TrijetsRMissed
Topic Author
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:14 pm

Here is the the AD on the 717, which WN will need to comply with prior to delivery to DL:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...57a210049d28a/$FILE/2012-12-09.pdf



For forum rule/posting purposes, I will say there is a "rumor" the 717 deliveries will be delayed and the D95 extended. Word is the 717s may not enter service with DL until late Q4 2013 earliest, or Q1 2014 very likely. And/Or, less will be on property than originally planned. (Initially)

For the D95, this means a full year extension through 2014. For DL, the paid-for D95 is a more viable option than keeping X amount of 50 seaters to cover the overall capacity. Reportedly, at current MEL, the D95 MX & dispatch reliability have remained flat (it sure is a tank), and are profitable on niche routes currently served. Thus, good news awaits for the Diesel 9 nostalgia crowd.

Because of the AD, DL will operate the D95 alongside the 717, during the transition period. (Rather than swap the last 5-10 out with the first batch of 717s, as was considered). Maybe we'll get the picture of a D95, MD-88, MD-90, 717 line-up after all.  





Mods: Please allow this thread as the 717/D95 discussion is relevant to the AD provided. For the other points made, "Rumor" is used in place of specific sources/links, but the DL teammates on here will learn of this through internal announcement by EOY. Regardless, I think we'll have a good discussion with all of the interested parties following this. (Just look at the thread history)

Thank you & Regards,

[Edited 2012-10-06 15:15:42]

[Edited 2012-10-06 15:23:39]
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
Bobloblaw
Posts: 1680
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sat Oct 06, 2012 10:40 pm

Maybe WN deferring the delivery of 738s is resulting in FL keeping the 717s a bit longer.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:30 pm

Kind of on topic, but I heard there was 1 717 in DL colors at SEA... could this be a trainer for DL (to learn the plane/systems) or is my "source" incorrect? (wouldn't surprise me)
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
usairways787
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:42 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:45 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
Kind of on topic, but I heard there was 1 717 in DL colors at SEA... could this be a trainer for DL (to learn the plane/systems) or is my "source" incorrect? (wouldn't surprise me)

I find that hard to believe, when they could just use a simulator.

US787
"Pre departure walk around complete, all doors closed, ready for pushback"
 
PanAm788
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:43 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:07 am

What is the source of this rumor? Is it an internal email at DL?

Looking at the AD, it appears pretty minor. Inspections are only required during existing maintenance times and appear to require minimum time/cost. I don't really see how this could affect DL's 717 delivery schedule. But then again, I don't work in the industry so I might be missing something.
You know nothing Jon Snow
 
XFSUgimpLB41X
Posts: 3960
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2000 1:18 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:24 am

Latest company memo states Sept 2013 delivery... that is pushed back a month.
Chicks dig winglets.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Topic Author
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:26 am

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 4):
Is it an internal email at DL?

I am not employed by DL.

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 4):
Looking at the AD, it appears pretty minor. Inspections are only required during existing maintenance times and appear to require minimum time/cost.

Relatively speaking, it is minor. And thus, not a concern. There will be a delay, but it is to be expected. It will not have an impact on the long term plans for the 717 at DL.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
PanAm788
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:43 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:33 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 6):
I am not employed by DL.

So how did you hear the rumor that there will be a DC-9 extension?

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 6):
it is minor. And thus, not a concern. There will be a delay, but it is to be expected. It will not have an impact on the long term plans for the 717 at DL.
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 5):
Latest company memo states Sept 2013 delivery... that is pushed back a month.

Unless you have info on how/why the DC-9 extension would go about, I'd say case closed.
You know nothing Jon Snow
 
TrijetsRMissed
Topic Author
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:49 am

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 7):

PamAm788,... sometimes the young guys gotta learn what's kosher..
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
737tdi
Posts: 1116
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:05 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:52 am

I don't see how this alone could possibly delay delivery to DL. AD's of this nature are extremely routine in commercial aviation. This seems to be an inspection that could easily be complied with on a RON visit. Now if a long enough crack is found and requires replacement of the rib then that would be a little time OTS but even that would only be a couple of days. As read in the AD there is no permanent closure of this AD, i.e. even if the rib is replace the AD still stays in effect for reinspection in the future.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Topic Author
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:13 am

I don't think it's the nature of the AD. Certainly not by itself. Like I said in a previous post, the AD is minor and will not impact the long term future of the 717 w/ DL. All the AD does is ensure it's not going to be a seamless transition from D95 to 717.

