Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 24
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8300
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:18 pm

Check www.flightstats.com for DL RSW arrivals. Looking at the 6a-noon time block on 12/23/19 (beware holiday schedules!) I see DL 1015 ATL-RSW on an MD-88.
 
TW870
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:01 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:54 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
It's 16 days left until 2020. Should we assume that all MD-80s and MD-90s, that stay in Delta fleet past January 1, are fully ADS-B equipped and compliant?

What about those planes that are retired, but eventually find new owners (presumably outside US)? Will there be special ferry permits for non-ADS-B compliant frames?

All that remain in service. Some fraction will remain certified that could receive ADS-B if another hull had to be abandoned (say a ground truck incident where the ADS-B could be moved).

I do not know ferry permit rules. There isn't much of a second hand market. Not since used A319s went at scrap rates. Then again, used prices might receive a boost.

Lightsaber


Thanks. My thinking about second-hand placements is about non-US markets, used to fix MD-80's with presumably very few resources. Venezuela and Iran come to mind. Also Bulgaria has a dozen or so of MD-80's flying. With old equipment and cannibalization, it's often very useful to have plenty of spares at your disposal nearby, than already harvested components in third-party warehouse, on the other side of the planet (talking with personal experience, though in non-airplane environment).

Also, Everts Air Cargo is poised to be in MD-80 game for some time. Would it make sense for them to add a few MD-80 frames more, as their DC-6 fleet is not getting any younger?


Yep I think Everts would be one of the few operators in the US that you could see get a few of the-88s - at least for parts. They probably wouldn't be a DC-6 replacement, though, as most of the DC-6 lift is for gravel and snow airstrips in very remote locations. The DC-9 and MD-80 family just cannot do that work. I am really hoping this keeps the C-46s and DC-6s around for a while at Everts. Avgas availability is what will kill the big props eventually, though, when the 737-200 with gravel kits would have to replace the DC-6. The -88s could help grow Everts Anchorage business, though, as they could help get cargo from ANC to connect to the DC-6s to get to the very remote places.
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1710
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Tue Dec 24, 2019 7:14 pm

Does the MD-88 have a lower resale value than the MD-90? What about fuel burn?
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 1044
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Tue Dec 24, 2019 7:41 pm

blacksoviet wrote:
Does the MD-88 have a lower resale value than the MD-90? What about fuel burn?

MD-90 has ever had only one willing second-hand buyer -- Delta. And Delta is already the owner of all operational MD-90's. So, outside of scrap value, MD-90s have no real resale value.
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
highflier92660
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:16 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Tue Dec 24, 2019 7:42 pm

Don't throw away the earplugs quite yet ATL-CLE. Delta is still flying the MD-88 into anet's favorite Ohio airport. Does anyone know when the last Delta MD-88 into Cleveland Hopkins is scheduled?
 
dstblj52
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Tue Dec 24, 2019 7:45 pm

blacksoviet wrote:
Does the MD-88 have a lower resale value than the MD-90? What about fuel burn?

the value of the MD80 and MD90 are approximately the same for the hull, the engines on the MD 90 are worth quite a bit more as they are very similar to one of optional engines on the Airbus a320 CEO series (IAE V2500), their not fully compatible from a maintenance license point of view, but they may be convertable (can someone with more knowledge comment on that), and they certainly can be stripped for parts, whereas the JT8D on the MD-88 is essentially worthless.
 
wave46
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:02 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Tue Dec 24, 2019 8:12 pm

Here's a question regarding the MD-80/-90 and Boeing 717.

Since they're of the same airline family, what kind of interchangeability is there between them for parts? Obviously, things like engines are different, but what about the other nuts and bolts? Or are they so different despite being part of the same family that salvaging isn't a viable option?

Just curious.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8300
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Tue Dec 24, 2019 8:36 pm

highflier92660 wrote:
Don't throw away the earplugs quite yet ATL-CLE. Delta is still flying the MD-88 into anet's favorite Ohio airport. Does anyone know when the last Delta MD-88 into Cleveland Hopkins is scheduled?


There's a reference to placeholder up-thread. Whether MD-88s are still all that's found on ATL-CLE (as is the present schedule) into February isn't reliably known, I don't think. That's a short route that has some frequency that respects the current practice of trying to use 88/90s out of ATL so it's a logical use. Maybe they'll fly ATL-CLE, and maybe not.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 20329
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Tue Dec 24, 2019 9:54 pm

dstblj52 wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
Does the MD-88 have a lower resale value than the MD-90? What about fuel burn?

the value of the MD80 and MD90 are approximately the same for the hull, the engines on the MD 90 are worth quite a bit more as they are very similar to one of optional engines on the Airbus a320 CEO series (IAE V2500), their not fully compatible from a maintenance license point of view, but they may be convertable (can someone with more knowledge comment on that), and they certainly can be stripped for parts, whereas the JT8D on the MD-88 is essentially worthless.

From Aircraft lease value threads
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1422705


MD-82 – $0.35 - 0.85M, $15-40,000
D-90 - $3.0M, $45-70,000

In other words, an MD-80 is worth $350,000 if the engines are in poor shape, $850,000 with "green" engines (engines with good cycle life until next overhaul).

The V2500 engines make the MD-90 worth more. Perhaps more if DL is buying up examples to part. I was surprised that the traded examples are worth $3 million. That must have had two good condition engines.

These aircraft are being replaced by cheap used A319s or newer aircraft at Delta. No one else has a fleet large enough to matter (in terms of maintenance or other economy of scale).

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
User avatar
mke717spotter
Posts: 2158
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:32 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:39 pm

DeltaMD95 wrote:
Looks like the DL MD-88 will be exiting the ORD service very soon. Sad to say.

