NW747-400 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 504 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 16093 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, 240 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 15730 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.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 27127 posts, RR: 74
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 15554 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
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.
Captaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 55
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 weeks ago) and read 15344 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 (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 15315 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, 7010 posts, RR: 77
Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 14817 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...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !