debonair
Topic Author
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:50 pm

DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:51 am

Hi to you all,

I would like to know, if someone can answer me a question regarding DL MD90's fleet reliability.

DELTA is the world largest MD90 operator and the MD90- flying many "first hand examples" (N901..-N916..).

Beside this fleet, DL is also operating some MD90's with various histories, like N918DH ex AMC Egypt, some ex CHINA EASTERN/NORTHERN, SAS etc.!

I would be most interested, if these birds with previous owner stick out? Are all MD90's despite different maintenance, ownerships in one league?
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Thu Dec 13, 2012 6:20 pm

Merging maintenance programs is quite challenging for an airline when acquiring used airplanes. As a first tier operator because they purchased 16 airplanes brand new, Delta does have the full Boeing resources at their disposal (if you are an airline that never purchased any airplanes new, you don’t get the same level of maintenance support which makes it even harder).

Delta is probably the best airline in the world at integrating maintenance programs. They take the established program for the airplane and have to fold in their own requirements to stay compliant with Airworthines Directives, Certification Maintenance Requirements, Airworthiness Limitations, and finally the Maintenance Review Board Report. It is quite challenging to start out since every airline does maintenance on different intervals, and with multiple previous owners, the records get very messy.

Because of the need to get compliant with their FAA approved maintenance program there is a lot of introductory maintenance that goes into the airplanes before they begin service. Delta essentially had to do heavy C or D checks on the airplanes just to ensure they are compliant with everything and can be operated legally.

Delta also went through Service Bulletins to bring the airplanes up to the standards that they want. They incorporate many optional Service Bulletins. They also do some supplementary type certification modifications to bring the airplanes in line with their fleet standards.

When you purchase a used airplane, especially when you under FAA or EASA jurisdiction and the airplane had been operated outside of those regions, there is far more maintenance required to get the airplane meeting the regulations than one would think. It’s a lot more work than replace the seats and add some paint.

After all that work, the differences in the airplane reliability is relatively minimal. You’ll sometimes see pilots or flight attendants or rampers say that one subfleet is horrible compared to the others. That may be true, but only if Delta Tech Ops didn’t do a good job in the first place.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:21 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 1):
Delta is probably the best airline in the world at integrating maintenance programs.

What makes them better than LH or other major airlines?
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
chrisair
Posts: 1799
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2000 11:32 pm

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:59 pm

Quoting debonair (Thread starter):
if someone can answer me a question regarding DL MD90's fleet reliability.

MD90 stands for Minimum Delay - 90 minutes.  
 
BE77
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:15 am

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:11 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 2):
What makes them better than LH or other major airlines?

Probably more experience at actually merging / integrating metal that has been used elsewhere, through the practice of picking up used aircraft and the taking over / merging with other airlines.
(Where was it they got all those DC-9's from a few years back   )
Tower, Affirmitive, gear is down and welded
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:11 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 2):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 1):
Delta is probably the best airline in the world at integrating maintenance programs.

What makes them better than LH or other major airlines?

Good question and definitely open to interpretation. Delta has more experience than most other first tier airlines. Delta has MD90s, 757s and 767s that were all purchased from other airlines. Delta has airplanes from almost a dozen different customized maintenance programs.

LH doesn't purchase used airplanes for the LH brand. Lufthansa Technic is a leader in maintenance programs, but not necessarily integrating airplanes into the fleets.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
Flighty
Posts: 7874
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:20 am

NW also had a long history of buying used DC-9s and DC-10s. The same Tech Ops team who managed those programs is likely part of the M90 story today at DL. It is an unusual business strategy.
 
User avatar
BreninTW
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:31 pm

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:39 am

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 1):
You’ll sometimes see pilots or flight attendants or rampers say that one subfleet is horrible compared to the others. That may be true, but only if Delta Tech Ops didn’t do a good job in the first place.