When is that? I was hoping to do a daytrip next summer and catch one last ride on them.
Will you watch the Cleveland Browns and the Detroit Lions on Sunday? Only if coach Eric Mangini resigned after a loss.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 20329
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:27 am

mke717spotter wrote:
DeltaMD95 wrote:
Looks like the DL MD-88 will be exiting the ORD service very soon. Sad to say.

When is that? I was hoping to do a daytrip next summer and catch one last ride on them.

ADS-B limits the number of destinations and alternatives in a limited (old) computers in the MD-80. Because of the limitations, starting 1/1/2020, ATL will be the primary base. It isn't a case of just programing in the destinations, it is programing in all the possible diversions.

Because of the limitations, it is expected that all MD-80 flying drops to ATL based for all of 2020.

The MD-90 has new enough avionics to avoid the issue.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 1044
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Wed Dec 25, 2019 8:29 am

lightsaber wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
Does the MD-88 have a lower resale value than the MD-90? What about fuel burn?

the value of the MD80 and MD90 are approximately the same for the hull, the engines on the MD 90 are worth quite a bit more as they are very similar to one of optional engines on the Airbus a320 CEO series (IAE V2500), their not fully compatible from a maintenance license point of view, but they may be convertable (can someone with more knowledge comment on that), and they certainly can be stripped for parts, whereas the JT8D on the MD-88 is essentially worthless.

From Aircraft lease value threads
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1422705


MD-82 – $0.35 - 0.85M, $15-40,000
D-90 - $3.0M, $45-70,000

In other words, an MD-80 is worth $350,000 if the engines are in poor shape, $850,000 with "green" engines (engines with good cycle life until next overhaul).

The V2500 engines make the MD-90 worth more. Perhaps more if DL is buying up examples to part. I was surprised that the traded examples are worth $3 million. That must have had two good condition engines.

These aircraft are being replaced by cheap used A319s or newer aircraft at Delta. No one else has a fleet large enough to matter (in terms of maintenance or other economy of scale).

Lightsaber

I wonder, what is the methodology for determining aircraft sale value, in a situation like MD-90 is in: only one active operator, no resale activity for a while, and sole operator plans to retire its fleet.
Is it "sum of all components value"?
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 3150
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Wed Dec 25, 2019 1:18 pm

wave46 wrote:
Here's a question regarding the MD-80/-90 and Boeing 717.

Since they're of the same airline family, what kind of interchangeability is there between them for parts? Obviously, things like engines are different, but what about the other nuts and bolts? Or are they so different despite being part of the same family that salvaging isn't a viable option?

Just curious.

The three types and the DC9 for that matter share a ton of stuff on the structural side. Most structural parts like frames and such are one time use only parts. You can't remove a frame section from one airplane and install it on another. The new part would have to be 'match drilled' to the existing surrounding parts. Pretty much impossible since it already has holes.

Now things like doors and cabin parts do swap. Also depending on the airplane some of the black boxes in the electronics compartment might be useful. Some of the flight controls might also transfer.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 20329
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:22 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
the value of the MD80 and MD90 are approximately the same for the hull, the engines on the MD 90 are worth quite a bit more as they are very similar to one of optional engines on the Airbus a320 CEO series (IAE V2500), their not fully compatible from a maintenance license point of view, but they may be convertable (can someone with more knowledge comment on that), and they certainly can be stripped for parts, whereas the JT8D on the MD-88 is essentially worthless.

From Aircraft lease value threads
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1422705


MD-82 – $0.35 - 0.85M, $15-40,000
D-90 - $3.0M, $45-70,000

In other words, an MD-80 is worth $350,000 if the engines are in poor shape, $850,000 with "green" engines (engines with good cycle life until next overhaul).

The V2500 engines make the MD-90 worth more. Perhaps more if DL is buying up examples to part. I was surprised that the traded examples are worth $3 million. That must have had two good condition engines.

These aircraft are being replaced by cheap used A319s or newer aircraft at Delta. No one else has a fleet large enough to matter (in terms of maintenance or other economy of scale).

Lightsaber

I wonder, what is the methodology for determining aircraft sale value, in a situation like MD-90 is in: only one active operator, no resale activity for a while, and sole operator plans to retire its fleet.
Is it "sum of all components value"?

MD-90s have been sold. Even if it is what DL pays to scrap the airframe or a competing scrapper pays.

For example, if you go to the thread I link, we know the lowest price A329s and A320s are going to scrappers. The scrappers have a good idea of what the parts will sell for and how quickly, based on the assumptions, they bid to sell parts. Engines are, by the time an aircraft is a dozen years old, half the typical value of less popular airframes. Popular airframes are bid up for their value in airline service.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
freakyrat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:04 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:02 pm

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
1799 DFW-LGA-DFW is an A220 per delta.com that appears to be a flightaware glitch. It’s a regular scheduled revenue flight.

8947 is a charter, and DL has been using the MD88s for NCAA sports charters, typically basketball and hockey.


8


SBN recently saw one for a University of Maryland NCAA Basketball sports charter and a DL MD88 flew the Notre Dame Marching Band to MCO this week.
 
Oliver2020
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:39 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Wed Dec 25, 2019 10:09 pm

lightsaber wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
Does the MD-88 have a lower resale value than the MD-90? What about fuel burn?

the value of the MD80 and MD90 are approximately the same for the hull, the engines on the MD 90 are worth quite a bit more as they are very similar to one of optional engines on the Airbus a320 CEO series (IAE V2500), their not fully compatible from a maintenance license point of view, but they may be convertable (can someone with more knowledge comment on that), and they certainly can be stripped for parts, whereas the JT8D on the MD-88 is essentially worthless.