With that, I think we'll see DL take a cautious and smooth approach, to the full implementation and on-boarding of the sizable 717 fleet.

Remember the MD-90? They do at DL TechOps... Engineering wise, the MD-95 is of same generation as the MD-90. Lots of similarities in terms of systems and infrastructure. If somehow the 717 on-boarding was botched, it could be a disaster, if the D95 capacity is already parked.

I'm confident this time will be different, and the 717 will find effective operation immediately upon arrival. But until a sizable number have been executed, and a streamlined process established, the D95s will continue to carry weight.

Contributing factors to the D95 extension through 2014.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:32 am

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 9):
Now if a long enough crack is found and requires replacement of the rib then that would be a little time OTS but even that would only be a couple of days. As read in the AD there is no permanent closure of this AD, i.e. even if the rib is replace the AD still stays in effect for reinspection in the future.

WN is also updating the 717 for DL, so one would assume that this could be acomplished at the same time the interiors are getting reworked and whatever else DL asked for in the lease agreement.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Topic Author
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:44 am

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 9):
As read in the AD there is no permanent closure of this AD, i.e. even if the rib is replace the AD still stays in effect for reinspection in the future.

The expectation from DL is the AD (+ updates), will put 15 years of active domestic service into the 717. In other words, no other significant issues should impact the 717's operation through 2025-28. That's on target, based on the oldest current FL frames, which are reaching 13 years of service.

Key for DL as: A long term lease holder, potential buyer, and future seller.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
bomber996
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:21 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:52 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 11):
WN is also updating the 717 for DL, so one would assume that this could be acomplished at the same time the interiors are getting reworked and whatever else DL asked for in the lease agreement.

I'm sorry, but I can't help but think that I'm the only one who finds it kind of ironic that DL is essentially taking advantage of a former competitor at ATL with these 717's? I mean will WN keep the "hub" FL had at ATL? I honestly see DL having a smaller competitor at ATL due to this. Props (no pun intended) to DL for the deal over these 717! Keeping aviation interesting!

Peace   
Two biggest lies in aviation... "I'm from the FAA and I'm here to help you." & "Traffic in sight."
 
B777ER
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 3:35 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:53 am

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 7):
So how did you hear the rumor that there will be a DC-9 extension?

It was recently announced internally on DeltaNet Crew Resources. The 9 is staying until 2014.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3010
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:14 pm

Quoting usairways787 (Reply 3):
I find that hard to believe, when they could just use a simulator.

Not if there are no simulators for this type of training, There could be training issues with systems that must be completed with the actual aircraft.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
burnsie28
Posts: 5026
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:49 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:22 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):

Kind of on topic, but I heard there was 1 717 in DL colors at SEA... could this be a trainer for DL (to learn the plane/systems) or is my "source" incorrect? (wouldn't surprise me)

Not true, the paint specs for the aircraft are not even finalized. Also we won't see one until August/September 2013.
 
bigbird
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 10:38 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:09 pm

Is there a possibility that some of the DC-9-50s that have been retired might be brought back to service?
bigbird from georgia
 
cf6ppe
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:09 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:35 pm

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 9):
As read in the AD there is no permanent closure of this AD, i.e. even if the rib is replace the AD still stays in effect for reinspection in the future.

Is there an expectation that a terminating action for the described problem will eventually be available..??

If not, the described problem will continue to be a crack management exercise.
And believe me, airplanes and powerplants are crack management exercises.
 
compensateme
Posts: 1591
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:28 pm

Quoting bomber996 (Reply 13):

I'm sorry, but I can't help but think that I'm the only one who finds it kind of ironic that DL is essentially taking advantage of a former competitor at ATL with these 717's? I mean will WN keep the "hub" FL had at ATL? I honestly see DL having a smaller competitor at ATL due to this. Props (no pun intended) to DL for the deal over these 717! Keeping aviation interesting!