I think a lot depends on the options the ordering airline selected. On a flight home a few years ago (CX; 744) I got chatting to one of the pilots. He mentioned they sometimes have to be careful to remember which aircraft they're flying because of spec differences -- the one he mentioned was that some aircraft have electrically operated seats, while others have manual seats in the flight deck, but I understand there were other minor spec differences between the various 744 in the fleet.
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 4752
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:42 am

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 1):
That may be true, but only if Delta Tech Ops didn’t do a good job in the first place.

just want to note, the work itself(minus most of the painting) has been by 3rd partys.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 5):

Good question and definitely open to interpretation. Delta has more experience than most other first tier airlines. Delta has MD90s, 757s and 767s that were all purchased from other airlines. Delta has airplanes from almost a dozen different customized maintenance programs.

and L1011s (IIRC AC, PA and EA just to name a few)
New airliners.net web site sucks....
Also the mods want to kill free speech and prevent people from saying things like the above. Better say nothing about awesomeness for this place or else!
 
atlamt
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:15 am

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:51 am

In general the MD90 fleet is pretty reliable. I can't think of any issues that are only present in a particular subfleet from one previous operator.
Fwd to MCO and Placard
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1188
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:10 pm

Quoting chrisair (Reply 3):
MD90 stands for Minimum Delay - 90 minutes.

I was going to declare that that's just unfair, but unfortunately my only MD90 flight was SLC-SLC with the fire trucks rolled out for our return.
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:13 am

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 10):
Quoting chrisair (Reply 3):MD90 stands for Minimum Delay - 90 minutes.
I was going to declare that that's just unfair, but unfortunately my only MD90 flight was SLC-SLC with the fire trucks rolled out for our return.

Wow...a statistical sample of one whole flight. That's valid.  
 
goboeing
Posts: 2433
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 5:31 am

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:19 am

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 11):
Wow...a statistical sample of one whole flight. That's valid.

Well, I've begun to mentally keep track, and my last five in a row on the thing have all been delayed for maintenance, that's five consecutive flights, and the last one was DTW-MSP a few days ago, delayed 3.5 hours.

The thing seems to have some issues. But maybe it's all anecdotal.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4933
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:53 am

Quoting chrisair (Reply 3):
MD90 stands for Minimum Delay - 90 minutes.

As a former MD-90 mechanic I got a good laugh out of that.  
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5059
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:31 pm

Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 12):
The thing seems to have some issues. But maybe it's all anecdotal.

Sometimes you can have a run of bad luck. I had four straight UA 757 flights delayed by one hour or more for MX not too long ago. I don't think that shows that UA 757s are inherently unreliable.
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:35 am

Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 12):
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 11):Wow...a statistical sample of one whole flight. That's valid.
Well, I've begun to mentally keep track, and my last five in a row on the thing have all been delayed for maintenance, that's five consecutive flights, and the last one was DTW-MSP a few days ago, delayed 3.5 hours.

The thing seems to have some issues. But maybe it's all anecdotal.

By definition 5 flights out of hundreds every day is purely anecdotal.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 14):
Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 12):The thing seems to have some issues. But maybe it's all anecdotal.
Sometimes you can have a run of bad luck. I had four straight UA 757 flights delayed by one hour or more for MX not too long ago. I don't think that shows that UA 757s are inherently unreliable.

Correct.
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1188
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:02 am

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 11):
Quoting SSTeve (Reply 10):
Quoting chrisair (Reply 3):MD90 stands for Minimum Delay - 90 minutes.
I was going to declare that that's just unfair, but unfortunately my only MD90 flight was SLC-SLC with the fire trucks rolled out for our return.

Wow...a statistical sample of one whole flight. That's valid.

Given that you're reading a conclusion into my anecdote that wasn't there, you might want to check your own conclusions, tetchyman.

[Edited 2012-12-18 18:03:22]
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:27 pm

If you want a realistic sample, go to flightaware. Pull up all MD90 flights. Then look at each flight and get 4 months of history. DL keeps relatively similar schedules. Look to see how often the MD90 is delayed. When you compare it to the 738, the numbers are similar. You'll need a rather large sample size to get a noticable difference in dispatch reliability rates since they are close.

Anecdotal never really works. Unless you see quotes from Delta or Boeing on dispatch reliability, the numbers you get won't be of much value.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 2447
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:16 pm

I just checked the numbers today. The MD90 fleet as a whole is pretty much on par with the other short haul fleets. The metrics for each of the former operator subfleets are also pretty much the same as more of each type comes on line. When DL first got the original 16 aircraft they did have a bad reputation for delays. I think it might have contributed to the cancelling of the rest of the order. Most of those problems have been sorted out though.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4933
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:08 pm

The MD-90 is one of those what might have been aircraft. If MD had made the investment in a new wing instead throwing slat seals and aerodynamic flap fairings on an MD-80 wing they would have had an even more fuel efficient aircraft. Or if they had'nt made such a mess with the electrical system things might have turned out different.

Delta would have exercised those 115 options instead of cancelling them. Maybe AA would have gone with the 90 instead of the 737NG as a 727/MD-80 replacement. Oh well, the MBA's in St Louis decided it was not cost effective and the rest is history.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:16 am

About 4-5 years ago, as DL considered the MD-90 fleet build-up strategy, management prospected into the dispatch reliability records from SK, MU, and CZ. This occurred during the procurement/negotiation process. All were to have shown far better reliability rates than historic DL levels.

Quoting Dalmd88 (Reply 18):
When DL first got the original 16 aircraft they did have a bad reputation for delays. I think it might have contributed to the cancelling of the rest of the order. Most of those problems have been sorted out though.

I remember seeing an early rundown from MDC on the numbers, and I want to say the dispatch rate was somewhere around 88%. This was as the first 5-10 frames were being delivered - very small sample size. In the spring of 1997, significant progress had been made with MDC personnel stationed at DFW for 6 weeks to work out the kinks. Much of this progress was lost within a year of the merger.

While the early hiccups did not directly influence the cancellation, it was certainly a selling point on the part of Boeing (for the gentleman's agreement) and probably even Henry Stoneceipher - knowing it needed to be cancelled for the merger to go according to plan.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 19):
The MD-90 is one of those what might have been aircraft. If MD had made the investment in a new wing instead throwing slat seals and aerodynamic flap fairings on an MD-80 wing they would have had an even more fuel efficient aircraft. Or if they had'nt made such a mess with the electrical system things might have turned out different.

In hindsight, MDC would have been better off had the MD-11 resources been put into the respected MD-90 and MD-95 R&D programs. With the MD-11 having never been more than a paper airplane.

The MD-90 never had a chance because the MDC C-level were positioning the company for acquisition, as early as 1993. This lack of leadership and direction is why it took the MD-90 two full years from first flight to EIS. By contrast, it took the MD-81 approx 11 months - in a flight test program that included two crashes!

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 19):
Delta would have exercised those 115 options instead of cancelling them. Maybe AA would have gone with the 90 instead of the 737NG as a 727/MD-80 replacement. Oh well, the MBA's in St Louis decided it was not cost effective and the rest is history.

The reality is DL cancelled the order because Boeing and MDC asked them to. The merger would have been a lot messier with 116 potential options. Before that, DL were planning for deliveries through 2003. Essentially 50 options to be exercised for a fleet of ~75 through that time-frame. Officially, most documents state through 2001, but I know first hand more were planned for.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:03 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 20):
Henry Stoneceipher

A typo here. I of course meant Harry Stoneceipher.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4933
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:33 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 20):
Henry Stoneceipher

He who shall not be named.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 20):

The reality is DL cancelled the order because Boeing and MDC asked them to. The merger would have been a lot messier with 116 potential options.

Delta probably did not need much convincing. You have to wonder if the MD-90 had started off as a reliable money maker from the start maybe Delta would have chosen differently.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 20):
I remember seeing an early rundown from MDC on the numbers, and I want to say the dispatch rate was somewhere around 88%.


I remember seeing a letter at the LB delivery center from he CEO of SAS stating his disappointment in the MD-90.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 20):
In hindsight, MDC would have been better off had the MD-11 resources been put into the respected MD-90 and MD-95 R&D programs. With the MD-11 having never been more than a paper airplane.

Or maybe if MD had put in a better effort into the MD-11. IMHO even if the MD-11 and MD-90 had been better aircraft than they were in the beginning and had received more orders it probably would have just delayed the inevitable.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:51 pm

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 22):
Delta probably did not need much convincing.

FWIW, they were not going to agree without the special costing terms of the famous gentleman's agreement...

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 22):
Or maybe if MD had put in a better effort into the MD-11.

Not for a lack of effort, but a lack of investment. A very solid aircraft was still engineered.

If you remember correctly, the initial problems with the MD-11 predominately were caused by the higher than expected fuel burn of GE and PW engines. The aircraft was overweight and more drag prone as well, but the engines were most at fault for the range issues. So much so, that MDC even considered extending the wing during the PIP development.

Quote:
Aircraft powered by the PW4460 were found to be 5.7% above the contract guarantee while the CF6-80C2-powered version was 4.5% over. Although Douglas says that the problem is "probably 85-90% engines and 10% airframe drag", the company hopes the extended wing will improve performance by around 2%.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...34.html?search=md-11%20fuel%20burn

In anticipation of cynicism, I will note that GE and P&W never challenged MDC's claims on the performance disparities. And by 1995-96, there was a 9% improvement in fuel burn, which exceeded contract guarantees. Unfortunately, it was not a case of better late than never.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 22):
IMHO even if the MD-11 and MD-90 had been better aircraft than they were in the beginning and had received more orders it probably would have just delayed the inevitable.

Perhaps. But since the 772ER was such a success, the MD-11 eventually would have been third fiddle anyway.

An MD-90 with 737NG-level R&D could have been the head of its class. Of course, "could have been" is the definition of post 1992 MDC.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4933
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:09 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 23):
Perhaps. But since the 772ER was such a success, the MD-11 eventually would have been third fiddle anyway.

Just delaying the ineveitable I guess.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 23):
An MD-90 with 737NG-level R&D could have been the head of its class. Of course, "could have been" is the definition of post 1992 MDC.

Would have been interesting to see that's for sure.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 23):
Not for a lack of effort, but a lack of investment. A very solid aircraft was still engineered.

it did acquire the nickname "The Scud" in it's early years.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:17 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 20):
In hindsight, MDC would have been better off had the MD-11 resources been put into the respected MD-90 and MD-95 R&D programs. With the MD-11 having never been more than a paper airplane.

Maybe. But given its EIS date, the A320 had already been flying for 6 years, and was delivering way more on payload and range.... the MD-90 would never have been able to approach the A320 that we know today without an all new, much larger wing.

NS
 
Yukon880
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:26 am

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:10 pm

Quoting gigneil (Reply 25):
Maybe. But given its EIS date, the A320 had already been flying for 6 years, and was delivering way more on payload and range.... the MD-90 would never have been able to approach the A320 that we know today without an all new, much larger wing.

NS

I see what you're saying Neil, but I think there's more to it than just payload and range. If these were the only criteria that mattered, then the 757 would still be a gold mine compared to the A321. Granted, not quite the same comparison but you get the idea! Given the kind of numbers that the a/c is reporting-in with these days, there could have been other carriers besides DL for whom the MD-90 would've been just what they needed, as is.

Not to mention whatever else they might have been able to squeeze out of it.

~Yukon~
Pratt & Whitney, In thrust we trust!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:12 pm

And you are absolutely right and I didn't mean to imply that, sorry.

Of course the MD-90 is a spectacular and efficient workhorse within its range and lift profile, and that's valuable.

However, DL can love the MD-90 today because they do in fact have the 737 and A320 in their fleet. They have the modern narrowbody plane they need to fly the longer transcon or shorter international sectors.

If the MD-90 had continued as a program, and DL filled their order of them, they ultimately would have had to supplement that fleet with the 737 or A320 at any rate, since their 757s on those routes wouldn't have been as financially viable as United and others flying them with cheaper and more efficient equipment.

For United, the A319 in particular opened a lot of routes that had previously been infeasible, and the market has grown as a result of that to the point where the A320 and 738 were, and now the 739 and A321 are the key size in the narrowbody market...

One thing I'm not is an aeronautical engineer. Could MD have enhanced the MD-90 to the point where it had the capabilities that the A320 and 738 have today? They could obviously have built a 73G/A319 size frame if they wanted, but what about the growth of the airplane? Could they have made one the size of an A321 or 739 (I don't think so, but I'm legitimately curious).

NS
 
Yukon880
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:26 am

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:00 am

Excellent points all, and very well said.
 
Pratt & Whitney, In thrust we trust!
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 5261
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:09 am

Quoting gigneil (Reply 27):
They could obviously have built a 73G/A319 size frame if they wanted, but what about the growth of the airplane?

Even that is tricky though. One of the problems with tail mounted engines is keeping CG in check- the more weight you put in the back the more you put in the front. That is why the MD-90 is longer than the MD-80. To get a 73G/A319 size plane MD would either have to put a ton of otherwise useless weight in the front to balance the engines, or use completely different (lighter) engines, as they did with the MD-95/717. But with the latter option you are then losing commonality with the MD-90 making your family a weaker alternative to the 737/A32X families.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:25 am

Quoting gigneil (Reply 25):
Maybe. But given its EIS date, the A320 had already been flying for 6 years, and was delivering way more on payload and range.... the MD-90 would never have been able to approach the A320 that we know today without an all new, much larger wing.

A couple of things: First, overbuilt A320s from 1990 didn't equal the performance of a 2010 line number - Airbus had many improvements along the way. Second, payload and range historically have been more important in the WB realm - see DC-10 vs L-1011. Third, not until the 2000s were 737s and A320s heavily used on transcon/5-6 hr legs. Fuel efficiency is a wash, but the MD-90 can seat 10-12 more pax over the A320, depending on configuration.

