Northwest to make DC-9 decision next year

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 22, 2005
51
0
From http://runwaygirl.blogspot.com/

Monday, 22 October 2007
40 Years Old But No Virgin
Northwest Airlines has begun touting its international fleet as "the youngest" of any North American airline, after taking delivery of its 32nd Airbus A330 aircraft. The self-promotion certainly makes sense. Travelers like flying in brand spanking new aircraft because they're seen as safer, more comfortable and friendlier to the environment. Is there anything less reassuring than stepping onto an old, paint-peeled aircraft that looks like it is being held together with masking tape?

Why then does Northwest continue to push back a decision on replacing the over 100, aged McDonnell Douglas DC-9 aircraft in its domestic fleet? Some of these jets are 40 years old, boasting build dates from 1967 - the same year that Lyndon B Johnson was President; Elvis and Priscilla were married; the Beatles released Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band; and Pamela Anderson was born. Unlike Anderson, however, Northwest's DC-9s haven't received much plastic surgery of late. Some of them look downright decrepit.

Northwest says it expects to make a decision about DC-9 replacement next year. The company claims it is holding off to see if a manufacturer makes a new 100-seater that has the same carbon composites as the 787, of which Northwest is the North American launch customer with an order for 18.

The airline remains one of the leading candidates to launch Bombardier’s proposed 110-to 130-seat CSeries (it is also evaluating the Embraer E-Jet, and the Sukhoi Superjet 100). But Bombardier isn't expected to make a CSeries launch decision until calendar 2008 with a targeted entry into service in 2013. If Northwest opts to replace it's DC-9s with CSeries aircraft, will travellers be flying on near 45-year old DC-9s by the time CSeries deliveries take place?

That’s a question only Northwest can answer. For now, however, the carrier’s decision to advertise the newness of its international fleet only serves to highlight the fact that it’s domestic DC-9s are anything but.
 
I'm not sure that I'd rush to purchase more crap from Bomardier. The CRJ 900 is looking like a mistake already. "We need time to work out the bugs", they say, but this plane isn't as new a design a they say. They've had time to work it out while the NWA operation suffers at the hands off Mesaba. Also, it looks to me that Bombardier ripped off the E-175 to make up the C Series. We do need a plane to replace the DC-9 soon. Hopefully something that will pull its weight. Regional jet manufacturers so far have given us planes that fly weight critical all day long, have no room for carry on luggage, and leave the bronze elites asking what their boss paid so much money for. I hope NWA spends some time kicking the tires on a few different models to replace a plane that has made money for 40 years before making another purchase for short term gain.
 
I'm not sure that I'd rush to purchase more crap from Bomardier. The CRJ 900 is looking like a mistake already. "We need time to work out the bugs", they say, but this plane isn't as new a design a they say. They've had time to work it out while the NWA operation suffers at the hands off Mesaba. Also, it looks to me that Bombardier ripped off the E-175 to make up the C Series. We do need a plane to replace the DC-9 soon. Hopefully something that will pull its weight. Regional jet manufacturers so far have given us planes that fly weight critical all day long, have no room for carry on luggage, and leave the bronze elites asking what their boss paid so much money for. I hope NWA spends some time kicking the tires on a few different models to replace a plane that has made money for 40 years before making another purchase for short term gain.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

bagboy,

Funny, but I keep hearing VERY good reviews about the EMB-175 !

What say you...Kev3188 ?????
 
i have personally seen the EMB 175 and 170s and i will tell you NHBB that flying on the 170s is wonderful i would imagine that the 175 is the same
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

bagboy,

Funny, but I keep hearing VERY good reviews about the EMB-175 !

What say you...Kev3188 ?????
I may have miss spoke the first time as it was my first pst ever. The E-175 looks to be a nice plane to fly, work, and ride in. I'll get my hands on it soon. My gripe was with Bombardier and the sad start they have had with the 900 series.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

bagboy,

Funny, but I keep hearing VERY good reviews about the EMB-175 !

What say you...Kev3188 ?????

I have to agree that the CRJ-900 is at best a headache. It's been horribly uneliable so far, and is an ergonomic nightmare. To put it in perspective, I was supposed to see one -900 turn every day on my shift. For the first 5 weeks it was to have ran, I saw it all of 3 times.

I would like to know why NWA decided to split their wholly owned fleets 50/50 between the E175 and CRJ-900. The E75 has a range of 3706km, vs. 2774km for the -900 (and 3385km for the -900LR, which I think XJ's are being converted to???).

Both have 76 seats, but with the greater range, the 175 has more versatility.

Of course, both companies claim to have a cost advantage over the other...I haven't been able to find any hard CASM data, but admittedly, haven't looked that far.

I haven't yet been inside an E175, but the pictures I've seen and feedback I've heard from those who have has been almost totally positive.

Bottom line: If I "ruled the world," we would have gone with the E175...and it would have been flown by mainline crews....
 
I have to agree that the CRJ-900 is at best a headache. It's been horribly uneliable so far, and is an ergonomic nightmare. To put it in perspective, I was supposed to see one -900 turn every day on my shift. For the first 5 weeks it was to have ran, I saw it all of 3 times.

I would like to know why NWA decided to split their wholly owned fleets 50/50 between the E175 and CRJ-900. The E75 has a range of 3706km, vs. 2774km for the -900 (and 3385km for the -900LR, which I think XJ's are being converted to???).

Both have 76 seats, but with the greater range, the 175 has more versatility.

Of course, both companies claim to have a cost advantage over the other...I haven't been able to find any hard CASM data, but admittedly, haven't looked that far.

I haven't yet been inside an E175, but the pictures I've seen and feedback I've heard from those who have has been almost totally positive.

Bottom line: If I "ruled the world," we would have gone with the E175...and it would have been flown by mainline crews....

As I understand it, Northwest still had deposit money at Bombardier for additional CRJ's that would have lost if they were not going to take delivery. Bombardier decided to apply the deposits towards the CRJ-900 if NWA would order them. Thus the split order. Financially it probably was an OK deal but not operationally or customer friendly wise
 
As I understand it, Northwest still had deposit money at Bombardier for additional CRJ's that would have lost if they were not going to take delivery. Bombardier decided to apply the deposits towards the CRJ-900 if NWA would order them. Thus the split order. Financially it probably was an OK deal but not operationally or customer friendly wise

That's too bad...I wonder how much the deposit $$$ amounted to, and if it wouldn't have been better to just write it off? Maybe the efficiencies of having one fleet type vs. two would have eventually "made" that money back...

...In the meantime, the passenger complaints about the -900 keep coming....
 
I would like to know why NWA decided to split their wholly owned fleets 50/50 between the E175 and CRJ-900. The E75 has a range of 3706km, vs. 2774km for the -900 (and 3385km for the -900LR, which I think XJ's are being converted to???).

Let me try to answer that: NWA got a great deal on both airplanes. As you know Brazil gives Embrear subsidies which Bombardier got/blackmailed the Canada government to match. (Then I believe Embrear lower the price again which Bombardier matched. etc. etc. etc.).
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

bagboy,

Funny, but I keep hearing VERY good reviews about the EMB-175 !

What say you...Kev3188 ?????
The 175 arrived in our station a few weeks ago. Nice plane to look at. I hear its great to fly and ride in. The cabin crew enjoys the wide isles. I work below the wing and this is where the romance with this plane ends. The bins are short, odd shaped, with protective cages on everything. OJI's will be plenty from guys cutting there heads on the many sharp corners in there. Compass isn't linked up with ACARS yet so we still do weight and bal with the"wheel of destiny" and running late all the time. (still better than Masaba and the 900's) The 175's tail isn't heated, adding frequent deicing to the cost of operation. The belly squats so low to the ground, to access the panels on the bottem you need to be a contortionist or lay down on your back. In the plane, the Embrear company gave us panel locks in the lavs that need a "special" tool to open. This tool, located thru out the cabin, resembles a prison made shank. In a nut shell I'd say piss on the 175. I'll keep my 9's and 320's.
 
How about Midwest's 717s?
We may get those by default through Midwest Airlines. It would make more since to purchase a product like the A320, and stick with it. The Airbus family covers 100 to over 160 chairs. You would cut your maint. cost, cut training time. It has worked well for others but I must not be seeing the big picture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts