Was Parking Usairways Dc-9's Wise

[deltawatch]

Using Old DC-9s Pays Off for Northwest
Sunday February 20, 5:23 pm ET
By Joshua Freed, AP Business Writer
Northwest Airlines' 1995 Decision to Refurbish Fleet of Old DC-9s Is Paying Off Financially

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050220/old_planes_4.html

Delta Air Lines, Continental and US Airways all once flew DC-9s. Delta replaced its DC-9s in the 1980s, and Continental and US Airways followed suit in the 1990s, Hamlin said. Some wanted bigger planes, and others wanted planes that could be flown by pilots already trained on other aircraft. But Northwest has so many DC-9-trained pilots that that's not a factor, he said.

Analysts say Northwest's 1995 decision to gut and refurbish those DC-9s rather than replace them is helping it weather high fuel prices and competition from low-cost carriers better than most major carriers.

 

[UseYourHead]

I have read press in the past (and we will in the future) about how the NWA fleet (read DC9) is their biggest problem going forward as well.

Having a young fleet is important long term.

Using Old DC-9s Pays Off for Northwest
Sunday February 20, 5:23 pm ET
By Joshua Freed, AP Business Writer
Northwest Airlines' 1995 Decision to Refurbish Fleet of Old DC-9s Is Paying Off Financially

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050220/old_planes_4.html

Delta Air Lines, Continental and US Airways all once flew DC-9s. Delta replaced its DC-9s in the 1980s, and Continental and US Airways followed suit in the 1990s, Hamlin said. Some wanted bigger planes, and others wanted planes that could be flown by pilots already trained on other aircraft. But Northwest has so many DC-9-trained pilots that that's not a factor, he said.

Analysts say Northwest's 1995 decision to gut and refurbish those DC-9s rather than replace them is helping it weather high fuel prices and competition from low-cost carriers better than most major carriers.

[post="249483"][/post]​

 

[Flying Titan]

This is proving to be one of the smartest moves that any airline has made in a long time, yet noone else seems to pay attention since most airlines are still leasing most of their aircraft. Northwest's decision to keep the planes it owned outright when everyone else was running for new aircraft was genius. As the article pointed out, it doesn't cost you much to park a plane when you don't have to make a monthly payment on it. That gives an airline the kind of flexibility it needs when there's a downturn in the economy and it can't fill the seats. Other carriers bleed money by paying for and operating planes with empty seats.

If NWA can hold on to the bulk of these planes for four or five more years, then it may look even smarter and get the ultimate payoff, a DC-9 replacement that's actually better than everyone else's single-aisle domestic aircraft - a 7E7-style replacement/update for the 737/A320.

Should UAIR have held on to their DC-9s? If they owned them outright, in retrospect, the answer is probably yes. The plane always seemed well-suited for many of their markets and stage-lengths. However, IIRC, they got some kind of a sweetheart deal for their Airbus fleet. At the time, it probably seemed to make perfectly good sense.....just like it will seem to make perfectly good sense to go out and buy (or probably lease) a bunch of new E190s once they emerge from CH11!

 

[nycbusdriver]

The DC-9's were inefficient from the standpoint of fuel. With the cost of jet fuel so high, it's a blessing that we don't have them and our fleet is relatively fuel efficient.

Getting rid of the F100's, on the other hand, was a mistake. They are extremely fuel efficient, carried a respectable load of pax and bags/cargo and had a state-of-the-art flight deck with the commensurate capabilities (missing from the DC-9.) The death knell for the F100's is the fact that they were covered under the mainline pilot contract. An all-new type had to be found in order to get it flown under draconian pay and working conditions outside of the existing ALPA contract, and the EMB170 was just the ticket.

 

[N628AU]

The true death knell of the F100s is a very costly engine AD due on the Rolls engines that powered them. They had other issues as well, you couldn't cool them very well (an engineering fix was underway when they got parked), it was difficult to some by spares as Fokker did not exist anymore (the guys in Amsterdam were very nice and helpful whenever you called them, but it was not always easy to get what you needed), but the AD would have been hugely expensive.

Buying the F100s to duplicate what the DC9s were doing was the biggest problem all along.

 

[eolesen]

As long as the incremental cost of fuel is less than the expense for a newer airframe, this is still probably a good move. Plus, they've got the flexibility to park 'em on a moments notice and not incur any ongoing expenses.

But NWA owns them free and clear. Did any of the US fleet make it out of BK-1 without being subject to either a sale-leaseback or a mortgage?

 

[LGA / 037]

The true death knell of the F100s is a very costly engine AD due on the Rolls engines that powered them. They had other issues as well, you couldn't cool them very well

I remember the APU used to be a problem especially in the heat of the summertime!

 

[mrman]

The best reason for NW keeping the DC9 is passengers perfer them over an RJ any day

 

[Rico]

Gee, we could have kept ahold of the DC-3's too now that I think about it.

 

[wings396]

The DC-9 Fleet was in nice shape given the age of the A/C. They were all Paid for, and the cost of fuel would still be less than buying a new A/C of any type.
NWA has always been know for their penny-pinching ways, and I'm sure they evaluated the pro's and cons of keeping the DC-9 fleet. They must know something, as they have not gone the BK route that US has done twice already.

 

[Rico]

I am not saying it was a bad move for NWA, but USAir/US Airways was a different situation. In case people around here have forgotten, our DC-9 fleet was one of many other fleet types in an expensive mismash. NWA did not have as many fleet types to deal with as we did.

Like it was pointed out before, we got a great deal on the Airbus, and that is why they replaced the DC-9, as well as the F-28, F-100, MD-80, and 737-200's with them.

Oh, and BTW, it is their pacific rim passenger and cargo revenue that has kept NWA out of BK, not the DC-9's

 

[UsPerfEngr]

There are some good arguments for keeping aircraft such as the DC-9 and F-100.

They’re both proven airframes. All the operational kinks are long worked out of them. While they may have each had their respective mechanical issues, they were well known and could be overcome by those who were familiar with them.

However, I believe neither airframe will have much use after the Stage 4 noise restrictions are implemented. I don’t believe that there are any hushkits for the JT8D that are Stage 4 compliant. Stage 4 noise compliance takes affect on Jan 1st 2006.

Northwest and Delta are still flying the DC-9 and 737-200 only because they can’t afford to replace them. At this point, both airlines are losing less money by keeping the aircraft in service. If either airline were to seek ch 11 protection you would see these fleets grounded very quickly.

The downfall of the Dutch Oven was the bankruptcy of Fokker. Similarly, the DC-9 and 737-200 suffer because Boeing doesn’t want to support them any longer. They want all the cash strapped airlines to buy their shinny new planes. Just look at CO. They want their employees to take a paycut so they can buy the 7E7

UsPerfEngr

 

[Rico]

Well said USPerfEng.

 

[mweiss]

Titan's right about the reduced overhead associated with parking paid-for aircraft. However, there are still other overhead costs associating with reducing capacity; those don't go away when the airplanes are paid for.

It's also a double-edged sword in expansion, since fuel costs cover a greater share of expenses with these older aircraft.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Oh, and BTW, it is their pacific rim passenger and cargo revenue that has kept NWA out of BK, not the DC-9's

[post="249591"][/post]​

That, along with management that has a clue.