Despite the A320s earlier EIS, I'm not convinced there wasn't a market for the MD-90 and MD-95; let alone two aircraft with +$2B more in R&D budget. IMO, by sheer demand, these aircraft would have collectively passed the 1,000 delivery mark in the mid 2000s, if they had the opportunity.

If MDC felt they could only go "all-in" with one of their designs, they would have been better served investing in the MD-90/95. This decision would have had to been made in 1988-89, at latest. I think it's difficult to make a convincing argument that going the other way with the MD-11, would have provided a better chance for success.

Quoting Yukon880 (Reply 26):
I see what you're saying Neil, but I think there's more to it than just payload and range. If these were the only criteria that mattered, then the 757 would still be a gold mine compared to the A321. Granted, not quite the same comparison but you get the idea! Given the kind of numbers that the a/c is reporting-in with these days, there could have been other carriers besides DL for whom the MD-90 would've been just what they needed, as is.

         Excellent post, Yukon. I will add that the base model -30 was not intended to be a long range/high payload airplane. It is like arguing against the 772A with specs from A343E.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 27):
If the MD-90 had continued as a program, and DL filled their order of them, they ultimately would have had to supplement that fleet with the 737 or A320 at any rate,

Neil, That may be true. But in the context of the debate, so what? Today many airlines find it most beneficial flying both the 737NG and A32X variants in tandem, for similar and different missions.

DL's MD-90 discount was so that every 1 out of ~ 5.5 frames was essentially free. The 738 deal was not as favorable in that regard. A diversified fleet between the types, probably works best.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 27):
For United, the A319 in particular opened a lot of routes that had previously been infeasible, and the market has grown as a result of that to the point where the A320 and 738 were, and now the 739 and A321 are the key size in the narrowbody market...

The airline industry is fluid. It's hard to fault MDC's target market for the MD-90 from 1989 against what you are seeing in the industry in 2013...
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 5261
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:35 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 30):
Despite the A320s earlier EIS, I'm not convinced there wasn't a market for the MD-90 and MD-95; let alone two aircraft with +$2B more in R&D budget. IMO, by sheer demand, these aircraft would have collectively passed the 1,000 delivery mark in the mid 2000s, if they had the opportunity.

I agree that there was a market for the MD-90, disagree about the MD-95 though. Would it have sold more than just the 717? Yes. But it would have still suffered from the rise of regional jets, although an "MD-97" (717-300) probably would have been built.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 30):
If MDC felt they could only go "all-in" with one of their designs, they would have been better served investing in the MD-90/95.

Of course if they went "all-in" with their MD-90/95 you probably would have been left with an aircraft that has longer range/higher payload than the current MD-90.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 30):
The airline industry is fluid. It's hard to fault MDC's target market for the MD-90 from 1989 against what you are seeing in the industry in 2013...

Even in 1989 it was becoming clear that airlines were starting to warm up to longer range narrowbodies that could replace not only their aging 727 fleets but also their classic 737/DC-9 fleets...
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: DL MD90- Fleet Reliability?

Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:06 am

Quoting Polot (Reply 31):
although an "MD-97" (717-300) probably would have been built.

Actually, that was to be the MD-95-50, which I factored into the number. It was the next variant being developed from the family with target EIS in early 2001. Development ceased in 1997. There was never an "MD-97" aircraft.

Quoting Polot (Reply 31):
Even in 1989 it was becoming clear that airlines were starting to warm up to longer range narrowbodies that could replace not only their aging 727 fleets but also their classic 737/DC-9 fleets...

Respectfully, that is a gross exaggeration. I worked in the industry in 1989. I recall longer range domestic routes dominated by DC-10s, L-1011s, 767s, and A300s (to a lesser extent) into the mid '90s. In 1989, there would be an occasional narrow-body, usually a 757. Add some 727s and MD-83s for the mid-cons. Airlines were not requesting a 3,000 NM range 737 in 1989... The USAir sub-fleet with aux tanks was quite the exception.

Quoting Polot (Reply 29):
To get a 73G/A319 size plane MD would either have to put a ton of otherwise useless weight in the front to balance the engines, or use completely different (lighter) engines, as they did with the MD-95/717.

Not entirely true... see MD-87.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Hywel, qf789 and 8 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos