AA Ship 507

[PlayTheOdds]

How long have you been at MSP? AA has been parking overnight A/C on NWA gates for years...

I was there for about seven hours, waiting for the third leg of a flight to get me to Detroit. I was there for about eight hours a few weeks ago. Total that, you get fifteen hours of MSP time for me. I haven't spoken to any AMT's NWA or AA there about AA aircraft. Like I said, I saw the one sitting there with NWA planes all around it. It just looked out of place is all.

Different engines for starters.

They didn't look as if they were exactly high-bypass fans, now are they?

AA's are also maintained by professionals, unlike NWA's.

Now there is a thought I didn't consider.

 

[groundcontrol]

I was there for about seven hours, waiting for the third leg of a flight to get me to Detroit. I was there for about eight hours a few weeks ago. Total that, you get fifteen hours of MSP time for me. I haven't spoken to any AMT's NWA or AA there about AA aircraft. Like I said, I saw the one sitting there with NWA planes all around it. It just looked out of place is all.

PTO,
When are you going to get it?
You're out of place....

 

[PlayTheOdds]

PTO,
When are you going to get it?
You're out of place....

As usual groundcontrol your infinite wisdom is well noted.

Do you care to share with us why the MD-80 that is basically an up-sized 9 performs with better efficiency?

Former ModerAAtor seems to think it is because of the engines. I think pound for pound they have the same operating cost. Do shed some light on this for us Oh Wise One.

 

[eolesen]

Isn't it time for you to go pee in a cup?...

For someone who claims to be an AMT, you don't know shite about aircraft...

The DC-9-30 most likely has the JT8D-9A (103K), while most MD82/MD83 have the JT8D-219 (141K). Same basic engine, but the -219 is far more efficient than the -9

 

[PlayTheOdds]

The DC-9-30 most likely has the JT8D-9A (103K), while most MD82/MD83 have the JT8D-219 (141K). Same basic engine, but the -219 is far more efficient than the -9

Do you have some numbers to back that up? Do name sources. "far more efficient", you said it yourself it's basically the same engine it's also basically the same aircraft. Every thing about aircraft is exponential. The bigger the aircraft the more weight, the more weight the bigger the engine, the bigger engine requires more fuel. All translates to a higher cost of operation. Once again since we are talking about the same basic platform, pound for pound the cost of operation is going to be about the same.

 

[FWAAA]

Yep, scab, the DC-9-82s (MD-82s) are just as inefficient as the DC-9-30s. Dunno what got into those guys at Long Beach to redesign and update the 9s, and then claim they were more efficient, when, as you claim, their inefficiencies are identical to the 9s.

🙄

You are the expert on every subject, so tell us exactly what the differences are between the -30s and the -82s.

 

[AMFAMAN]

Read up SCAB...

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/...0Douglas%20DC-9

 

[PlayTheOdds]

Why don't you two read up? Like I said the opeating cost are about the same. Damn I'm good.

Aircraft Operating Statistics - 1997
(figures are averages for most commonly used models)


Average Aircraft
Number Payload Speed Flight Operating
Seats (tons) Airborne Length Fuel Cost

MD-80 141 0.45 432 790 933 2,087
DC-9-50 122 0.43 374 342 915 1,923
DC-9-40 109 0.42 388 496 839 1,500 DC-9-30 101 0.41 385 474 810 1,988
*Pax Versions Only


http://home.maine.rr.com/villery/operatingcosts.htm

FORMAT Clash, go to the link.

 

[QA4Jet-A]

Why don't you two read up? Like I said the opeating cost are about the same. Damn I'm good.

Aircraft Operating Statistics - 1997
(figures are averages for most commonly used models)
Average Aircraft
Number Payload Speed Flight Operating
Seats (tons) Airborne Length Fuel Cost

MD-80 141 0.45 432 790 933 2,087
DC-9-50 122 0.43 374 342 915 1,923
DC-9-40 109 0.42 388 496 839 1,500 DC-9-30 101 0.41 385 474 810 1,988
*Pax Versions Only
http://home.maine.rr.com/villery/operatingcosts.htm

FORMAT Clash, go to the link.

opeating??? But your spelling is lacking... so much for how good you are..... and while your at it Einstein, Go figure out how much more efficient all of these aircraft would be if powered by RR BR715s. I'll give you a hint, 24% on the DC-9, your figure out the savings on a MD-80. Also, you can set Thrust at 18.5K or 21K. Your call.

 

[FWAAA]

Why don't you two read up? Like I said the opeating cost are about the same. Damn I'm good.

Nope. To the contrary. I'd say you're analytically weak.

Your link says that a DC-9-30 burns 810 gal/hr. At the typical capacity of 101 pax, that's 8.02 gal/hr/pax.

Your link also reveals that the MD-80 burns 933 gal/hr. At the typical capacity of 141 pax, that's 6.62 gal/hr/pax. Since you've already shown that you're math-challenged, I'll help you out: that works out to about 17.5% improvement in per-pax fuel consumption, which some might say is "far more efficient." I'd tend to agree with that characterization.

Yes, the 1997 dollar amounts for hourly operating cost are similar, but there's room for 40 more pax on that MD-80, making it far more efficient in terms of ASMs.

I'm certain you'll disagree, as you probably don't agree that the sun rises in the East each morning and sets in the West each evening.

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< ------ PTO! I know your trying real hard to be one of the guys, but din't you get the impression your not wanted here? Once a Scab, always a Scab!!!

 

[eolesen]

Why don't you two read up? Like I said the opeating cost are about the same.

You are truly dense. Operating cost per hour includes cost of ownership, labor, and fuel.

Those figures were calculated at 1997 fuel and labor costs.

When NW decided to keep their depreciated airframes, the lower cost of ownership offset the higher fuel consumption.

Fuel has tripled since then, which throws the entire calculation in the opposite direction, and totally negates any benefit that cost of ownership was providing vs. a MD80.

But I'm just a 17 year veteran of doing high level cost analysis, so what would I know compared to your vast knowledge of airline economics?....

 

[PlayTheOdds]

I'm certain you'll disagree, as you probably don't agree that the sun rises in the East each morning and sets in the West each evening.

I'll buy that FWAAA. Just for shets and giggles, your 17.5% is high. 😉

 

[FWAAA]

I'll buy that FWAAA. Just for shets and giggles, your 17.5% is high. 😉

Yeah, I know. The correct answer (comparing the fuel burn of the MD-80 over the DC-9-30 on a per-pax-hour basis, using the numbers from your link) is an improvement of 17.46%, but that sounded a little precise for me, so I rounded to 17.5%.

To everyone else: I beg your forgiveness. 😀

 

[PlayTheOdds]

<_< ------ PTO! I know your trying real hard to be one of the guys...

I was going to say that there is no way in Hell I would want to be one of you guys. On second thought there is one instance that I would want to be one of you guys. That would be when all you unionist tell all your worthless unions to go to hell, form a single union, no not union...a committee or association for all the A&P Mechanics then have a unannounced industry wide walkout. I do mean industry wide that includes the Legacies, LCC's, MRO's and FBO's. When you guys put that together that is when I will sign up. B)

...improvement of 17.46%, but that sounded a little precise for me, so I rounded to 17.5%.
To everyone else: I beg your forgiveness. 😀

🙂 That's cute.