Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Lootess
Posts: 454
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:31 pm

baje427 wrote:
With the Covid virus should it have a significant impact would tthis lead the a speeding up of the retirement or a delay?


Speed up, because they can simply retire more MDs sooner as a way to cut capacity instead of parking planes they are still paying bills for.

They can always shift the 717 around to cover necessary short and thin routes which seems they were already doing.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8049
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:55 pm

Lootess wrote:
baje427 wrote:
With the Covid virus should it have a significant impact would tthis lead the a speeding up of the retirement or a delay?


Speed up, because they can simply retire more MDs sooner as a way to cut capacity instead of parking planes they are still paying bills for.

They can always shift the 717 around to cover necessary short and thin routes which seems they were already doing.


There are several different ways to argue that.

Why would you park MD-88s that still have hours/cycles/time to heavy checks left in them, with an inventory of parts, and plenty of trained pilots? Retire them even earlier and you're going to need to write off existing value which is now projected out to 12/31/2020. It's like throwing out cups of yogurt that expire next month because you have a new case from Costco.

Against that you have questions of parts availability (do you have enough of the right parts?) and higher fuel burn. Only the people sitting on data of expected parts depletion, passenger demand, and comparative fuel burn can give a good answer.
 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 774
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Fri Mar 06, 2020 5:47 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
Lootess wrote:
baje427 wrote:
With the Covid virus should it have a significant impact would tthis lead the a speeding up of the retirement or a delay?


Speed up, because they can simply retire more MDs sooner as a way to cut capacity instead of parking planes they are still paying bills for.

They can always shift the 717 around to cover necessary short and thin routes which seems they were already doing.


There are several different ways to argue that.

Why would you park MD-88s that still have hours/cycles/time to heavy checks left in them, with an inventory of parts, and plenty of trained pilots? Retire them even earlier and you're going to need to write off existing value which is now projected out to 12/31/2020. It's like throwing out cups of yogurt that expire next month because you have a new case from Costco.

Against that you have questions of parts availability (do you have enough of the right parts?) and higher fuel burn. Only the people sitting on data of expected parts depletion, passenger demand, and comparative fuel burn can give a good answer.


So far, Delta seems to be decommissioning the MD88 fleet to their original plan. The most recent 3 M88's were retired in late-January and the next few retirements are supposed to be scheduled for next month. The plan calls for all remaining 48 M88's to be retired by the end of this year. As for the MD-90, one was wfu'ed a few days ago, leaving 26 in the fleet. I believe Delta's plan is for the entire MD-90 fleet to be retired by 2022.

Replacing this lift will be a complicated chess game for Delta's fleet planners. How deep will the C-19 virus impact cut into Delta's revenues? Can Delta still adequately service the large debt required to finance their ambitious re-fleeting plan? How many medium/small-sized city legs feeding their ATL hub with token mainline service can they move over entirely to their regional partners? Are they willing to move the A220's away from their current medium-haul "hub raiding" missions (e.g. DTW-DFW, LGA-IAH, SLC-DEN, etc.) and use them to replace MD88/90 short-haul lift to feed ATL? Is an A321 way too large to replace a MD-90, or will those markets be able to absorb the extra capacity?
 
Lootess
Posts: 454
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Fri Mar 06, 2020 5:53 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
Lootess wrote:
baje427 wrote:
With the Covid virus should it have a significant impact would tthis lead the a speeding up of the retirement or a delay?


Speed up, because they can simply retire more MDs sooner as a way to cut capacity instead of parking planes they are still paying bills for.

They can always shift the 717 around to cover necessary short and thin routes which seems they were already doing.


There are several different ways to argue that.

Why would you park MD-88s that still have hours/cycles/time to heavy checks left in them, with an inventory of parts, and plenty of trained pilots? Retire them even earlier and you're going to need to write off existing value which is now projected out to 12/31/2020. It's like throwing out cups of yogurt that expire next month because you have a new case from Costco.

Against that you have questions of parts availability (do you have enough of the right parts?) and higher fuel burn. Only the people sitting on data of expected parts depletion, passenger demand, and comparative fuel burn can give a good answer.


There are only 26 MD90s, and we already know the engine re-haul situation is the reason they are being scooted out sooner than planned. if you have to remove seat miles, parking planes that are paid for is going to be the most cost effective situation regardless of parts inventory, which was already getting more scarce. The 90s are probably the most vulnerable at this point, more so than the MD88s that already have a firm exit date.
 
User avatar
msp747
Posts: 479
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 6:42 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Fri Mar 06, 2020 7:05 pm

C525C wrote:
tnair1974 wrote:
Northwest1988 wrote:

Great find! I remember reading an article that said there were a few occasions during the summer where the -88s performance was acceptable at SLC.

I read that AA used MD-80s SLC-ORD/DFW year round. I wonder if even these flights needed at least some seat/payload penalties during the hottest days at SLC.

BTW, add Continental Airlines to the list of MD-80 operators at SLC (apparently on SLC-IAH, looked like SLC-EWR was mainly 735s).

Of course, the old Western Airlines established SLC as a hub before the DL/WA merger. To be sure, Western was a heavily Boeing customer with a big exception of the DC-10. This said, curious if what interest WA may have had in MD-80s was tempered by the single engine performance issues at SLC. IIRC, the 737-400 also did not have the greatest thrust to weight ratio stats; just maybe why Western also did not buy the 734 to supplement their 733s and 732s??
CO mainly did SLC-DEN and a plethora of SLC-SoCal/NoCal Charters on behalf of Morris Air. Didn't do SLC-IAH that I can recall (not saying it didn't, just never saw it operated with the MD). Frontier operated the MD SLC-DEN as well. AA did tag-on SLC-JAC for quite a while . TWA used them SLC-DEN-JFK and SLC-STL.

Allegro and AeroCancun also used them out of SLC. But my favorite was the short-lived PSA service from SLC-LAX in 1981-1982.

I don't know if it was routine or not, but I did fly a CO MD-80 from SLC to IAH in 2003. My flight back was on a 733 with overhead tvs (similar to the old 757 setup). After I moved to Houston, I often flew DL MD-90s between IAH and SLC (after DL retired their 733 fleet).
 
tnair1974
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:28 pm

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
Honestly, in a way, I suspect they may actually park 717 and A319/A320s in the short-term if domestic collapses.
They could burn the cycles left on the MD88s that are going out end of this year anyways and defer maintenance on the others that were going to stick around.

I agree that types like the A320s/319s could be more flexible to temporarily park. A320 series birds have and will continue to receive very good maintenance support, the older A320s are (I presume?) paid off. Actually, NW parked A320s and other types during the last recession.

But the DL MD-88s (somewhat limited parts, especially for engines) and MD-90s (extremely high engine overhaul costs) seem to have less wiggle room for retirement extensions anyway, so might as well use them well until the very end.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
This thing is getting stupider by the day. Companies are throwing up travel bans / restrictions right and left.
There will be very empty planes over the next few weeks.

Unfortunately, in just the last two days the first cases of Coronavirus have been confirmed in both Tennessee (near Nashville) and Kentucky (in Lexington).

This said, my daughter and her friends are resolutely continuing their plans for spring break. Same with my upcoming business trip, even if we will continue to monitor the situation.
 
tnair1974
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:56 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
WA707atMSP wrote:
tnair1974 wrote:
I read that AA used MD-80s SLC-ORD/DFW year round. I wonder if even these flights needed at least some seat/payload penalties during the hottest days at SLC.

BTW, add Continental Airlines to the list of MD-80 operators at SLC (apparently on SLC-IAH, looked like SLC-EWR was mainly 735s).

Of course, the old Western Airlines established SLC as a hub before the DL/WA merger. To be sure, Western was a heavily Boeing customer with a big exception of the DC-10. This said, curious if what interest WA may have had in MD-80s was tempered by the single engine performance issues at SLC. IIRC, the 737-400 also did not have the greatest thrust to weight ratio stats; just maybe why Western also did not buy the 734 to supplement their 733s and 732s??


The 737-400 was launched in 1986, the same year DL bought WA. I'm sure Boeing made a presentation to WA about the 737, but the DL / WA merger agreement would have been signed before WA could make a decision.


See Delta's 1989 order for 50 MD-90s and 50 737s. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

Thanks. Although the article has no breakdown of the Delta 737 order, think I recall these were 733s although DL later cut back on both 733 and MD-90 orders. Anyway, the 733 would be a little more suitable out of SLC than the MD-88s with their more limited takeoff performance. Still, a fair number of DL 733s would show up at ATL/CVG while a few token MD-88s visited SLC.

Other than Piedmont (of course later merging with US), I don't recall any other 734 passenger carrier in North American other than charter operators.

EDIT: Forgot about Alaska Airlines and their 734s.
 
scflyboy
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Fri Mar 06, 2020 11:58 pm

Another MD88 heading to BYH tomorrow, 03/07:
DAL9941 MD88 Birmingham-Shuttlesworth Intl (BHM) 09:55a CST 11:35a CST (BYH)
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2342
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:25 am

tnair1974 wrote:

Other than Piedmont (of course later merging with US), I don't recall any other 734 passenger carrier in North American other than charter operators.

EDIT: Forgot about Alaska Airlines and their 734s.


ProAir, out of DET in the late 1990s.
I was raised by a cup of coffee.
 
gdavis003
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:59 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sat Mar 07, 2020 1:19 am

scflyboy wrote:
Another MD88 heading to BYH tomorrow, 03/07:
DAL9941 MD88 Birmingham-Shuttlesworth Intl (BHM) 09:55a CST 11:35a CST (BYH)


From what I heard, it was hit by a luggage cart earlier this week at BHM. N973DL
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sat Mar 07, 2020 3:35 am

gdavis003 wrote:
scflyboy wrote:
Another MD88 heading to BYH tomorrow, 03/07:
DAL9941 MD88 Birmingham-Shuttlesworth Intl (BHM) 09:55a CST 11:35a CST (BYH)


From what I heard, it was hit by a luggage cart earlier this week at BHM. N973DL


Boy DL is pretty darn good at wrecking their MD-80s with ground equipment.
 
N649DL
Posts: 968
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sat Mar 07, 2020 4:13 am

tnair1974 wrote:
PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
Honestly, in a way, I suspect they may actually park 717 and A319/A320s in the short-term if domestic collapses.
They could burn the cycles left on the MD88s that are going out end of this year anyways and defer maintenance on the others that were going to stick around.

I agree that types like the A320s/319s could be more flexible to temporarily park. A320 series birds have and will continue to receive very good maintenance support, the older A320s are (I presume?) paid off. Actually, NW parked A320s and other types during the last recession.

But the DL MD-88s (somewhat limited parts, especially for engines) and MD-90s (extremely high engine overhaul costs) seem to have less wiggle room for retirement extensions anyway, so might as well use them well until the very end.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
This thing is getting stupider by the day. Companies are throwing up travel bans / restrictions right and left.
There will be very empty planes over the next few weeks.

Unfortunately, in just the last two days the first cases of Coronavirus have been confirmed in both Tennessee (near Nashville) and Kentucky (in Lexington).

This said, my daughter and her friends are resolutely continuing their plans for spring break. Same with my upcoming business trip, even if we will continue to monitor the situation.


Since the ex-NW 319 and 320 have been completely refurbished, they've been valuable assets especially out of LAX for routes upgraded from regional jets when DL launched a hub there in 2015-2016 (EG: DEN/DFW/AUS/PDX) etc.) They seem to be reliable for the most part. The M90s are the first to be stored if you ask me.
 
Lootess
Posts: 454
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:23 pm

N649DL wrote:
tnair1974 wrote:
PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
Honestly, in a way, I suspect they may actually park 717 and A319/A320s in the short-term if domestic collapses.
They could burn the cycles left on the MD88s that are going out end of this year anyways and defer maintenance on the others that were going to stick around.

I agree that types like the A320s/319s could be more flexible to temporarily park. A320 series birds have and will continue to receive very good maintenance support, the older A320s are (I presume?) paid off. Actually, NW parked A320s and other types during the last recession.

But the DL MD-88s (somewhat limited parts, especially for engines) and MD-90s (extremely high engine overhaul costs) seem to have less wiggle room for retirement extensions anyway, so might as well use them well until the very end.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
This thing is getting stupider by the day. Companies are throwing up travel bans / restrictions right and left.
There will be very empty planes over the next few weeks.

Unfortunately, in just the last two days the first cases of Coronavirus have been confirmed in both Tennessee (near Nashville) and Kentucky (in Lexington).

This said, my daughter and her friends are resolutely continuing their plans for spring break. Same with my upcoming business trip, even if we will continue to monitor the situation.


Since the ex-NW 319 and 320 have been completely refurbished, they've been valuable assets especially out of LAX for routes upgraded from regional jets when DL launched a hub there in 2015-2016 (EG: DEN/DFW/AUS/PDX) etc.) They seem to be reliable for the most part. The M90s are the first to be stored if you ask me.


Exactly. No Airbus 319/320 will be parked, all have been refurbed with new interiors and PTVs and needed for the thin west coast hub routes.

The MD90s will be the first to go. I guess people seem to forget the fleet was twice the size it was now a few years ago.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 1008
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:46 pm

Lootess wrote:
N649DL wrote:
tnair1974 wrote:
I agree that types like the A320s/319s could be more flexible to temporarily park. A320 series birds have and will continue to receive very good maintenance support, the older A320s are (I presume?) paid off. Actually, NW parked A320s and other types during the last recession.

But the DL MD-88s (somewhat limited parts, especially for engines) and MD-90s (extremely high engine overhaul costs) seem to have less wiggle room for retirement extensions anyway, so might as well use them well until the very end.


Unfortunately, in just the last two days the first cases of Coronavirus have been confirmed in both Tennessee (near Nashville) and Kentucky (in Lexington).

This said, my daughter and her friends are resolutely continuing their plans for spring break. Same with my upcoming business trip, even if we will continue to monitor the situation.


Since the ex-NW 319 and 320 have been completely refurbished, they've been valuable assets especially out of LAX for routes upgraded from regional jets when DL launched a hub there in 2015-2016 (EG: DEN/DFW/AUS/PDX) etc.) They seem to be reliable for the most part. The M90s are the first to be stored if you ask me.


Exactly. No Airbus 319/320 will be parked, all have been refurbed with new interiors and PTVs and needed for the thin west coast hub routes.

The MD90s will be the first to go. I guess people seem to forget the fleet was twice the size it was now a few years ago.


So, even if an MD-90 has engines that have just gone through (legendarily) expensive overhaul in NZ, and has plenty of hours left, it will be grounded? Wouldn't it make more sense to stop sending those engines to NZ first, and burn through remaining hours, before pulling the plug on MD-90 fleet?
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
 
Lootess
Posts: 454
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:11 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
Lootess wrote:
N649DL wrote:

Since the ex-NW 319 and 320 have been completely refurbished, they've been valuable assets especially out of LAX for routes upgraded from regional jets when DL launched a hub there in 2015-2016 (EG: DEN/DFW/AUS/PDX) etc.) They seem to be reliable for the most part. The M90s are the first to be stored if you ask me.


Exactly. No Airbus 319/320 will be parked, all have been refurbed with new interiors and PTVs and needed for the thin west coast hub routes.

The MD90s will be the first to go. I guess people seem to forget the fleet was twice the size it was now a few years ago.


So, even if an MD-90 has engines that have just gone through (legendarily) expensive overhaul in NZ, and has plenty of hours left, it will be grounded? Wouldn't it make more sense to stop sending those engines to NZ first, and burn through remaining hours, before pulling the plug on MD-90 fleet?


We talking only 26 aircraft left now, the number is small enough to the point that they'll just retire sooner.

Those MD90s are not doing the LAX runs. Many of those routes swap between A319 up to 738.
 
TropicalSky
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 1:37 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sat Mar 07, 2020 9:33 pm

All MD 88's to leave fleet by end of this yr

https://airlinerwatch.com/delta-air-lin ... me-of-its/
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sat Mar 07, 2020 9:44 pm

Lootess wrote:
N649DL wrote:
tnair1974 wrote:
I agree that types like the A320s/319s could be more flexible to temporarily park. A320 series birds have and will continue to receive very good maintenance support, the older A320s are (I presume?) paid off. Actually, NW parked A320s and other types during the last recession.

But the DL MD-88s (somewhat limited parts, especially for engines) and MD-90s (extremely high engine overhaul costs) seem to have less wiggle room for retirement extensions anyway, so might as well use them well until the very end.


Unfortunately, in just the last two days the first cases of Coronavirus have been confirmed in both Tennessee (near Nashville) and Kentucky (in Lexington).

This said, my daughter and her friends are resolutely continuing their plans for spring break. Same with my upcoming business trip, even if we will continue to monitor the situation.


Since the ex-NW 319 and 320 have been completely refurbished, they've been valuable assets especially out of LAX for routes upgraded from regional jets when DL launched a hub there in 2015-2016 (EG: DEN/DFW/AUS/PDX) etc.) They seem to be reliable for the most part. The M90s are the first to be stored if you ask me.


Exactly. No Airbus 319/320 will be parked, all have been refurbed with new interiors and PTVs and needed for the thin west coast hub routes.

The MD90s will be the first to go. I guess people seem to forget the fleet was twice the size it was now a few years ago.


Decisions aren’t made based upon which aircraft have PTVs. A temporary reduction in capacity will result in DL making the move that’s most financially strategic. This could be parking aircraft due for maintenance, or parking aircraft that represent a surplus in fleet sizing. For example, if a lot less people are traveling to vacation markets like LAS, MCO, etc., we could see a bunch of 757 parked. 319 and 717 serving small markets could be parked (and replaced with regional jets). 320 and 738 due for maintenance could be parked and replaced with M90, which are scheduled to operate another 2.5 years.

A permanent (LT) reduction in capacity would result in DL expediting retirement of the M90 and early 90s 757, 763 and 320.
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sat Mar 07, 2020 9:59 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
SESGDL wrote:
I'd take that rumor with a grain of salt. Per DL's regional/pilot/scope clause, if they remove 100-seat jets then they also lose 76-seat jets as part of that agreement. I highly doubt that DL's going to be removing CR9s and E75s anytime soon.


But the A220 is now in the mix. Depends on the precise scope language of course, but from my understanding the A220 should qualify and allow for 717 retirements.


In discussions among pilots, the consensus is that the 220 qualifies. I really wouldn’t be surprised if the rumor were true — that’s a large investment to make in cockpit and cabin upgrades for an aircraft that’s only intended to stick around for less than a decade, anyway. Might as well extend the life of some MD90, 320 and 757 that are paid off anyway (vs. leasing the 717) and (Order) bring some A220 on property earlier...
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5360
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sat Mar 07, 2020 10:27 pm

SESGDL wrote:
WidebodyPTV wrote:
BN727227Ultra wrote:
That's curious. Must have to do with the size of the aircraft v.the age of the 717, because I'd thought the 717 had better economics.

I'd just as soon that DL buy the next 150 A223s off the line and be done with the T-tails, but...(I want something different when flying OMA-ATL!)


Allegedly, it has to do with fleet needs (the alternative role for the 717 as it's pulled from trunk routes; e.g. it's a poor fit on routes to small markets, particularly as mainline labor costs swell), expected maintenance costs, and the costs of upgrading/updating the aircraft (e.g. the cost to convert the aircraft to RNP-capable, the cost to replace the seats/update the cabin, etc.). Apparently, the ROI is being questioned.

I have no idea as to the credibility of this rumor, and I question the logistics and costs of DL being able to draw down nearly 100 aircraft in a short time period. That said, DL could probably replace the 717 fleet simply be deferring expected retirements, and adding minimal new orders. DL had previously said the 717 would be a flex fleet in the future, they could probably replace the entire fleet with about half the frames (or so).


I'd take that rumor with a grain of salt. Per DL's regional/pilot/scope clause, if they remove 100-seat jets then they also lose 76-seat jets as part of that agreement. I highly doubt that DL's going to be removing CR9s and E75s anytime soon.

Jeremy



“New small narrowbody aircraft” means a B-717 or an A-319 aircraft that is not in the Company’s fleet as of July 1, 2012.

http://rsp.homestead.com/files/PWA.PDF

If the 717 fleet drops below 88 the company must park 70 76 seaters. Having said that the company does that the right to temporarily NSNA if something comes up that is outside of their control.
Also note, I don't believe the CS1 was added to the 2016 PWA as a NSNA like I thought it was. Reading over the TA that became the new PWA I didn't see it in there.
MSPNWA wrote:
SESGDL wrote:
I'd take that rumor with a grain of salt. Per DL's regional/pilot/scope clause, if they remove 100-seat jets then they also lose 76-seat jets as part of that agreement. I highly doubt that DL's going to be removing CR9s and E75s anytime soon.


But the A220 is now in the mix. Depends on the precise scope language of course, but from my understanding the A220 should qualify and allow for 717 retirements.


Read above.
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:18 pm

deltal1011man wrote:
SESGDL wrote:
WidebodyPTV wrote:

Allegedly, it has to do with fleet needs (the alternative role for the 717 as it's pulled from trunk routes; e.g. it's a poor fit on routes to small markets, particularly as mainline labor costs swell), expected maintenance costs, and the costs of upgrading/updating the aircraft (e.g. the cost to convert the aircraft to RNP-capable, the cost to replace the seats/update the cabin, etc.). Apparently, the ROI is being questioned.

I have no idea as to the credibility of this rumor, and I question the logistics and costs of DL being able to draw down nearly 100 aircraft in a short time period. That said, DL could probably replace the 717 fleet simply be deferring expected retirements, and adding minimal new orders. DL had previously said the 717 would be a flex fleet in the future, they could probably replace the entire fleet with about half the frames (or so).


I'd take that rumor with a grain of salt. Per DL's regional/pilot/scope clause, if they remove 100-seat jets then they also lose 76-seat jets as part of that agreement. I highly doubt that DL's going to be removing CR9s and E75s anytime soon.

Jeremy



“New small narrowbody aircraft” means a B-717 or an A-319 aircraft that is not in the Company’s fleet as of July 1, 2012.

http://rsp.homestead.com/files/PWA.PDF

If the 717 fleet drops below 88 the company must park 70 76 seaters. Having said that the company does that the right to temporarily NSNA if something comes up that is outside of their control.
Also note, I don't believe the CS1 was added to the 2016 PWA as a NSNA like I thought it was. Reading over the TA that became the new PWA I didn't see it in there.
MSPNWA wrote:
SESGDL wrote:
I'd take that rumor with a grain of salt. Per DL's regional/pilot/scope clause, if they remove 100-seat jets then they also lose 76-seat jets as part of that agreement. I highly doubt that DL's going to be removing CR9s and E75s anytime soon.