How is DL taking advantage of FL/WN? A merged WN-FL will not have FL's operating costs, and WN feels operating the 717 will be more challenging and/or less advantageous than replacing them with 737. Integrating the 717 into WN had been a concern among many analysts from the start, given that FL had too many and there was no aftermarket for the plane. Whether you believe it or not, DL's doing WN a favor by accepting these aircraft.

I'm still puzzled as to why many a.netters portary DL as the big, bad evil airline taking away FL (WN's) 717. WN has no obligation to remove these planes from its fleet and is doing so because IT wants to.
Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:13 pm

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 19):
I'm still puzzled as to why many a.netters portary DL as the big, bad evil airline taking away FL (WN's) 717.

Yeah, I was surprised to read that. What, did DL throw so much money at WN they were FORCED to get rid of them?

Edit: also, just because the 717s are going doesn't mean every route flown by 717s are going... yes, 737s can be placed on these routes!  Wow!

[Edited 2012-10-07 13:14:01]
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 4536
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:57 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Thread starter):
For the D95, this means a full year extension through 2014.

This has been released to those that want to find it.  
New airliners.net web site sucks.
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:27 pm

Wonder if a Boeing engineer designed the new Horizontal stab ribs. Repetitive inspections for fatigue cracks are most un-Douglas like   
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:54 pm

Quoting bomber996 (Reply 13):
I'm sorry, but I can't help but think that I'm the only one who finds it kind of ironic that DL is essentially taking advantage of a former competitor at ATL with these 717's? I mean will WN keep the "hub" FL had at ATL? I honestly see DL having a smaller competitor at ATL due to this. Props (no pun intended) to DL for the deal over these 717! Keeping aviation interesting!

What are you talking about? WN was under absolutely no obligation to dispose of the 717s or downsize their ATL operation. They have done so because WN management believes it is in the best interests of the company, network, and profitability to do so. Delta obviously wanted the aircraft and nobody else on the planet had any interest in a fleet of 717s that big. It's good for both companies, as both have repeatedly reiterated. This is not about keeping aviation interesting, it is about both companies attempting to maximize profitability.

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 19):
I'm sorry, but I can't help but think that I'm the only one who finds it kind of ironic that DL is essentially taking advantage of a former competitor at ATL with these 717's? I mean will WN keep the "hub" FL had at ATL? I honestly see DL having a smaller competitor at ATL due to this. Props (no pun intended) to DL for the deal over these 717! Keeping aviation interesting!

How is DL taking advantage of FL/WN? A merged WN-FL will not have FL's operating costs, and WN feels operating the 717 will be more challenging and/or less advantageous than replacing them with 737. Integrating the 717 into WN had been a concern among many analysts from the start, given that FL had too many and there was no aftermarket for the plane. Whether you believe it or not, DL's doing WN a favor by accepting these aircraft.

   Well put, CompensateMe.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:59 pm

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 22):
Wonder if a Boeing engineer designed the new Horizontal stab ribs. Repetitive inspections for fatigue cracks are most un-Douglas like

IIRC, Boeing did not design/redesign the B-717. All they did was build it, in Long Beach, from the MD drawings and redesignate it with a Boeing model, the B-717 (which I am still PO'd about, it should have been designated the B-787, amd the current B-787 which came along later should be the B-797). Boeing also certified it as a DC-9 version.
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:53 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):

IIRC, Boeing did not design/redesign the B-717. All they did was build it, in Long Beach, from the MD drawings and redesignate it with a Boeing model, the B-717 (which I am still PO'd about, it should have been designated the B-787, amd the current B-787 which came along later should be the B-797).

Why's that? Is it due to your association with the "Real" 717 (i.e. C-135 and all its military variants, including the KC135)?   
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
737tdi
Posts: 1116
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:05 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:43 am

Quoting cf6ppe (Reply 18):
Is there an expectation that a terminating action for the described problem will eventually be available..??

If not, the described problem will continue to be a crack management exercise.
And believe me, airplanes and powerplants are crack management exercises.




To start this is strictly my opinion.

I don't think there will be a terminating action. Why, because the engineering involved would be extensive and expensive. It's just not worth it in the long run. With inspection limits at 10,500 cycles and then 35,000 cycles if the rib is replaced it just isn't necessary.