From Aircraft lease value threads
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1422705


MD-82 – $0.35 - 0.85M, $15-40,000
D-90 - $3.0M, $45-70,000

In other words, an MD-80 is worth $350,000 if the engines are in poor shape, $850,000 with "green" engines (engines with good cycle life until next overhaul).

The V2500 engines make the MD-90 worth more. Perhaps more if DL is buying up examples to part. I was surprised that the traded examples are worth $3 million. That must have had two good condition engines.

These aircraft are being replaced by cheap used A319s or newer aircraft at Delta. No one else has a fleet large enough to matter (in terms of maintenance or other economy of scale).

Lightsaber


IAE V2500 questions
V2500-D aside from the side mount brackets etc (I'm not an AC mechanic and don't know the technical term for the side attachment) what other parts of the V2500 engine are different from the A319, A320, A321 variant?
 
DeltaMD95
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 5:37 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:15 am

mke717spotter wrote:
DeltaMD95 wrote:
Looks like the DL MD-88 will be exiting the ORD service very soon. Sad to say.

When is that? I was hoping to do a daytrip next summer and catch one last ride on them.


I don’t know the exact date for certain, but I was looking to do a flight in late March/early April and was disappointed to learn that all ORD-ATL frequencies become standardized to the 717 & A32X. Not even the MD-90 anymore, either. I think I’ll need to visit a city I never intended, just to get on the classic MD one last time.
Did you know that a Boeing 717-200 is really a McDonnell Douglas MD95-30? ;-)
 
TMccrury
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:24 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:28 am

I guess, I need to enjoy my MD88 ride from RIC to ATL February 1. It maybe one of the last ones I catch.
 
GatorClark
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 6:34 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:53 am

ryanov wrote:
Where are they coming from to RSW? I couldn’t find any ATL flights on MD-88s without looking at SRQ.


At the moment, the are coming from ATL. Today for instance, flights, 2015, 1732, 1067, 1711, 2651, 2704 & 1806 were all operated ATL-RSW on an MD-88.. I would know.. I was inside the bin on 2015, 1732, 2651, & 2704. We've been getting all the old Douglas/Mcdonell-Douglas birds (MD-88, MD-90, 717) the past few weeks.. And from a ramp perspective, I can't wait until they leave. The bins are terrible to work.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 20329
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:53 am

Oliver2020 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
the value of the MD80 and MD90 are approximately the same for the hull, the engines on the MD 90 are worth quite a bit more as they are very similar to one of optional engines on the Airbus a320 CEO series (IAE V2500), their not fully compatible from a maintenance license point of view, but they may be convertable (can someone with more knowledge comment on that), and they certainly can be stripped for parts, whereas the JT8D on the MD-88 is essentially worthless.

From Aircraft lease value threads
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1422705


MD-82 – $0.35 - 0.85M, $15-40,000
D-90 - $3.0M, $45-70,000

In other words, an MD-80 is worth $350,000 if the engines are in poor shape, $850,000 with "green" engines (engines with good cycle life until next overhaul).

The V2500 engines make the MD-90 worth more. Perhaps more if DL is buying up examples to part. I was surprised that the traded examples are worth $3 million. That must have had two good condition engines.

These aircraft are being replaced by cheap used A319s or newer aircraft at Delta. No one else has a fleet large enough to matter (in terms of maintenance or other economy of scale).

Lightsaber


IAE V2500 questions
V2500-D aside from the side mount brackets etc (I'm not an AC mechanic and don't know the technical term for the side attachment) what other parts of the V2500 engine are different from the A319, A320, A321 variant?

The so called extrrnals. Notice the nacelles have different shapes? This means the nacelle anti-ice subsystem has different requirements.

Cabin bleed air will be different requirements. I do not know all the differences, but the size of cabin bleed is probably different.

The wing anti-ice requirements are far different. Due to the distance from the engines to the wing, I wonder if the MD-90 requires air taken off a later stage of the compressor (hotter so it is hot enough at the wing when moved further away from the engine).

The A320 requires more electrical power than the MD-90, so different auxiliary gearbox and alternator? (I don't know, it could be the same, it depends on who paid for the development, if Airbus, they wouldn't share).

There will be slightly different compressor mappings as nacelles effect surge/stall margin, but that is code in the FADAC.

The externals (valves and such) are also at different locations to ease maintenance. For example, on the A320, parts half to 3/4 of the way up the engine are easiest to service. On the MD-90, the need to be easy to service parts must be lower down (as the engines are higher up).

Most of this is similar parts, but different springs in regulators and different engine casings to support moving attachment points to where it is easiest to service. The actual plumbing to move hot air has a very different shape.

A good analogy is the new mid engine Corvette. It uses an engine that could have gone in a rear wheel drive, same with transmission. Well, moving engines to the tail requires a similar level of repackaging, but it really isn't a big deal. But an engine block (casing) cast for one application just won't have the right attachment points (think alternator moved to accommodate body sculpting).


Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 9068
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sun Dec 29, 2019 7:37 am

I think it's a fair bet that if DL really, really wanted to hang onto the MD90s because they had unique capabilities or customer preference, they could find a way to induce others to compete for the engine business or could bring it in house. I think the determination, however, was that efforts in that regard weren't worth it, and replacement sooner rather than later was the way to go. Ironically, if I understand it, DL caused the overhaul mess by driving overhaul prices so low (using its power as the sole operator of the type), that many vendors just said, "Screw it," and stopped offering the service. That flipped the pricing power into the hands of the remaining shop at Christchurch, who then started charging monopoly rates. This in turn threw off the economics of the MD90 for its remaining lifespan. If DL had early on made the decision to do -D2 overhauls in-house, we might be in a different place, and it isn't worth it for them to do it now, but if all of a sudden DL found a need for, say, 40 aircraft of that size with that capability ricky-tik, it could make different decisions. No need now, of course, and the inevitable will soon be on us.
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 3150
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:05 pm

"IAE V2500 questions
V2500-D aside from the side mount brackets etc (I'm not an AC mechanic and don't know the technical term for the side attachment) what other parts of the V2500 engine are different from the A319, A320, A321 variant?"

I have never seen an A320 V2500 variant in person, but I've heard they are quite different. The core of the engine is similar, but not the same due to different thrust requirements. So the parts; turbine wheel, blades, compressor wheel, blades look the same they are not interchangeable.

Your assumption that the engine mounts are just moved from the top to the side are not entirely correct. The engine mounts on the engine case had to be moved from 12:00. I've never done a MD90 engine change but I would guess it is similar to the JT8 on the MD80. The V2500 must have the case mounts at both the 3:00 and 9:00 position. These are part of the case of the engine and can not be moved. All of the ducting and wiring going to the airframe also has to move to those locations. So converting to a model for the A320 is not going to happen. These engines will possibly find life as ground power units in say the oil industry. A lot of the old JT8 cores are doing that.
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 3150
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:23 pm

wjcandee wrote:
I think it's a fair bet that if DL really, really wanted to hang onto the MD90s because they had unique capabilities or customer preference, they could find a way to induce others to compete for the engine business or could bring it in house. I think the determination, however, was that efforts in that regard weren't worth it, and replacement sooner rather than later was the way to go. Ironically, if I understand it, DL caused the overhaul mess by driving overhaul prices so low (using its power as the sole operator of the type), that many vendors just said, "Screw it," and stopped offering the service. That flipped the pricing power into the hands of the remaining shop at Christchurch, who then started charging monopoly rates. This in turn threw off the economics of the MD90 for its remaining lifespan. If DL had early on made the decision to do -D2 overhauls in-house, we might be in a different place, and it isn't worth it for them to do it now, but if all of a sudden DL found a need for, say, 40 aircraft of that size with that capability ricky-tik, it could make different decisions. No need now, of course, and the inevitable will soon be on us.

I think this is a pretty good assessment of the situation.

As for bringing the V2500 work in house, I'm sure it was studied. My guess is they really didn't want to devote shop space to another orphan engine. It obviously has zero MRO in source potential. Every engine line we now have, or plan to have, has at least some in source line or at least the potential to bring in outside work (even the BR line does HA work). With the GTF lines coming live this year, floor space is a huge problem. It sounds like the GTF lines will eventually move a part of the Delta Cargo building near Terminal F. The Thrust Reverser shop has been over there for many years. Until that is reconfigured for a shop The GTF will work in the old JT8 space and the out going CF34 space. After the move across the street, the JT8 and CF34 spaces will be absorbed into the remaining legacy lines. I would guess the PW4000 will take most of it. That line and the CF6 have cargo airline contracts that will keep those lines going for years.

To sum it up there was no room in the Inn for a line that did not bring money into the business. That is the game today, offset your costs with outside work.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 20329
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sun Dec 29, 2019 4:21 pm

wjcandee wrote:
I think it's a fair bet that if DL really, really wanted to hang onto the MD90s because they had unique capabilities or customer preference, they could find a way to induce others to compete for the engine business or could bring it in house. I think the determination, however, was that efforts in that regard weren't worth it, and replacement sooner rather than later was the way to go. Ironically, if I understand it, DL caused the overhaul mess by driving overhaul prices so low (using its power as the sole operator of the type), that many vendors just said, "Screw it," and stopped offering the service. That flipped the pricing power into the hands of the remaining shop at Christchurch, who then started charging monopoly rates. This in turn threw off the economics of the MD90 for its remaining lifespan. If DL had early on made the decision to do -D2 overhauls in-house, we might be in a different place, and it isn't worth it for them to do it now, but if all of a sudden DL found a need for, say, 40 aircraft of that size with that capability ricky-tik, it could make different decisions. No need now, of course, and the inevitable will soon be on us.

DL needs volume for in house engine service. It is my understanding that overall DL will pay less for engine overhauls despite Monopoly pricing thanks to years of squeezing vendors. Yes, this altered MD-90 retirement.

I'm very curious as to how many MD-88 and MD-90 receive ADS-B. I wish we could see which airports are plugged into the limited memory storage of the MD-88.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 1044
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sun Dec 29, 2019 5:40 pm

lightsaber wrote:
...
I'm very curious as to how many MD-88 and MD-90 receive ADS-B. ..

Isn't the answer literally 4 days from now? Unless I am mistaken, anything that flies in the US after January 1, 2020, is presumably ADS-B compliant by the default, correct?
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
tnair1974
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Mon Dec 30, 2019 12:51 am

lightsaber wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
I think it's a fair bet that if DL really, really wanted to hang onto the MD90s because they had unique capabilities or customer preference, they could find a way to induce others to compete for the engine business or could bring it in house. I think the determination, however, was that efforts in that regard weren't worth it, and replacement sooner rather than later was the way to go. Ironically, if I understand it, DL caused the overhaul mess by driving overhaul prices so low (using its power as the sole operator of the type), that many vendors just said, "Screw it," and stopped offering the service. That flipped the pricing power into the hands of the remaining shop at Christchurch, who then started charging monopoly rates. This in turn threw off the economics of the MD90 for its remaining lifespan. If DL had early on made the decision to do -D2 overhauls in-house, we might be in a different place, and it isn't worth it for them to do it now, but if all of a sudden DL found a need for, say, 40 aircraft of that size with that capability ricky-tik, it could make different decisions. No need now, of course, and the inevitable will soon be on us.

[snip]
I'm very curious as to how many MD-88 and MD-90 receive ADS-B. I wish we could see which airports are plugged into the limited memory storage of the MD-88.

Lightsaber

Also, how easy (or otherwise) it is for an MD-88's FMS to be reprogrammed to add new stations/waypoints and remove others.

In recent months, DL MD-88 military/sports charters have made visits at western US airports such as RIV, SLC, PDX and SEA. DL MD-88s were even briefly substituted ATL-LGA-ATL a few weeks ago; I understand LGA and its complex approach waypoints are particularly challenging to fit into the 88's FMS.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 20329
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:14 am

Phosphorus wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
...
I'm very curious as to how many MD-88 and MD-90 receive ADS-B. ..

Isn't the answer literally 4 days from now? Unless I am mistaken, anything that flies in the US after January 1, 2020, is presumably ADS-B compliant by the default, correct?

Correct. We can assume the MD-90 fleet will be drawn down to a level suitable for a year+ (due to the cost of ADS-B).

For the MD-88 fleet, will we see an abrupt retirement of some quantity?

Yes, in a few days we find out. I'm curious as to the fleet size for start of 2020. Will the estimated 40 MD-88 retirements happen (in 2019)?

Yes, the answer is soon. I'm curious as to quantities. Delta has become famous for capacity discipline and cost control.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
jbs2886
Posts: 2430
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:21 am

Dalmd88 wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
I think it's a fair bet that if DL really, really wanted to hang onto the MD90s because they had unique capabilities or customer preference, they could find a way to induce others to compete for the engine business or could bring it in house. I think the determination, however, was that efforts in that regard weren't worth it, and replacement sooner rather than later was the way to go. Ironically, if I understand it, DL caused the overhaul mess by driving overhaul prices so low (using its power as the sole operator of the type), that many vendors just said, "Screw it," and stopped offering the service. That flipped the pricing power into the hands of the remaining shop at Christchurch, who then started charging monopoly rates. This in turn threw off the economics of the MD90 for its remaining lifespan. If DL had early on made the decision to do -D2 overhauls in-house, we might be in a different place, and it isn't worth it for them to do it now, but if all of a sudden DL found a need for, say, 40 aircraft of that size with that capability ricky-tik, it could make different decisions. No need now, of course, and the inevitable will soon be on us.

I think this is a pretty good assessment of the situation.

As for bringing the V2500 work in house, I'm sure it was studied. My guess is they really didn't want to devote shop space to another orphan engine. It obviously has zero MRO in source potential. Every engine line we now have, or plan to have, has at least some in source line or at least the potential to bring in outside work (even the BR line does HA work). With the GTF lines coming live this year, floor space is a huge problem. It sounds like the GTF lines will eventually move a part of the Delta Cargo building near Terminal F. The Thrust Reverser shop has been over there for many years. Until that is reconfigured for a shop The GTF will work in the old JT8 space and the out going CF34 space. After the move across the street, the JT8 and CF34 spaces will be absorbed into the remaining legacy lines. I would guess the PW4000 will take most of it. That line and the CF6 have cargo airline contracts that will keep those lines going for years.

To sum it up there was no room in the Inn for a line that did not bring money into the business. That is the game today, offset your costs with outside work.


Out of curiosity, we hear a lot of about not having enough floor space for additional engine work, etc. Is there a reason DL can't or won't build new facilities in ATL (perhaps by runway 5) or at another airport/hub?
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 3150
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:17 am

jbs2886 wrote:
Dalmd88 wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
I think it's a fair bet that if DL really, really wanted to hang onto the MD90s because they had unique capabilities or customer preference, they could find a way to induce others to compete for the engine business or could bring it in house. I think the determination, however, was that efforts in that regard weren't worth it, and replacement sooner rather than later was the way to go. Ironically, if I understand it, DL caused the overhaul mess by driving overhaul prices so low (using its power as the sole operator of the type), that many vendors just said, "Screw it," and stopped offering the service. That flipped the pricing power into the hands of the remaining shop at Christchurch, who then started charging monopoly rates. This in turn threw off the economics of the MD90 for its remaining lifespan. If DL had early on made the decision to do -D2 overhauls in-house, we might be in a different place, and it isn't worth it for them to do it now, but if all of a sudden DL found a need for, say, 40 aircraft of that size with that capability ricky-tik, it could make different decisions. No need now, of course, and the inevitable will soon be on us.

I think this is a pretty good assessment of the situation.

As for bringing the V2500 work in house, I'm sure it was studied. My guess is they really didn't want to devote shop space to another orphan engine. It obviously has zero MRO in source potential. Every engine line we now have, or plan to have, has at least some in source line or at least the potential to bring in outside work (even the BR line does HA work). With the GTF lines coming live this year, floor space is a huge problem. It sounds like the GTF lines will eventually move a part of the Delta Cargo building near Terminal F. The Thrust Reverser shop has been over there for many years. Until that is reconfigured for a shop The GTF will work in the old JT8 space and the out going CF34 space. After the move across the street, the JT8 and CF34 spaces will be absorbed into the remaining legacy lines. I would guess the PW4000 will take most of it. That line and the CF6 have cargo airline contracts that will keep those lines going for years.

To sum it up there was no room in the Inn for a line that did not bring money into the business. That is the game today, offset your costs with outside work.


The TOC is very land restricted. There is very little room to expand. Part of the problem with adding engine lines is the routing of parts from the Assembly lines to the repair and support areas. With the two areas in the same building transfer of the large parts, like rotors and engine cases can be easily moved by fork lift or even hand walked to the repair area for machine shop rework or plating shop, composite work, sheet metal work. Once you move the assembly line off site the transfer of these parts becomes more difficult. Duplicating the repair areas off site would also be very costly.


Out of curiosity, we hear a lot of about not having enough floor space for additional engine work, etc. Is there a reason DL can't or won't build new facilities in ATL (perhaps by runway 5) or at another airport/hub?
 
mcg
Posts: 1096
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:49 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Mon Dec 30, 2019 2:58 pm

wjcandee wrote:
I think it's a fair bet that if DL really, really wanted to hang onto the MD90s because they had unique capabilities or customer preference, they could find a way to induce others to compete for the engine business or could bring it in house. I think the determination, however, was that efforts in that regard weren't worth it, and replacement sooner rather than later was the way to go. Ironically, if I understand it, DL caused the overhaul mess by driving overhaul prices so low (using its power as the sole operator of the type), that many vendors just said, "Screw it," and stopped offering the service. That flipped the pricing power into the hands of the remaining shop at Christchurch, who then started charging monopoly rates. This in turn threw off the economics of the MD90 for its remaining lifespan. If DL had early on made the decision to do -D2 overhauls in-house, we might be in a different place, and it isn't worth it for them to do it now, but if all of a sudden DL found a need for, say, 40 aircraft of that size with that capability ricky-tik, it could make different decisions. No need now, of course, and the inevitable will soon be on us.


Thanks best description of the MD-90 scenario I've seen. My dad would say "penny wise and pound foolish." The odd thing is that DL's technical skills with regard to Douglas aircraft were put forth as one of the reasons for the acquisition of the MD-90 fleet.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8300
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:12 pm

mcg wrote:
Thanks best description of the MD-90 scenario I've seen. My dad would say "penny wise and pound foolish." The odd thing is that DL's technical skills with regard to Douglas aircraft were put forth as one of the reasons for the acquisition of the MD-90 fleet.


Those skills have been put to good use in the now ten years since DL announced plans to acquire used MD-90s. Time flies.

https://www.ajc.com/business/delta-buy- ... Bf92uhbJP/

Whether this was a good decision vs. new 738s depends on aircraft prices (unknown), fuel prices (that varied a lot over the decade), maintenance costs (someone deep has the numbers) and preference for not spending new-plane capital (which is subjective - AA chose to take on a lot of debt - DL did not).
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 3150
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Mon Dec 30, 2019 9:24 pm

jbs2886 wrote:

Out of curiosity, we hear a lot of about not having enough floor space for additional engine work, etc. Is there a reason DL can't or won't build new facilities in ATL (perhaps by runway 5) or at another airport/hub?

My reply this morning didn't go through. DL could build a brand new ground up engine facility. It does not need to be on the airport property. You really only need good access to the airport to ship engines. The problem is to keep the efficiencies that we currently have the entire repair and support side would also have to be duplicated.

The assembly shops are where the big real estate crunch is. When an engine comes in to the facility it goes to it's assembly shop for tear down. After a couple of days the engine is completely disassembled. Now the journey begins. All of those parts have homes, we call them Prime shops. For a few parts the prime is the assembly department. They get inspected and stored close by. The rest get disbursed throughout the facility for cleaning, inspection, and repair process. Some parts go to outside vendors for work , but most stay in the building. Everything can move by bins in little electric carts or forklift. Ideally we would just expand the building for more assembly floor space. The problem is we are landlocked. We already have a parking problem so eating up parking lots will not work. Management really doesn't want to go the remote park bus route for the 1000's of employees at the TOC.

Moving the GTF line across the street to the current cargo building is going to be a headache, but it seems to be the best answer. All of their parts will need to be trucked over to the repair and support area and then back. Duplicating those shops in a second location is just not cost feasible.
 
jbs2886
Posts: 2430
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Mon Dec 30, 2019 9:27 pm

Dalmd88 wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:

Out of curiosity, we hear a lot of about not having enough floor space for additional engine work, etc. Is there a reason DL can't or won't build new facilities in ATL (perhaps by runway 5) or at another airport/hub?

My reply this morning didn't go through. DL could build a brand new ground up engine facility. It does not need to be on the airport property. You really only need good access to the airport to ship engines. The problem is to keep the efficiencies that we currently have the entire repair and support side would also have to be duplicated.

The assembly shops are where the big real estate crunch is. When an engine comes in to the facility it goes to it's assembly shop for tear down. After a couple of days the engine is completely disassembled. Now the journey begins. All of those parts have homes, we call them Prime shops. For a few parts the prime is the assembly department. They get inspected and stored close by. The rest get disbursed throughout the facility for cleaning, inspection, and repair process. Some parts go to outside vendors for work , but most stay in the building. Everything can move by bins in little electric carts or forklift. Ideally we would just expand the building for more assembly floor space. The problem is we are landlocked. We already have a parking problem so eating up parking lots will not work. Management really doesn't want to go the remote park bus route for the 1000's of employees at the TOC.

Moving the GTF line across the street to the current cargo building is going to be a headache, but it seems to be the best answer. All of their parts will need to be trucked over to the repair and support area and then back. Duplicating those shops in a second location is just not cost feasible.


Thanks! Always wondered what the reasoning was (assumed it was legitimate, which clearly it is). Basically, unless DL is willing to deal with inefficiencies, it needs to rebuild the entire system in a location with room for expansion.
 
nomorerjs
Posts: 892
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:24 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Come January ORD joins DFW as a major spoke under 800 miles from ATL without the mad dog. How times have changed!
 
dstblj52
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:38 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:55 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
Dalmd88 wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:

Out of curiosity, we hear a lot of about not having enough floor space for additional engine work, etc. Is there a reason DL can't or won't build new facilities in ATL (perhaps by runway 5) or at another airport/hub?

My reply this morning didn't go through. DL could build a brand new ground up engine facility. It does not need to be on the airport property. You really only need good access to the airport to ship engines. The problem is to keep the efficiencies that we currently have the entire repair and support side would also have to be duplicated.

The assembly shops are where the big real estate crunch is. When an engine comes in to the facility it goes to it's assembly shop for tear down. After a couple of days the engine is completely disassembled. Now the journey begins. All of those parts have homes, we call them Prime shops. For a few parts the prime is the assembly department. They get inspected and stored close by. The rest get disbursed throughout the facility for cleaning, inspection, and repair process. Some parts go to outside vendors for work , but most stay in the building. Everything can move by bins in little electric carts or forklift. Ideally we would just expand the building for more assembly floor space. The problem is we are landlocked. We already have a parking problem so eating up parking lots will not work. Management really doesn't want to go the remote park bus route for the 1000's of employees at the TOC.

Moving the GTF line across the street to the current cargo building is going to be a headache, but it seems to be the best answer. All of their parts will need to be trucked over to the repair and support area and then back. Duplicating those shops in a second location is just not cost feasible.


Thanks! Always wondered what the reasoning was (assumed it was legitimate, which clearly it is). Basically, unless DL is willing to deal with inefficiencies, it needs to rebuild the entire system in a location with room for expansion.

That will probably happen once ATL airport management decides they are going to build terminal G (I realize its been postponed but it will most likely happen eventually), which is where delta tech ops and cargo are based currently, if your going to move something and build a new building anyway you might as well build it for the growth and efficiency lessons you learned since you build the last setup.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 20329
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Thu Jan 02, 2020 3:50 am

Hattip to MIflyer12 for noting there were (preliminary count) 48 flying DL MD-88s per planespotters.net in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1438183&p=21897249#p21897249

On Airfleets, I only count 19 MD-90:
https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Del ... e-md80.htm

Now, Airfleets has 79 MD-88+MD-90s, but lags significantly. Were a dozen MD-80s retired quickly? I know some were documented upthread.

Lightsaber

Late edit: Let us see on Monday, a busier travel day, how many fly.
Winter is coming.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 1044
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Thu Jan 02, 2020 9:05 am

lightsaber wrote:
Hattip to MIflyer12 for noting there were (preliminary count) 48 flying DL MD-88s per planespotters.net in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1438183&p=21897249#p21897249

On Airfleets, I only count 19 MD-90:
https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Del ... e-md80.htm

Now, Airfleets has 79 MD-88+MD-90s, but lags significantly. Were a dozen MD-80s retired quickly? I know some were documented upthread.

Lightsaber

Late edit: Let us see on Monday, a busier travel day, how many fly.

Right. If airfleets is to be believed (with caveat that they are a bit lagging in terms of timing, but not wrong) and Delta did retire a dozen or so MD-80's over last weeks, then the worldwide fleet of MD-80s AND MD-90s together is below 200...
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 3150
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Thu Jan 02, 2020 10:10 am

dstblj52 wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
Dalmd88 wrote:
My reply this morning didn't go through. DL could build a brand new ground up engine facility. It does not need to be on the airport property. You really only need good access to the airport to ship engines. The problem is to keep the efficiencies that we currently have the entire repair and support side would also have to be duplicated.

The assembly shops are where the big real estate crunch is. When an engine comes in to the facility it goes to it's assembly shop for tear down. After a couple of days the engine is completely disassembled. Now the journey begins. All of those parts have homes, we call them Prime shops. For a few parts the prime is the assembly department. They get inspected and stored close by. The rest get disbursed throughout the facility for cleaning, inspection, and repair process. Some parts go to outside vendors for work , but most stay in the building. Everything can move by bins in little electric carts or forklift. Ideally we would just expand the building for more assembly floor space. The problem is we are landlocked. We already have a parking problem so eating up parking lots will not work. Management really doesn't want to go the remote park bus route for the 1000's of employees at the TOC.

Moving the GTF line across the street to the current cargo building is going to be a headache, but it seems to be the best answer. All of their parts will need to be trucked over to the repair and support area and then back. Duplicating those shops in a second location is just not cost feasible.


Thanks! Always wondered what the reasoning was (assumed it was legitimate, which clearly it is). Basically, unless DL is willing to deal with inefficiencies, it needs to rebuild the entire system in a location with room for expansion.

That will probably happen once ATL airport management decides they are going to build terminal G (I realize its been postponed but it will most likely happen eventually), which is where delta tech ops and cargo are based currently, if your going to move something and build a new building anyway you might as well build it for the growth and efficiency lessons you learned since you build the last setup.

Terminal 'G' would likely only affect the flight kitchen and not The DL Cargo building. If or when they build the proposed 'H' will likely affect the DL Cargo building. Neither of these additions would have any affect on the current TOC property.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8300
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Thu Jan 02, 2020 12:45 pm

lightsaber wrote:
On Airfleets, I only count 19 MD-90:
https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Del ... e-md80.htm

Now, Airfleets has 79 MD-88+MD-90s, but lags significantly. Were a dozen MD-80s retired quickly? I know some were documented upthread.


Planespotters.net shows 27 MD-90s this morning but I didn't audit tail numbers for scheduled activity. Somebody's got to be wrong!
 
