|Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 16):|
Discussing the MD-80 and describing it as fuel efficient in one sentence. That's some serious MD Kool-Aid right there.
Thanks for the laugh.
But you'd be surprised - given the probable longevity. Let's say DL
outfit the youngest frames with the Super 98 package.... If you compare a full aerodynamic and flightdeck mod frame up against an original DL
-82's numbers, there would be a notable difference in fuel burn.
|Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 18):|
But none of that spells out what the actual % of fuel a given flight might save. My own guess is that it has to be no less then 2.5-4% on the high side in order for this 300K mod to have any kind of ROI.
You are not going to get the hard numbers on a public forum, unless they are first divulged by either the client or vendor. It is expected that DL
will earn net return in the millions, within 2-3 years of installation. Basically, post-2017 it's all gravy. It will be even better for the MD
|Quoting cosyr (Reply 24):|
i know the MD-88's are the newest varient of the MD-80's, but what makes them so much better for Delta, than the MD-82/83's that AA and everyone else deemed too fuel inefficient?
Although some data has changed, I posted the answer to this question in a related thread from last year. I hope you find it helpful.
"In regards to the MD
-80 series, DL
-88 fleet is generally superior in performance and operating costs. The MD
-88s have all of the final upgrades that were offered by McDonnell Douglas through the life of the MD
-reduced drag screwdriver tail-cone
-low-drag flap hinge fairings & pylon fairings
-EFIS digital glass cockpit
-upgraded interior/wider aisle
From ship 912/913 and on, all were built with greatest number of composite panels. This is something than cannot be improved with a mod on other frames. For this reason, when it is time to retire the fleet, the first batch of original MD
-82s, (see profile photo), will exit first."
|Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 25):|
Dispatch relability is likely a very significant component as there should be less maintenance delays versus older CRT displays.
Indeed. And as part of the maintenance, it is also about parts. Replacement MD
-88 EFIS flight-deck parts will become especially scarce in five years, as the majority of the ~1,200 MD
-80's built were not up to the EFIS standard. Now, DL
has an active vendor (independent of Boeing, which is key), that can supply support infrastructure for these modern flightdecks.
As long as IS
&S are in business, DL
are in good shape on that end.
|Quoting xjet (Reply 26):|
m pretty sure the 717 is a DC-9 type rating. Just differences training required.
Technically, the 717 is on the DC-9 type rating. And technically, just training differences are required. But the training requirements are so stringent, that a single pilot pool would not be operationally efficient or economical. In another words, at present, you can not operate the MD
-88/90/717 in a single category through regular rotation. Too much back and forth training would be required, as enforced by the FAA. It is by design.
I would be surprised if we ever see the MD
-88/90/717 on a single category. I think DL
will build up superior economies-of-scale for each type, making it a non-issue, while capitalizing on the 717's lower labor costs.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.