But the A220 is now in the mix. Depends on the precise scope language of course, but from my understanding the A220 should qualify and allow for 717 retirements.


Read above.


DL can assert it’s in compliance with the agreement, given the capacity of the A220 and the fact that it didn’t exist at the time of the signing. Companies don’t have to consult with unions on business decisions, and it’s probable arbitrators would agree with DL. If it even went that far - if DL’s temporarily moving pilots to higher paying M90/320/757, and the overall payroll continues to grow, it’s doubtful they’d even grieve the move. The union knows the 717 will go in the near future and if it’s winning (coming out ahead), it’s going to focus its energy elsewhere.
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5360
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:28 pm

WidebodyPTV wrote:
deltal1011man wrote:
SESGDL wrote:

I'd take that rumor with a grain of salt. Per DL's regional/pilot/scope clause, if they remove 100-seat jets then they also lose 76-seat jets as part of that agreement. I highly doubt that DL's going to be removing CR9s and E75s anytime soon.

Jeremy



“New small narrowbody aircraft” means a B-717 or an A-319 aircraft that is not in the Company’s fleet as of July 1, 2012.

http://rsp.homestead.com/files/PWA.PDF

If the 717 fleet drops below 88 the company must park 70 76 seaters. Having said that the company does that the right to temporarily NSNA if something comes up that is outside of their control.
Also note, I don't believe the CS1 was added to the 2016 PWA as a NSNA like I thought it was. Reading over the TA that became the new PWA I didn't see it in there.
MSPNWA wrote:

But the A220 is now in the mix. Depends on the precise scope language of course, but from my understanding the A220 should qualify and allow for 717 retirements.


Read above.


DL can assert it’s in compliance with the agreement, given the capacity of the A220 and the fact that it didn’t exist at the time of the signing. Companies don’t have to consult with unions on business decisions, and it’s probable arbitrators would agree with DL. If it even went that far - if DL’s temporarily moving pilots to higher paying M90/320/757, and the overall payroll continues to grow, it’s doubtful they’d even grieve the move.

Two things.
1) I just posted what is in the PWA. Didn't make any comment if the A220 could replace the 717s. I just posted the PWA
2) Companies DO have to consult with unions on business decisions all the time. Thats literally why the pilots have scope to begin with. If what you say is true Delta would openly ignore its contract with DALPA for basically anything.


btw, you might want to research what happened with United, its pilots and the 73G in the exact same situation you are proposing.
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:02 am

deltal1011man wrote:
WidebodyPTV wrote:
deltal1011man wrote:


“New small narrowbody aircraft” means a B-717 or an A-319 aircraft that is not in the Company’s fleet as of July 1, 2012.

http://rsp.homestead.com/files/PWA.PDF

If the 717 fleet drops below 88 the company must park 70 76 seaters. Having said that the company does that the right to temporarily NSNA if something comes up that is outside of their control.
Also note, I don't believe the CS1 was added to the 2016 PWA as a NSNA like I thought it was. Reading over the TA that became the new PWA I didn't see it in there.


Read above.


DL can assert it’s in compliance with the agreement, given the capacity of the A220 and the fact that it didn’t exist at the time of the signing. Companies don’t have to consult with unions on business decisions, and it’s probable arbitrators would agree with DL. If it even went that far - if DL’s temporarily moving pilots to higher paying M90/320/757, and the overall payroll continues to grow, it’s doubtful they’d even grieve the move.

Two things.
1) I just posted what is in the PWA. Didn't make any comment if the A220 could replace the 717s. I just posted the PWA
2) Companies DO have to consult with unions on business decisions all the time. Thats literally why the pilots have scope to begin with. If what you say is true Delta would openly ignore its contract with DALPA for basically anything.


btw, you might want to research what happened with United, its pilots and the 73G in the exact same situation you are proposing.


DL could easily argue the A220 meets the definition of a new small narrowbody aircraft. I’ve worked with unions many times; unions can negotiate scope and other work rules, but (as a generalization) they can’t tell a company how to run its business, or interfere with business decisions.

That said, the union’s sole goal is to protect its membership. If jobs aren’t being lost, payroll is increasing and mainline flying is staying mainline/isn’t outsourced to regionals, it’s doubtful the union would say anything. Especially since ultimately, the 220 would be replacing the 717.

You can’t compare this to UA and the 73G. Kirby almost immediately nixed the 73G because of his concerns about the aircraft’s economics. He didn’t even bother to bring his argument to the union, which would’ve probably relented because it wanted those jobs.
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5360
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:23 am

Alright, I'll try this again since somehow my post got screwed up

WidebodyPTV wrote:
deltal1011man wrote:
WidebodyPTV wrote:

DL can assert it’s in compliance with the agreement, given the capacity of the A220 and the fact that it didn’t exist at the time of the signing. Companies don’t have to consult with unions on business decisions, and it’s probable arbitrators would agree with DL. If it even went that far - if DL’s temporarily moving pilots to higher paying M90/320/757, and the overall payroll continues to grow, it’s doubtful they’d even grieve the move.

Two things.
1) I just posted what is in the PWA. Didn't make any comment if the A220 could replace the 717s. I just posted the PWA
2) Companies DO have to consult with unions on business decisions all the time. Thats literally why the pilots have scope to begin with. If what you say is true Delta would openly ignore its contract with DALPA for basically anything.


btw, you might want to research what happened with United, its pilots and the 73G in the exact same situation you are proposing.


DL could easily argue the A220 meets the definition of a new small narrowbody aircraft. I’ve worked with unions many times; unions can negotiate scope and other work rules, but (as a generalization) they can’t tell a company how to run its business, or interfere with business decisions.

That said, the union’s sole goal is to protect its membership. If jobs aren’t being lost, payroll is increasing and mainline flying is staying mainline/isn’t outsourced to regionals, it’s doubtful the union would say anything. Especially since ultimately, the 220 would be replacing the 717.

You can’t compare this to UA and the 73G. Kirby almost immediately nixed the 73G because of his concerns about the aircraft’s economics. He didn’t even bother to bring his argument to the union, which would’ve probably relented because it wanted those jobs.

Yes he did. United's management has asked UALPA for 76 seat relief from both the new 73G order (old management) and additional used 737/32S aircraft (new management). Both times they have been told no. IIRC even during the last rounds of contract talks they weren't able to change 1-L-25 in the united contract.
Simple fact is if what you were saying is true, United would have already gone to an arbitrator to get relief. they don't and they can't because.....

1-L-25 “New Small Narrowbody Aircraft” means a CS100, E190 or E195 aircraft, provided that such aircraft is neither in the Company Fleet as of the date of signing of this Agreement nor acquired through merger or acquisition of another air carrier.

Even though the used 319s, 73Gs and new 73Gs are close to capacity in those airplanes and are "a business decision" the company still doesn't have additional 76 seat jets.

as for the DALPA letting Delta add any jets and keep the additional 76 seaters because hey its jobs. I recommend you actually dig into why DALPA (and later UALPA) put the aircraft types in plain, clear, english in black and white in the contract, instead of taking an approach of just letting the company add any 88 seat jets they want, and why UALPA continues not to allow United relief even though the airline has added several new 737s and used 737/32S aircraft.

Again, you are confusing the fact that DALPA can't tell Delta what planes its has to operate (true) with the fact DALPA can tell Delta what planes it must operate in order for scope relief. Precedence for this has been set by the fact United still isn't able to add additional 76 seat jets as they add used 737s and A32S aircraft. Unions, at least in the airline industry, stop airlines from making "business decisions" all the time.


