|Quoting Flighty (Reply 12):|
Using that data (which I have also), we can compare DL MD-80s vs US 734s. During 2005, the DL MD-80 had an average flight distance of about 550 miles. The US 734 fleet had a distance of about 540 miles. DL seats 142 passengers; the US aircraft 144 passengers. DL about 1,180 gallons per revenue flight hour. US just about exactly 1,000 gallons per hour.
The MD-80 clearly burns more fuel than the 734. About 18% more, in the usage of DL/US.
This is from the competing thread: MD-80 Vs 737-400 Economics (by 1337Delta764 Mar 17 2008 in Tech Ops)
So I guess the MD
-90 burned about as much fuel as the 734. It really should have had transcon range for it to have been competitive. I wish it would have. DL
might have ordered more. It needed a new wing, I think. The engine was good, and the fuselage worked, but a new wing would have propelled it to success. Instead, McD relied on the already under-winged MD
-80 wing for the stretched, re-engined re-placement, which was a mistake. I think the MD
-90's shortcomings might have accelerated it's takeover by Boeing.
edit: Could a transcon MD-90 have justified equal fuel burn to the 733/4/5 srs, competed with the 757 upon its introduction, and given airlines justification to order or keep MD-90's over 737NG's?
[Edited 2009-09-25 20:24:36]