OpsCheckNML
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:05 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Thu Jan 02, 2020 9:19 pm

As a Mechanic that works the MD90 and MD88. I much rather see the MD88 stay and the 90 leave. The MD 90 engine and electrical systems are alot more difficult to work on. Just the fan and core cowling alone takes about 15-20 minutes to open with 2 people .
 
OpsCheckNML
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:05 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Thu Jan 02, 2020 9:21 pm

For those looking to catch a ride on the MD88 & MD90 , ATL-BWI is strictly T-Tail for the foreseeable future. Edited with a few 739 sprinkled in .
 
DALMD80
Posts: 501
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 2:25 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:14 am

OpsCheckNML wrote:
For those looking to catch a ride on the MD88 & MD90 , ATL-BWI is strictly T-Tail for the foreseeable future. Edited with a few 739 sprinkled in .

How long do you consider the forseeable future?
2 things- Wear a mask, and vote. It's that simple.
 
Delta350
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:37 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:08 am

Dalmd88 wrote:
dstblj52 wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:

Thanks! Always wondered what the reasoning was (assumed it was legitimate, which clearly it is). Basically, unless DL is willing to deal with inefficiencies, it needs to rebuild the entire system in a location with room for expansion.

That will probably happen once ATL airport management decides they are going to build terminal G (I realize its been postponed but it will most likely happen eventually), which is where delta tech ops and cargo are based currently, if your going to move something and build a new building anyway you might as well build it for the growth and efficiency lessons you learned since you build the last setup.

Terminal 'G' would likely only affect the flight kitchen and not The DL Cargo building. If or when they build the proposed 'H' will likely affect the DL Cargo building. Neither of these additions would have any affect on the current TOC property.


There’s a terminal H planned?
Plane Spotter from the Magic City and Hartsfield-Jackson...(ATL)
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8300
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:16 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
On Airfleets, I only count 19 MD-90:
https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Del ... e-md80.htm

Now, Airfleets has 79 MD-88+MD-90s, but lags significantly. Were a dozen MD-80s retired quickly? I know some were documented upthread.


Planespotters.net shows 27 MD-90s this morning but I didn't audit tail numbers for scheduled activity. Somebody's got to be wrong!


Of that 27, Flightaware shows 1 in ATL that's been sitting for a couple of days, 1 in ATL that's been sitting for a couple of weeks, 2 in QRO but the remainder (23) presently flying.
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1710
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:24 am

Does the increased efficiency of the MD-90 engines compensate for the increased weight of the fuselage compared to the MD-88?

Which aircraft burns less fuel when fully loaded?
 
wjcandee
Posts: 9068
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:54 am

OpsCheckNML wrote:
As a Mechanic that works the MD90 and MD88. I much rather see the MD88 stay and the 90 leave. The MD 90 engine and electrical systems are alot more difficult to work on. Just the fan and core cowling alone takes about 15-20 minutes to open with 2 people .


I hear you can practically change anything on the MD80 in that period of time!
 
DeltaMD95
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 5:37 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Fri Jan 03, 2020 6:26 am

blacksoviet wrote:
Does the increased efficiency of the MD-90 engines compensate for the increased weight of the fuselage compared to the MD-88?

Which aircraft burns less fuel when fully loaded?


The MD90 is considerably more efficient. Data posted has shown the MD90 to be competitive on legs under 3 hours, with similar vintage 737NG & A320 - for which Delta have many of. Which makes it all the more unfortunate, the overzealous vendor squeezing (on Delta’s part) drove an early retirement.
Did you know that a Boeing 717-200 is really a McDonnell Douglas MD95-30? ;-)
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1710
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Fri Jan 03, 2020 7:27 am

DeltaMD95 wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
Does the increased efficiency of the MD-90 engines compensate for the increased weight of the fuselage compared to the MD-88?

Which aircraft burns less fuel when fully loaded?


The MD90 is considerably more efficient. Data posted has shown the MD90 to be competitive on legs under 3 hours, with similar vintage 737NG & A320 - for which Delta have many of. Which makes it all the more unfortunate, the overzealous vendor squeezing (on Delta’s part) drove an early retirement.

Will the MD-90s last as long as the DC-9-50s did?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 20329
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Fri Jan 03, 2020 7:40 am

blacksoviet wrote:
DeltaMD95 wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
Does the increased efficiency of the MD-90 engines compensate for the increased weight of the fuselage compared to the MD-88?

Which aircraft burns less fuel when fully loaded?


The MD90 is considerably more efficient. Data posted has shown the MD90 to be competitive on legs under 3 hours, with similar vintage 737NG & A320 - for which Delta have many of. Which makes it all the more unfortunate, the overzealous vendor squeezing (on Delta’s part) drove an early retirement.

Will the MD-90s last as long as the DC-9-50s did?

No. The MD-90s that are active are 1995 delivery or newer:
https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Del ... d80-35.htm

It isn't just the vendor squeeze. PiPs on 737NGs snd A320s help reduce costs. Parts are readily available for the competing aircraft.

The Douglas T-tails were impressive. But where are the winglets? Fewer engine PiPs.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
DALMD80
Posts: 501
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 2:25 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:12 pm

OpsCheckNML wrote:
For those looking to catch a ride on the MD88 & MD90 , ATL-BWI is strictly T-Tail for the foreseeable future. Edited with a few 739 sprinkled in .

I see none in June... I guess it's time to resign myself to the fact that these beautiful planes are going to be around for not much longer. It's really unfortunate. Maybe there'll be some 712s on the route... but I've never seen one on that route.
2 things- Wear a mask, and vote. It's that simple.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 24

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