United's contract here https://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/DesktopMo ... ntID=43832



having said all of this, none of it matters. It would never go to arbitration. Delta and DALPA would almost certainly amend the contract to allow the 221 to fall into the new small narrowbody section. Highly unlikely DALPA will go for the 223 though.
and none of that matters because till Delta gets rid of the MD88 and MD90s they don't have the training house capacity to replace the 717 and continue to hire at the rate they will need to hire over the next two-three years. So even if Delta decides to replace the 717, it isn't something that can really be done in the next few years.
So I'm done with this cause its off topic and really something that doesn't matter. I posted what the PWA says. You think Delta can get an arbitrator to change the PWA base on your opinion that the 220 is close enough to the 717. I don't think they would even go that route. We both have our opinions.
either way, we can discus it more if/when the subject becomes a real life situation instead of taking this thread off topic over a bridge that hasn't even been crossed yet and public hasn't even been talked about yet.
Last edited by deltal1011man on Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:28 am

Not familiar with Pilot's CBA's. Let's assume a US airline starts parking 25 to 30 % of it's fleet. Half WB and the other half NB. All the displaced WB Captains would bumped to WB FO? or to NB Captain? And so on thru the rest of the fleet? The only guys being let go would be starting at the most junior FO's. Or does the CBA mandate that there can't be layoffs?
    300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
     
    WidebodyPTV
    Posts: 265
    Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:41 am

    deltal1011man wrote:
    WidebodyPTV wrote:
    deltal1011man wrote:
    Two things.
    1) I just posted what is in the PWA. Didn't make any comment if the A220 could replace the 717s. I just posted the PWA
    2) Companies DO have to consult with unions on business decisions all the time. Thats literally why the pilots have scope to begin with. If what you say is true Delta would openly ignore its contract with DALPA for basically anything.


    btw, you might want to research what happened with United, its pilots and the 73G in the exact same situation you are proposing.


    DL could easily argue the A220 meets the definition of a new small narrowbody aircraft. I’ve worked with unions many times; unions can negotiate scope and other work rules, but (as a generalization) they can’t tell a company how to run its business, or interfere with business decisions.

    That said, the union’s sole goal is to protect its membership. If jobs aren’t being lost, payroll is increasing and mainline flying is staying mainline/isn’t outsourced to regionals, it’s doubtful the union would say anything. Especially since ultimately, the 220 would be replacing the 717.

    You can’t compare this to UA and the 73G. Kirby almost immediately nixed the 73G because of his concerns about the aircraft’s economics. He didn’t even bother to bring his argument to the union, which would’ve probably relented because it wanted those jobs.


    I’m not sure what your assertion is. Unions establish scope and rules, but companies don’t consult with them on business decisions. A couple of other points. Let’s say you are a unionized employee:

    - You caught the Coronavirus and were unable to report to work for over a month. Your company promptly fires you because the Coronavirus isn’t listed as one of the serious illnesses that would excuse a long-term absence. Do you think this termination would be upheld, given that the language was clear and explicit regarding long-term illnesses? Or do you think an arbitrator would reverse it, given that it can be inferred that it meet the definition of a serious long-term illness, but didn’t exist at the time of the contract’s signing. BTW, stuff like this happens all the time.

    - You’re a pilot on the 717. DL has announced that operating a small narrowbody is no longer viable, and that it will replace the 717 with the NEO or MAX. You will get a big pay raise, no jobs will be lost, and no flying will go to regionals. Would you grieve this decision? How would you feel if the union told you it was demanding that DL drop the NEO/MAX order, and keep the lower-paying 717? Fact is, the scope was put in place to prevent DL from ordering more large regional jets to replace mainline flying (instead of 50-seaters). If DL isn’t doing that, what argument is there? Of course, this doesn’t matter as DL did order the 220.
     
    deltal1011man
    Posts: 5360
    Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Sun Mar 08, 2020 1:00 am

    WidebodyPTV wrote:
    deltal1011man wrote:
    WidebodyPTV wrote:

    DL could easily argue the A220 meets the definition of a new small narrowbody aircraft. I’ve worked with unions many times; unions can negotiate scope and other work rules, but (as a generalization) they can’t tell a company how to run its business, or interfere with business decisions.

    That said, the union’s sole goal is to protect its membership. If jobs aren’t being lost, payroll is increasing and mainline flying is staying mainline/isn’t outsourced to regionals, it’s doubtful the union would say anything. Especially since ultimately, the 220 would be replacing the 717.

    You can’t compare this to UA and the 73G. Kirby almost immediately nixed the 73G because of his concerns about the aircraft’s economics. He didn’t even bother to bring his argument to the union, which would’ve probably relented because it wanted those jobs.


    I’m not sure what your assertion is. Unions establish scope and rules, but companies don’t consult with them on business decisions. A couple of other points. Let’s say you are a unionized employee:

    - You caught the Coronavirus and were unable to report to work for over a month. Your company promptly fires you because the Coronavirus isn’t listed as one of the serious illnesses that would excuse a long-term absence. Do you think this termination would be upheld, given that the language was clear and explicit regarding long-term illnesses? Or do you think an arbitrator would reverse it, given that it can be inferred that it meet the definition of a serious long-term illness, but didn’t exist at the time of the contract’s signing. BTW, stuff like this happens all the time.

    - You’re a pilot on the 717. DL has announced that operating a small narrowbody is no longer viable, and that it will replace the 717 with the NEO or MAX. You will get a big pay raise, no jobs will be lost, and no flying will go to regionals. Would you grieve this decision? How would you feel if the union told you it was demanding that DL drop the NEO/MAX order, and keep the lower-paying 717? Fact is, the scope was put in place to prevent DL from ordering more large regional jets to replace mainline flying (instead of 50-seaters). If DL isn’t doing that, what argument is there? Of course, this doesn’t matter as DL did order the 220.

    check my edit. I'm done with this conversation cause its just going to get me banned for going OT.
    having said that, you really need to research more into the United 73G order and what it meant for scope. I know we are talking about Delta but that is a clear example that everything you keep saying is wrong. ;)


    MohawkWeekend wrote:
    Not familiar with Pilot's CBA's. Let's assume a US airline starts parking 25 to 30 % of it's fleet. Half WB and the other half NB. All the displaced WB Captains would bumped to WB FO? or to NB Captain? And so on thru the rest of the fleet? The only guys being let go would be starting at the most junior FO's. Or does the CBA mandate that there can't be layoffs?

    For Delta,
    there would be a bid and people would bid what they can hold. It's hard to say who would go where because each person has a different reason why they are flying the plane they are currently on. Example, Delta might reduce 7ER staffing in Atlanta. Pilot one might follow the 7ER to say NYC. Pilot two might big down to 7ER FO. Pilot three might bid down to 73N Capt. Pilot 4 might bid to 717 capt.
    pay, trip rigs, base city, aircraft type etc. etc. all go into it, each individual will value each of those things differently.

    as for furlough protection, at Delta, if a single pilot is laid off the company must convert every single 76 seater into a 70 seater, which will keep Delta from furloughing unless things get really bad, ie 9/11 bad.

    "Exception one: If a pilot on the seniority list with an employment date prior to July 1, 2012 is placed on furlough, the Company will convert all 76-seat aircraft for operation as 70-seat aircraft. The number of such aircraft will continue to be limited by Section 1 B. 46. f. as though they were being operated as 76-seat aircraft. The Company may again commence operating such aircraft as 76-seat aircraft effective on the date that the most junior pilot protected by the first sentence of Section 1 B. 46. g. Exception one is recalled from furlough."
    note the July 1, 2012 date was replaced in the last contract with the signing date of the 2016 PWA.
     
