is quite impressive, and I'm wondering if that's mainly a factor of its higher cruise altitude thanks to its larger wing?
"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
PIA747 From Pakistan, joined Apr 2003, 624 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11018 times:
Considering the low lease rates of MD80, particularly the MD83 make it an attractive choice for start up low cost operation. This can be seen in airlines such as jetsgo, Kalula, Lion air and several more in Indonesia.
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6181 posts, RR: 74 Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10520 times:
End of 2003, MD82s would be about 1600USD/H ACMI based on 250hrs per month...
Anyways, Lion seems to be the only one in Indonesia that is going big with the MDs... Bouraq gave up their MDs, Star seems to be the only other one here... Airfast also recently began using MD80s, but mainly for charters/732 supplement...
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 919 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3623 posts, 
From Pakistan, joined Apr 2003, 624 posts, 
From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 231 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4759 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6181 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
