futureb6capt
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 12:49 pm

A320 Vs. MD-80

Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:55 am

This isn't a slam towards B6 at all (hence my username)-but why do you think they decided to go with the A320 instead of MD-80 series. Md-83's have similar range, weight, passenger capacity, and are a lot cheaper than A320's were. I realise the fuel costs are a little greater, and A320's are a little wider, but enough to make a difference?

-FutureB6Capt
 
phatfarmlines
Posts: 1231
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: A320 Vs. MD-80

Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:57 am

The MD-80 does not fit into the B6 strategy. Remember, B6 is looking for new equipment that is currently in production.
 
goboeing
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 5:31 am

RE: A320 Vs. MD-80

Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:57 am

I'm not an expert on either aircraft, but an MD-80 cannot go from JFK to LGB or wherever else on the west coast they fly to from there and IAD. I'm sure that is just one of many reasons that the newer A-320 series was selected.

Nick
 
legendDC9
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:24 am

RE: A320 Vs. MD-80

Sun Nov 21, 2004 10:07 am

Some MD's do have the range (Alaska's long range MD's that flew to Russia) but overall it is an old and outdated design, small bins, small lavs, difficult to upgrade to the personal TV screens and nothing at all like what B6 wanted to get into. Plus, you can't beat Airbus lease rates...
 
deltaflyertoo
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2000 3:18 pm

RE: A320 Vs. MD-80

Sun Nov 21, 2004 10:07 am

To add to what Goboeing and Phatfarmlines said, indeed the MD-80 has been out of production for awhile and definetly does not have the range to do transcons. The plane was designed to do short hops and compete with the 737 classics.
 
N62NA
Posts: 3999
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: A320 Vs. MD-80

Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:00 am


The plane was designed to do short hops and compete with the 737 classics.

Would that be the 737-300/400/500 or the 737-100/200? I keep forgetting what Boeing is calling the "classic" 737!  Nuts
 
BWIA330
Posts: 821
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 10:22 am

RE: A320 Vs. MD-80

Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:07 am

I guess I should be asking the question of why Jetsgo choose the MD-83's infront of the A320's? I always thought that the 320's would be cheapter to run than than a Md-80

Regards

BWIA330
 
legendDC9
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:24 am

RE: A320 Vs. MD-80

Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:13 am

They are somewhat cheaper to operate because:
A) They are Old and larger airlines want to get rid of them and have someone take over the leases.
B) With the hugh DC9 MD80 family slowly being retired, there are many certified pilots available to hire.
But they are not passenger friendly at all, but when you have LCC's trying to cut any cost to keep their structure cheap, what do they care about passenger comforts?
 
blsbls99
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 5:07 pm

RE: A320 Vs. MD-80

Sun Nov 21, 2004 3:43 pm

I've flown on many MD-80 flights, and I have to say it was comfortable as a passenger. Then there's the added bonus that there is only one chance in five that you get a middle seat.
319 320 313 722 732 733 735 73G 738 739 742 752 763 772 CRJ D9S ERJ EMB L10 M88 M90 SF3 AT4
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: A320 Vs. MD-80

Sun Nov 21, 2004 4:01 pm

>This isn't a slam towards B6 at all (hence my username)-but why do you think they decided to go with the A320 instead of MD-80 series. Md-83's have similar range, weight, passenger capacity, and are a lot cheaper than A320's were. I realise the fuel costs are a little greater, and A320's are a little wider, but enough to make a difference?<

As has been stated, the A320 was available new, and B6 did not want a single used plane.
Also, the range is not similar at all. The A320 can do trans-cons, the MD-83 can make it about 2000 miles before crapping out.
The MD-83, however, is actually lighter than the A320 and 737 and uses less fuel, that is one of the reasons it was attractive to airlines. Also, they carry less cargo, and that is an issue for some carriers.

>Some MD's do have the range (Alaska's long range MD's that flew to Russia)<

ANC-GDX (Magadan, Russia), which was the first leg on their Russian Far East flights, is only 1698 nm, which is in the range of the MD-83 and not close to the length of US trans-cons

>but overall it is an old and outdated design<

Not really, considering you they can easily be had with glass cockpits and newer software. Hell, the MD-90 has versions of A320 engines on them.


> small bins, small lavs, <

Considering the 717, which is related to the MD-80, can take Boeing's Big Bins, so can the MD-80 be readily converted. As far as lavs go, all airplane lavs are small

>difficult to upgrade to the personal TV screens<

No, they should be as easy as anything to upgrade, it is just a matter of the airlines that fly them not doing it. If B6 can put screens in the E190, they can put them on the MD-83.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
tavong
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 1:59 am

RE: A320 Vs. MD-80

Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:32 pm

Well in fact the main problem has stated bofre is that B6 want's NEW equipment, otherwise the MD-80 derivatives (mopdernized) would be a good choice, the fact is that at this time MD-80s altougth still great planes can't face with the level of planes that the A32X/737NG derivatives in range, and passenger confort (it's by far more economic to add confort to and A32X-737NG than in an MD-80) , maybe of the MD-90 where still arroud it would be a good choice if it could be developed has a family like MD-80 was but it's an IF, the cheap leasing fares of the MD-80s makes them some kind of atractive proposal for starting airlines but not if yo're speaking about the B6 model.


Gus
SKBO
Just put me on any modern airliner and i will be happy, give me more star alliance miles and i will be a lot more happy.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17058
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: A320 Vs. MD-80

Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:38 pm

The plane was designed to do short hops and compete with the 737 classics.

Would that be the 737-300/400/500 or the 737-100/200? I keep forgetting what Boeing is calling the "classic" 737!


737-100/200 = "Original"
737-300/400/500 = "Classic"
737-600/700/800/900 = "Next Generation"
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ChristopherS, clrd4t8koff, JoeCanuck, LightningAce, msycajun, Scorpio, Someone83, SXDFC, uberflieger, vr-hkg and 206 guests