Just picking a relative number out of the air, 8 cycles/day for 365 days a year (which isn't going to happen). On the 10,500 cycle insp. that is equal to 3.5 years between each repetitive inspection, On the 35,000 cycle insp. it equals 12 years. Even if you replaced the rib at 12 year intervals it is hardly a blip on overall maintenance.
 
jporterfi
Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:25 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:49 am

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 25):
Why's that? Is it due to your association with the "Real" 717 (i.e. C-135 and all its military variants, including the KC135)?   

I think it may be due to his belief that once Boeing skipped a model number (717 in this case) they should not have gone back to it. Now that the 787 being in active service, the idea of the model '787' being slapped on a modernized MD-95 is just revolting. I think that Boeing wanted the 787 to be a new concept, a clean-sheet design. And why would the C-135 be given the 717 designation? Military variants nearly always have completely different numbering schemes (ex: the 757's military variant is a C-32).
 
cf6ppe
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:09 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:37 am

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 27):
I think it may be due to his belief that once Boeing skipped a model number (717 in this case) they should not have gone back to it. Now that the 787 being in active service, the idea of the model '787' being slapped on a modernized MD-95 is just revolting. I think that Boeing wanted the 787 to be a new concept, a clean-sheet design. And why would the C-135 be given the 717 designation? Military variants nearly always have completely different numbering schemes (ex: the 757's military variant is a C-32).

Sort of Off Topic Moment...

I have a little book - Pedigree of Champions, Boeing since 1916. This book is Second Edition with the following:
The Boeing Company ... D6-8988 ... November 1963. The D6-8988 is a Boeing Document number.
I got this book when I worked at The Boeing Company in the later half of the 60's.

Tables on pages 78 and 79 list the Boeing Model number starting with '1' which was the 1916 B & W the first Boeing design.

When the list gets to Boeing Model 707, the user designation is 707, built for Commercial, and Dates 1954
Next on the list is Model 717, user designation KC-135A, C-135A,B, built for U.S. Air Force, and Dates 1956
The next two Boeing Models listed are the 720 and 727....

On page 66 are pictures of KC-135 and C-135A. Text on the page following the page title KC-135A Stratotanker.
The first paragraph following the title reads "The 367-80 was built for demonstrating both commercial and military capabilities. The KC-135 was a logical outgrowth of the basic 707 design, and was given the company designation 717."

There are three paragraphs following describing the KC-135 and C-135 and their differences to the 707.

I can understand KC135TopBoom's feelings. You may not believe the above, but that is the way Boeing designated their different models and that is all presented in their D6-8988....

BTW, I wouldn't mind having an updated version of this book as the last entry in the model listing is the X-20 Dyna-Soar which pre-dated our now retired space shuttle program......

Back On Topic....
 
WA707atMSP
Posts: 1471
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:16 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:30 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Thread starter):
For the D95, this means a full year extension through 2014.

This is the best news of the day for me, and the other DC-9 lovers here.

The DC-9 has the most segments in my logbook, of any aircraft type (I count the DC-9, MD-80, MD-90, and 717 as separate aircraft types in my logbook). Hopefully, the DC-9 will hang on into 2015 so I can get even more flights on the "Betty White" of commercial aircraft  
Seaholm Maples are #1!
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:15 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):

What pisses me off the most is Boeing going from 7_7-100, 7_7-200, etc to this -8 -9 -10 crap. I mean, wtf?
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
HermansCVR580
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 1999 5:29 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:54 pm

Man one of these DC-9's needs to be saved and put onto display somewhere. These DC-9's are too good for the scrap pile.
The right decision at the wrong time, is still a wrong decision. "Hal Carr"
 
micstatic
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2001 10:07 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:14 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 30):
What pisses me off the most is Boeing going from 7_7-100, 7_7-200, etc to this -8 -9 -10 crap. I mean, wtf?

I agree. Years of tradition and a clear easy to understand methodology of naming planes thrown aside for a lame and dated one.
S340,DH8,AT7,CR2/7,E135/45/170/190,319,320,717,732,733,734,735,737,738,744,752,762,763,764,772,M80,M90
 
WA707atMSP
Posts: 1471
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:16 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:24 pm

Quoting HermansCVR580 (Reply 31):
Man one of these DC-9's needs to be saved and put onto display somewhere. These DC-9's are too good for the scrap pile.

I agree 100%.

What I wish Delta would do is:

(1) Preserve one of the DC-9-50s at the Delta Heritage Center, in the current scheme.

(2) Donate another -50 to the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan - but repaint it in North Central delivery colors before it is moved to Dearborn. It irritates me to no end that when the Henry Ford Museum restored their ex-North Central DC-3 a few years ago, it was repainted into Northwest colors, instead of remaining in North Central's scheme.
Seaholm Maples are #1!
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:37 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Thread starter):
For the D95, this means a full year extension through 2014

That's really great news! It's looking increasingly unlikely that I'll get a DC9 during my current trip to the USA, but I'll almost definitely be back before then - so next time I will go out of my way to find one.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
TrijetsRMissed
Topic Author
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:08 am

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 21):
This has been released to those that want to find it.  

Whatever you say. That's not what your friend echoed from TechOps 2.5 weeks ago in the "DL Strategy Of Older Aircraft" thread.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 121):

Quote:

Speaking of DL operating older aircraft, don't be surprised if DL give the DC-9 another reprieve. Baring fuel prices, I expect to see active D95s in DL colors in 2014. And 2015, maybe..who knows? (I know I'll get flamed for this). But I definitely see 2014 as a reality, pending internal announcement.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 123):

Quote:

Take it with a grain of salt but it was said by a TechOps big wig today that 2013 will in fact be the last year.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 135):

Quote:

Like I did with the 717, I'm going all-in on a further D95 reprieve and active service extension.

I don't work for DL - don't know when it got on DeltaNet. But it's interesting then that no one posted it...  
Quoting B777ER (Reply 14):
It was recently announced internally on DeltaNet Crew Resources. The 9 is staying until 2014.

Thank you for corroborating my claim, er "rumor." Though FWIW, it will be a full year extension through 2014, when it's all said and done.

[Edited 2012-10-09 21:13:36]
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Topic Author
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:18 am

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 29):
Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Thread starter):
For the D95, this means a full year extension through 2014.

This is the best news of the day for me, and the other DC-9 lovers here.
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 34):
That's really great news!

Glad it made somebody's day. I shared your excitement when I first learned of it. Enjoy the "Niner" while it lasts.  
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 4536
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:13 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 35):
Whatever you say.

its in the latest FlightOps update. (thing)

on the flip side I do think on that last call in show with John it was said they are done. (so it was a fairly new choice.)

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 35):
But it's interesting then that no one posted it...  

not really. Stuff gets posted on DeltaNet all the time and not everyone runs to a.net. Not only has the DC9 update been on there for a week or two, they also posted(and have been posting) updates to the network for S13 that isn't open to the public. I don't recall anyone running to anet two weeks ago when employees could have found out EWR-CDG was starting on Delta......  

anyways....yeah its a mainline airplane...which is good but i wont miss them once the 717 comes along. Not a big 9 fan.
New airliners.net web site sucks.
 
jporterfi
Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:25 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:43 am

Quoting cf6ppe (Reply 28):
jport

Thank you for sharing that. I find that extremely interesting. I wonder why Boeing chose 717 to represent the MD-95 when it was already assigned to the KC-135/C-135. I guess this shows the difference between model number and user designation...
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2787
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:10 pm

Grew up flying on Delta DC-9s starting in 1969, it will be a sad day when the last is retired. Boeings and Airbusses just dont blast off like a 9 does.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:08 pm

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 33):
Quoting HermansCVR580 (Reply 31):
Man one of these DC-9's needs to be saved and put onto display somewhere. These DC-9's are too good for the scrap pile.

I agree 100%.

What I wish Delta would do is:

(1) Preserve one of the DC-9-50s at the Delta Heritage Center, in the current scheme.

(2) Donate another -50 to the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan - but repaint it in North Central delivery colors before it is moved to Dearborn. It irritates me to no end that when the Henry Ford Museum restored their ex-North Central DC-3 a few years ago, it was repainted into Northwest colors, instead of remaining in North Central's scheme.

Northwest Airlines donated some money to the Henry Ford Museum when the North Central DC-3 was restored. Thus it was painted in Northwest Airlines colors as North Central was not around to object. I do agree with you 100%.

I had tried to, in the past, to get the Delta Heritage Museum to restore a DC-9-31 into their museum. Specifically N994Z, which originally flew with Northeast Airlines, Delta Airlines, Ozark, Republic and finally Northwest Airlines.
N994Z is a DC-9-31 with -32 wings that came off the Air Canada DC-9 that made an emergency landing in Cincinnati, OH. It had struck a snow plow in Sioux Falls, SD. Delta claimed they could not fit a DC-9-30 into their Museum Hanger as their 767 would prevent that.. I think it would have been the perfect DC-9 to preserve as it flew with four airlines that are part of the "Delta Heritage."   

[Edited 2012-10-10 09:09:33]

[Edited 2012-10-10 09:10:49]
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
HermansCVR580
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 1999 5:29 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:56 pm

Or what about that other airline museum in ATL that has the FEDEX 727 and F-27? Or I agree paint it back into NC colors and donate it to the Henry Ford Museum.
The right decision at the wrong time, is still a wrong decision. "Hal Carr"
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:17 pm

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 25):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
IIRC, Boeing did not design/redesign the B-717. All they did was build it, in Long Beach, from the MD drawings and redesignate it with a Boeing model, the B-717 (which I am still PO'd about, it should have been designated the B-787, amd the current B-787 which came along later should be the B-797).
Why's that? Is it due to your association with the "Real" 717 (i.e. C-135 and all its military variants, including the KC135)?
Quoting jporterfi (Reply 27):
I think it may be due to his belief that once Boeing skipped a model number (717 in this case) they should not have gone back to it. Now that the 787 being in active service, the idea of the model '787' being slapped on a modernized MD-95 is just revolting.
Quoting jporterfi (Reply 27):
why would the C-135 be given the 717 designation? Military variants nearly always have completely different numbering schemes (ex: the 757's military variant is a C-32).
Quoting cf6ppe (Reply 28):
cf6ppe

Correct. As with many airplanes, there is an OEM designation, and an operator designation. The B-717 was the Boeing designation of the KC-135. AA still calls the MD-80s as "Super 80". The B-52 is the Boeing designation B-464, the B-17 was the B-299.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 30):
What pisses me off the most is Boeing going from 7_7-100, 7_7-200, etc to this -8 -9 -10 crap. I mean, wtf?

It actually started with the A-380 when they introduced the first model as the -800. Decades ago Boeing dropped the -100 model, after the B-747 was introduced. Every Boeing airplane built since then began with the -200 series until the B-787-8.
 
GSPSPOT
Posts: 2171
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:44 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:20 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Thread starter):
Maybe we'll get the picture of a D95, MD-88, MD-90, 717 line-up after all.  
Quoting bomber996 (Reply 13):
Props (no pun intended) to DL for the deal over these 717! Keeping aviation interesting!

Indeed folks!
Finally made it to an airline mecca!
 
WA707atMSP
Posts: 1471
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:16 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:25 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 42):
Every Boeing airplane built since then began with the -200 series until the B-787-8

The original proposal for the 757 was that the (unbuilt) 757-100 would be built first. This aircraft would have been an A320 / 737-400 sized aircraft. A stretched 757-200 would have followed a few years afterward.

In the early 1960s, Eastern Airlines over ordered 727-100s. Delta did not order the 727 until the more efficient -200 was available, although DL inherited some -100s from Northeast. Frank Borman said one of Eastern's disadvantages vs Delta was that Eastern had too many -100s, and did not have the money to replace them with -200s. Borman did not want to repeat that mistake, and asked Boeing to skip the 757-100, and go directly to the stretched 757-200 as the first variant manufactured.
Seaholm Maples are #1!
 
TrijetsRMissed
Topic Author
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:32 am

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 37):
(so it was a fairly new choice.)

Exactly. You made my point.   

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 37):
not really. Stuff gets posted on DeltaNet all the time and not everyone runs to a.net

Give me a break. Let's keep in perspective for "stuff" that gets posted on DeltaNet.

