DC-9 Gear Collapse

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/29/2002 747 PM Blueskies/400 UpperDeck wrote:

The only thing you had better concern yourself with is "PAYING BACK" your bills next month!
----------------
[/blockquote]

Another toughtful response from the leaker

 

[electradude]

NWT/AMT:
I appreciate your thoughtful comments; and for the most part I agree with you....however, NW has been operating the A320 for almost 14 years (if I'm not mistaken)and it is still a significantly less reliable airplane (at least to this frequent flyer) than many of the older aircraft that I find myself on. The learning curve for a new aircraft type should be long over with for these birds. I don't mean to pick on NW here, UA and US are no better at keeping these planes on time than NW. I guess what I'm trying to point out here is that technology for technology's sake serves little purpose. If the new technology does not enhance the reliability of the product....then what good is it? Does it make these planes any safer? (not judging from the number of mechanicals)Does it make them faster (not that I have noticed in the schedules). Does it make them cheaper to operate (possibly). The best comparison I can make between new tech airplanes is the A320/319 vs. 737NGs. In my travels, I have had fewer delays with the 737s (including the 737-800...a new plane very much still in the learning curve) than the A320/319's. Could it be that maybe the Airbus' are over engineered and of such complexity (as you pointed out) that no airline maintenance staff (no matter how good) can get a grasp of these things. 14 Years is a long learning curve.
If that is the case...perhaps simpler is better.
Just a thought.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/30/2002 2:06:03 PM electradude wrote:

NWT/AMT:
I don't mean to pick on NW here, UA and US are no better at keeping these planes on time than NW. I guess what I'm trying to point out here is that technology for technology's sake serves little purpose. If the new technology does not enhance the reliability of the product....then what good is it? Does it make these planes any safer? (not judging from the number of mechanicals)Does it make them faster (not that I have noticed in the schedules). Does it make them cheaper to operate (possibly).
----------------
[/blockquote]

Whats your basis for saying U or UAL have trouble with the bus? two years, one tail change. I don't recall one MX delay. You just have to Ctrl Alt Del occasionally. A bus flies typically at .8 mach, and from my understanding, requires less down days for MX and inspections. Fuel burn seems to be about the same for a A320 as a 737-300. The new guppies are nice (although I hear they are loud in the cockpit at high speeds due to the 'old nose', should've put a 757 nose on it IMHO), but weren't avail when NWA and UAL were looking for a new NB fleet.

 

[electradude]

Busdrvr,
I can only speak from personal experience on the delay/canx issue. As for fuel burn, I defer to your superior knowledge. I don't know anyting about the fuel burn rate for either plane. However, as for the Mach .8 cruise speed....it doesn't seem to help the bus any. See below the comparison schedule for a trip from Kansas City to Chicago (ORD). This is a trip I make frequently:
This schedule is for travel date 23 October
AA726 (MD80) Lv MCI 1240P ar ORD 203P Total elapsed time....1:23 minutes.
UA1518 (A320) Lv MCI 1:35P ar ORD 3:05P
Total elapsed time....1:30 minutes.
Both flights show an 80% on time rating and the bus is 7 minutes longer than what I believe is considered a somewhat slow MD80. Guess which plane I'll be on....even if it is older.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/1/2002 11:49:48 AM electradude wrote:

See below the comparison schedule for a trip from Kansas City to Chicago (ORD). This is a trip I make frequently:
This schedule is for travel date 23 October
AA726 (MD80) Lv MCI 1240P ar ORD 203P Total elapsed time....1:23 minutes.
UA1518 (A320) Lv MCI 1:35P ar ORD 3:05P
Total elapsed time....1:30 minutes.
Both flights show an 80% on time rating and the bus is 7 minutes longer than what I believe is considered a somewhat slow MD80. Guess which plane I'll be on....even if it is older.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Fair enough, but time of day matters. Unfortuanately, MCI is not an airport that reports individual airlines performance. For a better picture look at ORD-LGA or ORD-DFW. If you're stopping in ORD, great, if not, with AMR transition to a rolling hub, you'll be able to exchange a little mind numbing boredom on the jet (no audio ent) for even more mind numbing boredome in ORD

 

[Blueskies/400 UpperDeck]

Another toughtful response from the leaker

Another thoughtful response from the Drip. Still worrying about everyone eles's airline but his own financial disaster. Psychoanalysis can be a good thing.

 

[NWA/AMT]

Electradude:

Thanks. It’s a pleasure to hear from someone who is able to offer a passengers perspective and compare the different aircraft now in use.

NWA has made extensive modifications to their DC-9s to address systems that were identified as having a negative effect on dispatch reliability. The technology available today allows solutions that the original designers could only imagine and has resulted in a much-improved aircraft. This process is used with all our fleets, just as similar programs are also used by other carriers and by the manufacturers themselves.

I have no doubt that the experience of other carriers with the A319/A320 is similar to that of NWA. In talking with my peers in aircraft maintenance at UAL and, to a lesser extent, at US Airways it is easy to see that. Our conversations usually make it clear that the operational experience of the various carriers with each different fleet type is generally pretty similar. I’ve had plenty of personal opportunities to curse the Airbus, at five minutes past departure time with a plane full of people and a ‘light that won’t go out’ write-up; however, to be fair, I’ve had the same sort of opportunity with just about all the other manufacturers over the years. The Airbus does require a different mindset from, and more training for, those of us in the Department of Banging On Things With Hammers, but it is by no means beyond our reach. The usual problem, regardless of which airline we work for, is that out of the three things required to fix an airplane – time, parts and manpower – we’re usually short of at least two of them.

Technology for the sake of technology is a luxury the airlines haven’t been able to afford for a long time now. Systems that do not contribute to the bottom line may look cool in the manufacturers demos, but they don’t make it into the working aircraft. Systems that do make it are constantly evaluated and modified to apply lessons learned from operational experience.

Early in the jet age the airlines stopped competing on the basis of speed as it became clear that the SST and the other supersonic aircraft then being designed were not viable options for various, mostly political, reasons. (However, the Boeing Sonic Cruiser may change that, who knows?) So the manufacturers continued designing aircraft that operated in the .80 to .94 Mach regimes.

That left competition on the basis of cost efficiency, and the manufacturers design aircraft with that as their secondary goal, after safety – of course. The metric used is Cost Per Available Seat Mile (CASM) and manufacturers strive to lower that figure any way they can. Lowering the crew costs by eliminating the Flight Engineer, designing more reliable, easier to maintain systems to lower maintenance cost per flight hour and improving fuel efficiency are just some of the methods used. In its day the 747 changed the industry by lowering the average CASM using the principle of economy of scale, and the A380 may do that yet again, but you don’t fly a 747 or A380 between Billings and Minneapolis. So the manufacturers are left to design aircraft that are economical, yet usable.

The A319/A320 is one example of how the engineers try to achieve this. From the computerized flight control system, to the aerodynamic properties of the landing gear during the brief portion of the flight when it’s deployed, it is designed to be as quiet and efficient as possible. (It’s fuel burn rate as a portion of the overall CASM alone was a major component in forcing Boeing to create the 737NG family to remain competitive.) That has led to quite a bit of complexity, and complex machines by definition are more temperamental and harder to maintain, but it is also a machine that is still evolving as we gain experience with it. Since delivery of the A320 to NWA our operational statistics for that fleet have shown constant improvement, and my personal experience with them bears that out. However, I’m sure your personal experience would lead you to believe otherwise, and for that I do apologize. If its any consolation, I still believe that when we retire the last Airbus, the crew will ride home on a DC-9.

I realize that it’s absolutely no comfort when you’re trying to make a broken connection, reschedule a meeting and realign your life while running through an airport concourse after a maintenance delay, but we are working on it. Really.

 

[electradude]

NWA/AMT,
Thank you for the very eloquent and intelligent response. Your note is very enlightening in many respects. I do appreciate your (and your co-workers)efforts at keeping all the aircraft we fly on safe. I know the frustration you feel when the light won't go off (I might have been one of those people that was sitting on the plane as you and the crew try to resolve the issue). All the same -- and I think this is what this thread started out as -- the age of the plane is not as important as the TLC that goes into it. Some of the newer aircraft may still be teething with their new gizmos...but in the mean time, I'll happily fly on my old and familiar friends as long as they keep delivering reliable service. I'll even climb on and Airbus when necessary -- it just won't be my first choice. But if I have a choice...give me old faithful. Heck! a ride on a DC3 doesn't sound all that bad right now...well, maybe an occassional ride.
Keep up the great work everyone, roughly 38 years of flying and I have never been scratched. I owe it all to you guys...the airline professionals.
Thanks

 

[Blueskies/400 UpperDeck]

Keep up the great work everyone, roughly 38 years of flying and I have never been scratched. I owe it all to you guys...the airline professionals.
Thanks
Sir, you have just made ALL airline employees feel great! We make every attempt to have all of our customers feel as you do. Thank you for your candor. The men and women of NWA, and I am sure every airline employee, take solice in knowing that we are still appreciated. Smooth flying through the next 38 years.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/29/2002 747 PM Blueskies/400 UpperDeck wrote:

The only thing you had better concern yourself with is "PAYING BACK" your bills next month!Couldn't resist this one...as we are just dying laughing in the crew room!!!
----------------
[/blockquote]

Still laughing?

BAD KARMA!!![img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/14.gif']

 

[NWA/AMT]

Electradude:

Thank you.

 

[KCFlyer]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/30/2002 2:24:13 PM Busdrvr wrote:
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]Whats your basis for saying U or UAL have trouble with the bus? Two years, one tail change. I don't recall one MX delay. You just have to Ctrl Alt Del occasionally.[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]That's all fine and good, as long as it doesn't need a Ctrl Alt Del on final in minimums[/P]

 

[frankbooth]

To get back to the original point (if we're not too far off course already).

I fly '68 model -30's for the reserves and A320/319's for my real job, so I can talk somewhat knowledgeably about the two. One caveat, our -30's are considerably lower time than the industry's, which can be a good/bad thing, as NWA/AMT can probably attest.

Mx delays and in-flight problems on our DC-9's have been increasing steadily over the last couple of years, and when it breaks it tends to be a 'hard' break that keeps it down for a couple of shifts. We had an engine failure in Japan just a couple of weeks ago. The average experience level of our AF mx personnel has also been trending downward lately, so i'll assume some correlation there. Bottom line, this plane is getting tired and rumor is the AF will park them in 2 years.

The mx problems I've seen on the bus have exclusively been of the Ctrl-alt-delete variety and are usually related to starting up a cold jet and power transfers. The vast majority just need a system reset, or occaisionally a radio call to mx to confirm which circuit breakers to pull and reset. Once we even had to completely depower the A/C and start over (it happened early enough in the departure that we didn't take a delay). In over two years of flying the bus I have never had a problem in the air.

The speed/time differential probably won't show up much on a flight of less than 2 hours (especially into trafic-saturated hubs where you're speed restricted 300 mi out). I'm not sure how many segments NWA operates the -9 on that are much longer than that.

One thing I love about the bus over the -9 is that the APU/AC packs on the bus are awesome and you can operate both packs on the ground off the APU. Makes for a much more comfortable jet on hot days.

On a side note relating to an earlier post about jets being paid for:
I had lunch today with a NWA buddy who mentioned that NWA had releveraged some of their -9's as part of the recent financing and will have now paid for them a couple of times. He's a little bitter over getting furloughed next month, so not sure if he was just repeating a rumor or talking from first hand knowledge. I'll ask him for details this weekend.

One final proviso--I love flying both these jets and don't have any anti-NWA/pro-my Company agenda here. Face it, once you're hired by a major you're attached with golden handcuffs. We have pilots from all the majors in my reserve squadron and have learned to never let the petty stuff rear it's ugly head (although the recent TWA/AA seniority integration and furloughs were a stern test).
Question: 'What's the best airline to work for?
Answer: 'The one that hires you'

 

[bonzaiflyer]

How many F100's have had the nose gear collapse in the past couple of years? I remember at least 2 AA, 2 TAM. I'm a Plat Elite with NW and Plat with AA, and I'll take a NW DC9 over an AA F100 anyday.

 

[lstwhknight]

One of the things I find most interesting about these discussions is that no one ever addresses the question of whether the part that failed was original equipment or not. I guess that might interfere with whichever agenda you're trying to advance. I get the feeling that most would be quite surprised at just how new some of these old aircraft are, and how old some of the parts on the new aircraft are.

Just for the record: The landing gear in question was not original equipment, nor was the gear attach fitting it's bolted to, nor, most likely, was the structure that the fitting is attached to. All were quite probably fabricated and installed AFTER some of the newer aircraft they're being compared with.

Face it folks, these things we fill with people and throw into the air multiple times a day are machines - and machines break, with total disregard for age.

I'm just glad no one was seriously injured. As with most aviation accidents/incidents we will learn from this and apply that knowledge to making sure it doesn't happen again.

----------------
[/blockquote]
I have to agree with your statement.As when our fleet was old,the old parts were replaced with new ones,and if new parts couldn't be found.New ones were made in the shops,every step of the process inspected to assure quality.The quality was better from all the years of knowledge gained during that aircrafts life throughtout the world.So any flaws in the orignal design of the part,had been re-designed to make the part stronger and safer.In the end,you had a part that was better than the orignal new part.