    WidebodyPTV
    Posts: 265
    Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Sun Mar 08, 2020 9:31 am

    deltal1011man wrote:
    WidebodyPTV wrote:
    deltal1011man wrote:


    I’m not sure what your assertion is. Unions establish scope and rules, but companies don’t consult with them on business decisions. A couple of other points. Let’s say you are a unionized employee:

    - You caught the Coronavirus and were unable to report to work for over a month. Your company promptly fires you because the Coronavirus isn’t listed as one of the serious illnesses that would excuse a long-term absence. Do you think this termination would be upheld, given that the language was clear and explicit regarding long-term illnesses? Or do you think an arbitrator would reverse it, given that it can be inferred that it meet the definition of a serious long-term illness, but didn’t exist at the time of the contract’s signing. BTW, stuff like this happens all the time.

    - You’re a pilot on the 717. DL has announced that operating a small narrowbody is no longer viable, and that it will replace the 717 with the NEO or MAX. You will get a big pay raise, no jobs will be lost, and no flying will go to regionals. Would you grieve this decision? How would you feel if the union told you it was demanding that DL drop the NEO/MAX order, and keep the lower-paying 717? Fact is, the scope was put in place to prevent DL from ordering more large regional jets to replace mainline flying (instead of 50-seaters). If DL isn’t doing that, what argument is there? Of course, this doesn’t matter as DL did order the 220.

    check my edit. I'm done with this conversation cause its just going to get me banned for going OT.
    having said that, you really need to research more into the United 73G order and what it meant for scope. I know we are talking about Delta but that is a clear example that everything you keep saying is wrong. ;)


    MohawkWeekend wrote:
    Not familiar with Pilot's CBA's. Let's assume a US airline starts parking 25 to 30 % of it's fleet. Half WB and the other half NB. All the displaced WB Captains would bumped to WB FO? or to NB Captain? And so on thru the rest of the fleet? The only guys being let go would be starting at the most junior FO's. Or does the CBA mandate that there can't be layoffs?

    For Delta,
    there would be a bid and people would bid what they can hold. It's hard to say who would go where because each person has a different reason why they are flying the plane they are currently on. Example, Delta might reduce 7ER staffing in Atlanta. Pilot one might follow the 7ER to say NYC. Pilot two might big down to 7ER FO. Pilot three might bid down to 73N Capt. Pilot 4 might bid to 717 capt.
    pay, trip rigs, base city, aircraft type etc. etc. all go into it, each individual will value each of those things differently.

    as for furlough protection, at Delta, if a single pilot is laid off the company must convert every single 76 seater into a 70 seater, which will keep Delta from furloughing unless things get really bad, ie 9/11 bad.

    "Exception one: If a pilot on the seniority list with an employment date prior to July 1, 2012 is placed on furlough, the Company will convert all 76-seat aircraft for operation as 70-seat aircraft. The number of such aircraft will continue to be limited by Section 1 B. 46. f. as though they were being operated as 76-seat aircraft. The Company may again commence operating such aircraft as 76-seat aircraft effective on the date that the most junior pilot protected by the first sentence of Section 1 B. 46. g. Exception one is recalled from furlough."
    note the July 1, 2012 date was replaced in the last contract with the signing date of the 2016 PWA.


    You're stating a lot of assumptions as facts, without any qualifying education or experience. You believe that DL removing the 717 would be a violation of its CBA - you're entitled to your belief, but it's your assumption and definitely not a fact. The scope clause exists entirely for two reasons - to prevent mainline flying from being outsourced to regionals, and to grow mainline flying. In order for the union to claim DL violated the scope clause, somebody must be harmed. If the flying is transitioned to the A220, and some former 717 pilots move to higher paying jobs on the MD-88, MD-90, A320 or 757 in the interim (while DL awaits further A220 deliveries), who's been harmed? As it can reasonably be concluded the A220 meets the definition of a small narrowbody, but didn't exist when the clause was implemented, arbitrators are likely to side with DL, anyway. I use to get a journal of various rulings, among various unions in various industries around the country; I've seen dozens of weaker examples that went against the union. Arbitrators have a lot more slack in interpeting / infering than a traditional court.

    Back to the topic, originally, the rumor proposed that DL would defer retirements of the various aircraft, including the MD-88, to help expedite retirement of the 717. Per various pilot reports, DL has now decided that the MD-88 will be withdrawn from the fleet by year's end, and will not be kept around under any circumstance, including charters and related work. Time will tell what will happen.
     
    MartijnNL
    Posts: 984
    Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Sun Mar 08, 2020 11:07 am

    I did it! I travelled from Europe across an ocean with the sole purpose of flying on the MD-88. To experience this aircraft type for the first and final time. Earlier I had logged the MD-81, -82, -83, -87 and -90. Only the MD-88 was still missing.

    After considering the options for quite some time I decided to go for a day return trip from Toronto to Des Moines via Atlanta. On 7 February I travelled from Amsterdam via Frankfurt to Toronto. The Lufthansa Boeing 747 bringing me to Canada was a nice bonus.

    The next day, precisely one month ago today, my flight schedule looked like this:

    DL2551
    Toronto - Atlanta
    06:15 - 08:55
    MD-88

    DL2541
    Atlanta - Des Moines
    10:31 - 11:52
    MD-88

    DL1532
    Des Moines - Atlanta
    14:00 - 17:06
    MD-88

    DL2550
    Atlanta - Toronto
    17:55 - 20:15
    MD-88

    What a great day it was to salute the MD-88 and the people who work on them! In total I spent about eleven hours on board, of which seven hours were in the air. The first flight was operated by N908DE, the next two by N965DL and the last one by N900DE.

    Flying for the sake of flying can be so much fun. This day was really memorable for me. Window seats in Comfort Plus on all segments and nice weather en route, perfect. Between flights in Des Moines I got to spend some quality time in the cockpit with the crew, who appreciated my interest in the aircraft. To my surprise I was upgraded to seat 1A for my last flight on the MD-88, the inbound to Toronto, a great way to finish my adventure.

    Thank you Delta Air Lines for creating lifetime memories!
     
    jagraham
    Posts: 1103
    Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:42 pm

    WidebodyPTV wrote:
    Lootess wrote:
    N649DL wrote:

    Since the ex-NW 319 and 320 have been completely refurbished, they've been valuable assets especially out of LAX for routes upgraded from regional jets when DL launched a hub there in 2015-2016 (EG: DEN/DFW/AUS/PDX) etc.) They seem to be reliable for the most part. The M90s are the first to be stored if you ask me.


    Exactly. No Airbus 319/320 will be parked, all have been refurbed with new interiors and PTVs and needed for the thin west coast hub routes.

    The MD90s will be the first to go. I guess people seem to forget the fleet was twice the size it was now a few years ago.


    Decisions aren’t made based upon which aircraft have PTVs. A temporary reduction in capacity will result in DL making the move that’s most financially strategic. This could be parking aircraft due for maintenance, or parking aircraft that represent a surplus in fleet sizing. For example, if a lot less people are traveling to vacation markets like LAS, MCO, etc., we could see a bunch of 757 parked. 319 and 717 serving small markets could be parked (and replaced with regional jets). 320 and 738 due for maintenance could be parked and replaced with M90, which are scheduled to operate another 2.5 years.

    A permanent (LT) reduction in capacity would result in DL expediting retirement of the M90 and early 90s 757, 763 and 320.


    If DL withdraws a 717, they also have to withdraw a 76 seat RJ. So the 717s will keep flying. Otherwise, I agree that aircraft due for heavy checks would be parked despite their place in the narrowbody fleet.
     
    Dominion301
    Posts: 2809
    Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Sun Mar 08, 2020 3:30 pm

    Keith2004 wrote:
    MIflyer12 wrote:
    Keith2004 wrote:

    And with plans to add seatback IFE to the 717s, in flight product will be more uniform.


    More uniform, but not uniform. Av geeks may make the distinction between Delta and Delta Connection but typical passengers do not: they bought their ticket from Delta, the flight has a DL flight number. The fine print - operated by SkyWest, Endeavor, etc. - gets discounted or wholly ignored. Two-fifths of DL+DL Connection flights are operated by DL Connection carriers (although that's certainly not 2/5th the seats).

    Link to that presentation: https://s2.q4cdn.com/181345880/files/do ... h-2020.pdf


    Very true
    Though I doubt regionals on any airline will ever have seatback IFE, so as close as any US3 could ever get.


    AC’ regionals have had seatback IFE for almost 15 years on the E75s and CR9s.
     
    User avatar
    BN727227Ultra
    Posts: 695
    Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 7:15 pm

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Mon Mar 09, 2020 2:40 am

    MartijnNL wrote:
    I did it! I travelled from Europe across an ocean with the sole purpose of flying on the MD-88. To experience this aircraft type for the first and final time. Earlier I had logged the MD-81, -82, -83, -87 and -90. Only the MD-88 was still missing.

    After considering the options for quite some time I decided to go for a day return trip from Toronto to Des Moines via Atlanta. On 7 February I travelled from Amsterdam via Frankfurt to Toronto. The Lufthansa Boeing 747 bringing me to Canada was a nice bonus.

    The next day, precisely one month ago today, my flight schedule looked like this:

    DL2551
    Toronto - Atlanta
    06:15 - 08:55
    MD-88

    DL2541
    Atlanta - Des Moines
    10:31 - 11:52
    MD-88

    DL1532
    Des Moines - Atlanta
    14:00 - 17:06
    MD-88

    DL2550
    Atlanta - Toronto
    17:55 - 20:15
    MD-88

    What a great day it was to salute the MD-88 and the people who work on them! In total I spent about eleven hours on board, of which seven hours were in the air. The first flight was operated by N908DE, the next two by N965DL and the last one by N900DE.

    Flying for the sake of flying can be so much fun. This day was really memorable for me. Window seats in Comfort Plus on all segments and nice weather en route, perfect. Between flights in Des Moines I got to spend some quality time in the cockpit with the crew, who appreciated my interest in the aircraft. To my surprise I was upgraded to seat 1A for my last flight on the MD-88, the inbound to Toronto, a great way to finish my adventure.

    Thank you Delta Air Lines for creating lifetime memories!


    :thumbsup:
     
    ryanov
    Posts: 236
    Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:38 am

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Sat Mar 14, 2020 8:30 am

    Had an itinerary on Sunday/Tuesday that was 3x MD-88, but I've cancelled it as it seems like given the news out of Italy right now that it would be exceptionally unwise to travel in a country that hasn't even been that careful. Hope this doesn't get them retired before I have a chance to get in some last rides.
     
    Lootess
    Posts: 454
    Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:42 pm

    Ed confirmed in his memo filed with SEC. Bye bye all MDs, sooner.

    With fewer customers flying, we need less space in airports. Among other initiatives, we will temporarily consolidate airport facilities in Atlanta and other locations as necessary and close the majority of our Delta Sky Clubs until demand recovers. · We are reducing our active fleet size by parking at least half of our fleet – more than 600 aircraft. We also will be accelerating retirements of older aircraft like our MD-88/90s and some of our 767s."
     
    micstatic
    Posts: 766
    Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2001 10:07 pm

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Wed Mar 18, 2020 10:38 pm

    I wonder once this virus passes how close the MD-88 will be to it's final nap
    S340,DH8,AT7,CR2/7,E135/45/170/190,319,320,717,732,733,734,735,737,738,744,752,762,763,764,772,M80,M90
     
    User avatar
    hOMSaR
    Moderator
    Posts: 2342
    Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Wed Mar 18, 2020 10:59 pm

    micstatic wrote:
    I wonder once this virus passes how close the MD-88 will be to it's final nap


    My money's on them not coming back at all.
    I was raised by a cup of coffee.
     
    727LOVER
    Posts: 8622
    Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Wed Mar 18, 2020 11:25 pm

    hOMSaR wrote:
    micstatic wrote:
    I wonder once this virus passes how close the MD-88 will be to it's final nap


    My money's on them not coming back at all.


    MD-90s as well....that's a total of around 75 aircraft. They won't need that much capacity for a while
    "We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
     
    0newair0
    Posts: 417
    Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:21 am

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Wed Mar 18, 2020 11:39 pm

    Lootess wrote:
    Exactly. No Airbus 319/320 will be parked, all have been refurbed with new interiors and PTVs and needed for the thin west coast hub routes.


    This is not true. At least some of everything except for A220 will likely be getting parked.
    That's not how this works! That's not how any of this works!
     
    WidebodyPTV
    Posts: 265
    Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Wed Mar 18, 2020 11:52 pm

    hOMSaR wrote:
    micstatic wrote:
    I wonder once this virus passes how close the MD-88 will be to it's final nap


    My money's on them not coming back at all.


    DL made the decision earlier this year, long before the apocalypse, to fully phase out the MD-88 by the end of the year; previously, some aircraft were expected to survive into next year, mainly as charters. So we're talking about 9.5 months of life that was left in the fleet, with most aircraft being phased out within 5.5 months. Because of the logistics of phasing out the type, I expect we'll see it stick around for a short while -- think of how UA got burned when it pulled its 73S and 72S fleet immediately following 9/11 -- but I'll bet they'll completely be gone sometime soon.
     
    Dalmd88
    Posts: 3139
    Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Thu Mar 19, 2020 12:17 am

    I still think they will be here going into this fall. Yes some will get parked earlier than planned. The plan was about 3-4 per month with about 20 to go for the fall season then a big mass retirement at the end of the year. I bet we get down to the 20 number pretty quick and then those last 20 keep going to Dec.

    That makes no sense you might say. Run these planes out and save cycles and hours on the ones that are keepers. There are no C checks for these frames. That's about a $1M a check that can be put off on a 737NG or A320. I've heard 20 is about the smallest the fleet can get to and have a supportable crew rotation at a single base. So I see that many flying through the corona issue.

    I could be wrong though. On March 30 there might be a long conga line flight of Md88/90 flying from ATL- BYH.
     
    WidebodyPTV
    Posts: 265
    Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Thu Mar 19, 2020 12:31 am

    Dalmd88 wrote:
    I still think they will be here going into this fall. Yes some will get parked earlier than planned. The plan was about 3-4 per month with about 20 to go for the fall season then a big mass retirement at the end of the year. I bet we get down to the 20 number pretty quick and then those last 20 keep going to Dec.

    That makes no sense you might say. Run these planes out and save cycles and hours on the ones that are keepers. There are no C checks for these frames. That's about a $1M a check that can be put off on a 737NG or A320. I've heard 20 is about the smallest the fleet can get to and have a supportable crew rotation at a single base. So I see that many flying through the corona issue.

    I could be wrong though. On March 30 there might be a long conga line flight of Md88/90 flying from ATL- BYH.


    I agree with your thinking. If things at least stabilize, I suspect we'll see them operate through the summer. The worse conditions get, the shorter their remaining life will be IMO.
     
    MIflyer12
    Posts: 8049
    Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Thu Mar 19, 2020 1:24 am

    Dalmd88 wrote:
    I still think they will be here going into this fall. Yes some will get parked earlier than planned. The plan was about 3-4 per month with about 20 to go for the fall season then a big mass retirement at the end of the year. I bet we get down to the 20 number pretty quick and then those last 20 keep going to Dec.

    That makes no sense you might say. Run these planes out and save cycles and hours on the ones that are keepers. There are no C checks for these frames. That's about a $1M a check that can be put off on a 737NG or A320. I've heard 20 is about the smallest the fleet can get to and have a supportable crew rotation at a single base. So I see that many flying through the corona issue.

    I could be wrong though. On March 30 there might be a long conga line flight of Md88/90 flying from ATL- BYH.


    I have to ask, how much of that $1 million is parts or contracted services, and how much is internal labor? Because, if they're not furloughing mechanics, the internal labor costs are still there.
     
    wjcandee
    Posts: 8976
    Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Thu Mar 19, 2020 3:45 am

    MIflyer12 wrote:
    Dalmd88 wrote:
    I still think they will be here going into this fall. Yes some will get parked earlier than planned. The plan was about 3-4 per month with about 20 to go for the fall season then a big mass retirement at the end of the year. I bet we get down to the 20 number pretty quick and then those last 20 keep going to Dec.

    That makes no sense you might say. Run these planes out and save cycles and hours on the ones that are keepers. There are no C checks for these frames. That's about a $1M a check that can be put off on a 737NG or A320. I've heard 20 is about the smallest the fleet can get to and have a supportable crew rotation at a single base. So I see that many flying through the corona issue.

    I could be wrong though. On March 30 there might be a long conga line flight of Md88/90 flying from ATL- BYH.


    I have to ask, how much of that $1 million is parts or contracted services, and how much is internal labor? Because, if they're not furloughing mechanics, the internal labor costs are still there.


    Yeah but they send a lot of stuff out, so they can keep their own people going with work that otherwise would have been outsourced.
     
    777Mech
    Posts: 964
    Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:54 pm

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Thu Mar 19, 2020 4:07 am

    TropicalSky wrote:
    All MD 88's to leave fleet by end of this yr

    https://airlinerwatch.com/delta-air-lin ... me-of-its/


    That was the plan anyways.
     
    gdavis003
    Posts: 116
    Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:59 am

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Thu Mar 19, 2020 5:02 pm

    Looks like some 90s and 88s will be headed out to BYH in the next few days.

    https://flightaware.com/live/airport/KBYH/enroute

    And it looks like the B712s are headed to BHM.

    https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL ... /KATL/KBHM
     
    MD8090orDRIVE
    Posts: 25
    Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2020 6:01 pm

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Thu Mar 19, 2020 6:06 pm

    This thread has me very sad. I had 8 more weeks of flights from SLC out east to work. Almost every week I had an MD-88 or MD-90 in my travel plans. Of course, right now no one is playing tennis so I won't be flying to work but with the pulldown of MD aircraft, I am very sad right now. Compared to the pain people and the economy are suffering, missing out on 12 rides of rapidly aging aircraft is nothing but still, I would have loved those flights.
     
    Dalmd88
    Posts: 3139
    Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Thu Mar 19, 2020 8:07 pm

    MIflyer12 wrote:
    Dalmd88 wrote:
    I still think they will be here going into this fall. Yes some will get parked earlier than planned. The plan was about 3-4 per month with about 20 to go for the fall season then a big mass retirement at the end of the year. I bet we get down to the 20 number pretty quick and then those last 20 keep going to Dec.

    That makes no sense you might say. Run these planes out and save cycles and hours on the ones that are keepers. There are no C checks for these frames. That's about a $1M a check that can be put off on a 737NG or A320. I've heard 20 is about the smallest the fleet can get to and have a supportable crew rotation at a single base. So I see that many flying through the corona issue.

    I could be wrong though. On March 30 there might be a long conga line flight of Md88/90 flying from ATL- BYH.


    I have to ask, how much of that $1 million is parts or contracted services, and how much is internal labor? Because, if they're not furloughing mechanics, the internal labor costs are still there.

    I really have no idea of the breakdown. Parts will be an issue for any in house C checks we do. There is only so many parts on hand to do the checks. Management has mandated zero outside parts purchases. I really can't recall many C checks I worked on where we never had to purchase outside parts from Boeing or Airbus. The Delta storehouse is big, but most structural parts are not kept in stock. the tax burden is too high. So I would expect a check airplane to be pulled in and once an issue was found it would be parked until this is over.
     
    Lootess
    Posts: 454
    Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Thu Mar 19, 2020 8:22 pm

    Just have to monitor ATL-BYH daily. MD88/90s arriving and not coming bac. Would love to get a ramp picture of the final days of Delta MDs. Unfortunately the pilots won't be coming back on NW DC-9s.

    I figure they'd just park any plane that needs a C check, you need a lot of luck to not need a non-stock part.
     
    User avatar
    FLALEFTY
    Posts: 774
    Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Thu Mar 19, 2020 8:47 pm

    gdavis003 wrote:
    Looks like some 90s and 88s will be headed out to BYH in the next few days.

    https://flightaware.com/live/airport/KBYH/enroute

    And it looks like the B712s are headed to BHM.

    https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL ... /KATL/KBHM


    Good info!

    Per Planespotters.net here is their estimated breakdown of Delta's fleet and what's currently parked. Of their total active fleet of 913 aircraft, 77 are currently parked, which represents an 8.43% decrease. (Note the heavy cuts in A330, 767 and 777 fleets!) Meanwhile, the drawdown of the M88/90 fleets seems to be following the original plan, which is to have all the M88's gone by end of CY '20. What is less clear is if the M90's will soldier on to 2022.

    https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Delta-Air-Lines
     
    DeltaRules
    Posts: 5181
    Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 11:57 am

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Thu Mar 19, 2020 9:37 pm

    FLALEFTY wrote:
    gdavis003 wrote:
    Looks like some 90s and 88s will be headed out to BYH in the next few days.

    https://flightaware.com/live/airport/KBYH/enroute

    And it looks like the B712s are headed to BHM.

    https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL ... /KATL/KBHM


    Good info!

    Per Planespotters.net here is their estimated breakdown of Delta's fleet and what's currently parked. Of their total active fleet of 913 aircraft, 77 are currently parked, which represents an 8.43% decrease. (Note the heavy cuts in A330, 767 and 777 fleets!) Meanwhile, the drawdown of the M88/90 fleets seems to be following the original plan, which is to have all the M88's gone by end of CY '20. What is less clear is if the M90's will soldier on to 2022.

    https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Delta-Air-Lines


    Interesting to note the majority of the 757s which have been parked so far are the charter-configured jets, which makes sense given nobody's going anywhere on them.
    A310/319/320/321/333, ARJ, BN2, B717/722/73S/733/734/735/73G/738/739/744/757/753/767/763/764/777, CR1/2/7/9, DH6, 328, EM2/ERJ/E70/E75/E90, F28/100, J31, L10/12/15, DC9/D93/D94/D95/M80/M88/M90/D10, SF3, SST
     
    User avatar
    NWAROOSTER
    Posts: 1336
    Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

    Re: DL retiring MD-80s quickly

    Thu Mar 19, 2020 9:55 pm

    Delta might as well use up the remaining time on all it's MD-88s and MD-90s. They have very little value. Parking them will only mean Delta may have to use more valuable aircraft which should be preserved for use in the long term. The MD-88s and MD-90s will will have only a scrape value. I do not know what these aircraft have that Delta could use on their Boeing 717s.
    Bastian knows what value they have for Delta and he may make adjustments to the permanent retirement of the aircraft. :old:
    Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......

    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