Not everyday, (for the 2nd largest airline in the world, no less), are C-level decisions made, which impact the future an active fleet type. At the top, FLEET reviews are always critical. Undoubtedly, it's a significant strategic decision - keen to the interests of shareholders. It's among the most important topics at the BOD round-table, monthly, perhaps even quarterly.

Furthermore, we're also talking about the existence of the very last DC-9s in pax service. (Save shady operators in 3rd world countries). Given by your profile, you're junior level. Weren't on the ramp when 727s swarmed ATL...huh? Honestly, I think it's self-explanatory, at a high level.   

Quoting deltadc9 (Reply 39):
Boeings and Airbusses just dont blast off like a 9 does.

   Not like the MD-88 either.

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 44):
In the early 1960s, Eastern Airlines over ordered 727-100s. Delta did not order the 727 until the more efficient -200 was available, although DL inherited some -100s from Northeast. Frank Borman said one of Eastern's disadvantages vs Delta was that Eastern had too many -100s, and did not have the money to replace them with -200s. Borman did not want to repeat that mistake, and asked Boeing to skip the 757-100, and go directly to the stretched 757-200 as the first variant manufactured.

   Correct on the background info. It's true that EA had too many 721s, and this contributed to their initial downfall.

During most of the '70s, the 727-100s were not profitable at EA. By '78-'79 it was learned that the airline would have been far better off if it had expanded the D95 fleet, and phased out the 721s long ago.

To fix the mistake, EA became a launch customer of the 757. Post de-regulation, not much went right for EA. Couple that with the large debt taken on to finance the 752 fleet, and it became too big a hole to dig out of.

Personally, I believe if EA could have waited a few years, a more favorable MD-82 deal was to be had.   
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3964
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:03 am

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 37):
on the flip side I do think on that last call in show with John it was said they are done. (so it was a fairly new choice.)

  

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 35):
Whatever you say. That's not what your friend echoed from TechOps 2.5 weeks ago in the "DL Strategy Of Older Aircraft" thread.

The big fly-in was 2 weeks ago and that's what was put out. I don't go off of rumors I go off of what I see on paper or what's publicly stated to us. More power to what you do or don't know.
What gets measured gets done.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Topic Author
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:54 am

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 46):
The big fly-in was 2 weeks ago and that's what was put out. I don't go off of rumors I go off of what I see on paper or what's publicly stated to us. More power to what you do or don't know.

   I understand and I think it's a fair point. But technically your post was from 9/18 - three weeks ago, if timeline is important.

From your standpoint, you gotta go with what they tell you. I wasn't criticizing your stance or belief from the previous thread.

I was informing l011man I didn't pull it from DeltaNet or out of a hat.

[Edited 2012-10-11 23:10:21]
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
Yukon880
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:26 am

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:13 am

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 44):
In the early 1960s, Eastern Airlines over ordered 727-100s. Delta did not order the 727 until the more efficient -200 was available, although DL inherited some -100s from Northeast.

The first 727s on property at Delta were the inherited Yellowbirds, which included a number of -295s. Beyond that, not only did Delta wait for the more efficient -200, but they waited until the more efficient and significantly more capable -200 Advanced was available for order. By the time the first 727-232Adv entered service with the Widget in early 1973, some 310, not quite so capable, 727-200s had already been delivered.

Delta's enthusiasm for Boeing metal really was a long time coming.

Meanwhile, the fondness for Douglas (McDouglas, if you like) metal continues unabated. Even as I type this, the latest Japanese arrival for the Widget MD-90-30 fleet (N948DN) is on the ground at ANC.
And the DC-9 soldiers on!
Pratt & Whitney, In thrust we trust!
 
TrijetsRMissed
Topic Author
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: 717 AD & DL DC-9 Extension Likely (Rumor)

Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:20 am

Quoting Yukon880 (Reply 48):
not only did Delta wait for the more efficient -200, but they waited until the more efficient and significantly more capable -200 Advanced was available for order.

   Not unlike how DL held out until the MD-88 was available.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alfa164, Bing [Bot], Block40Osan, CO953, Coal, COEWRNJ, coolian2, Focker, Google Adsense [Bot], kimshep, KLAM, MrHMSH, mugler, NYCRuss, PerfectGriffin, prebennorholm, psychostang, rtw4010, shamrock350, tcaeyx, Yahoo [Bot] and 192 guests