DL/NW Regional Geometry

[DashTrash400]

DC9s burn more than 757s?? Hmm. I haven't flown either aircraft but have jumpseated on both, and recall 757 burns being around 4k per side and the DC9 more like 2.5-3k per side. Anybody with experience on both care to chime in?

 

[DoinTime]

You must be completely HIGH!

-Who the hell would sustitute a DC-9 for an RJ? Even a 50-seater is WAY more fuel-efficient! The DC-9 has a greater fuel burn than a freaking 757-and carries like 85 pax! You are talking about NWA DC-9s, I assume, with the old engines? You are defintely on something, sir!

Seat specific fuel consumption on the DC9-40 is about the same as on the CRJ-200.

 

[~~~^~~~]

The 737 is a better comparison for the MD88/90. The -800 burns about 15% less than the 88 while carrying more seats. The numbers for the MD90 and 737-800 are a wash up to about 450nm, then start to fall in favor of the Boeing.

The 757 burns about the same, maybe a little less due to the altitudes its cruises at. As far as I know the 757 is still, after all these years, the most fuel efficient narrowbody jet.

I've heard the 767-300/400 have about the same fuel burn as a 727. I have no frame of reference on the 727's numbers, but knowing the DC9 has two of the trijet's three engines, it could be figured that the DC9 burns about 2/3rd's the gas of a 450,000 lb 767 with 245 seats, a Biz Elite Layout and gas to go ATL-SVO. In other words, it is almost inconcievable that an airline would burn that much fuel to move a DC9.... Hence the 76 large RJ's coming to Compass and Mesaba arriving this fall to replace the DC9.

The DC9 might get a stay of execution until after the election (merger) then expect the lights to dim with fuel being blamed then for what has been planned for over a year and a half.

 

[SEVEN]

Seat specific fuel consumption on the DC9-40 is about the same as on the CRJ-200.

Also, all the 9's (DC9 NOT the CRJ900) are paid for.
The 200's are going to be parked faster than you can say "Pinchanickel needs a new contract."

 

[cocknbull]

When the merger is complete the 50 seat fleet will continue to shrink. Expect to see the DC9 and mad dog to backfill its routes.

Do you mean take back routes?

 

[Superpilot92]

DC9s burn more than 757s?? Hmm. I haven't flown either aircraft but have jumpseated on both, and recall 757 burns being around 4k per side and the DC9 more like 2.5-3k per side. Anybody with experience on both care to chime in?

Those numbers on the DC9 are correct.

 

[atlcrjdriver]

On some routes, yes.

 

[Superpilot92]

The 737 is a better comparison for the MD88/90. The -800 burns about 15% less than the 88 while carrying more seats. The numbers for the MD90 and 737-800 are a wash up to about 450nm, then start to fall in favor of the Boeing.

The 757 burns about the same, maybe a little less due to the altitudes its cruises at. As far as I know the 757 is still, after all these years, the most fuel efficient narrowbody jet.

I've heard the 767-300/400 have about the same fuel burn as a 727. I have no frame of reference on the 727's numbers, but knowing the DC9 has two of the trijet's three engines, it could be figured that the DC9 burns about 2/3rd's the gas of a 450,000 lb 767 with 245 seats, a Biz Elite Layout and gas to go ATL-SVO. In other words, it is almost inconcievable that an airline would burn that much fuel to move a DC9.... Hence the 76 large RJ's coming to Compass and Mesaba arriving this fall to replace the DC9.

The DC9 might get a stay of execution until after the election (merger) then expect the lights to dim with fuel being blamed then for what has been planned for over a year and a half.

The DC9 still is very useful on certain routes. Even if the numbers you used were right it doesnt matter what a 450,000 pound 767 burns because they arent used for the same purpose. You're comparing apples to bananas.

1 paid for DC9 is still cheaper to run in place of 2 crj-200s. The fuel used is about the same and you are moving more seats with the 9. Not to mention the crew cost might actually be less also. The DC9 still has a place until a mainline replacement is found. You DAL guys need to stop trying to justify giving away your/our jobs. You guys need to stop rolling over to mgmt with scope. Scope relaxation a major part of why this industry is in the position it is. It needs to stop now while we actually have some leverage to fix it. Not holding my breath...:erm:

 

[DoinTime]

1 paid for DC9 is still cheaper to run in place of 2 crj-200s. The fuel used is about the same and you are moving more seats with the 9. Not to mention the crew cost might actually be less also.

I don't think you can make a determination on the gross cost of operation based on some loose internet scuttle but I would agree that all things considered the DC9 is a more desirable aircraft than multiple CRJ-200s if the value of frequency can be spared.

DC9 pros:
- seat specific fuel consumption on par with 50-seat RJ's
- First class section to covet valued travelers
- more generous accommodations in coach including more carry on space
- More cargo capability
- fewer operational problems like W&B issues or weight restrictions.
- 1/2 of the crew members/operational support staff needed
- less air traffic means fewer en-route delays
- fewer terminal gates required

I have heard rumors that a good number of DC9-30s are going to be moved to ATL to fill the "100-seat" void that currently exists. This will likely have a negative impact on the amount of 50-lift needed out of ATL.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

DoinTime makes all very good points as to the DC9 pros. With effect of value of frequency being spared I think that's a moot point. Let's look at a typical RJ market served under DL and NW today.

GSO - Greensboro, NC for June 2nd

NW To MEM
5967 655a CRJ2
5969 1245p CRJ2
5965 455p CRJ2

DL To CVG
5690 650a CRJ1
5379 1105a CRJ1
5052 240p CRJ1
5428 510p CRJ1

Flights NW5967, DL5690 could easily become a DC9 to MEM or CVG and no one would even notice a time shift.

NW5965 and DL5428 are within 15 mins of departure as well, that could easily be replaced by a DC9 sized plane to either hub.

Even though this merger is being touted as "end to end" a minority of passengers originate and terminate to/from hubs. Sure there's not a lot of flight for flight overlap, but there's a LOT of overlap if you know what I'm saying.

With a little ingenuity and good planning these 7 crj flights could be replaced by 2 DC9-30's and a DC9-50 or an MD88. Discuss.

 

[Mikes Apartment]

DoinTime makes all very good points as to the DC9 pros. With effect of value of frequency being spared I think that's a moot point. Let's look at a typical RJ market served under DL and NW today.

GSO - Greensboro, NC for June 2nd

NW To MEM
5967 655a CRJ2
5969 1245p CRJ2
5965 455p CRJ2

DL To CVG
5690 650a CRJ1
5379 1105a CRJ1
5052 240p CRJ1
5428 510p CRJ1

Flights NW5967, DL5690 could easily become a DC9 to MEM or CVG and no one would even notice a time shift.

NW5965 and DL5428 are within 15 mins of departure as well, that could easily be replaced by a DC9 sized plane to either hub.

Even though this merger is being touted as "end to end" a minority of passengers originate and terminate to/from hubs. Sure there's not a lot of flight for flight overlap, but there's a LOT of overlap if you know what I'm saying.

With a little ingenuity and good planning these 7 crj flights could be replaced by 2 DC9-30's and a DC9-50 or an MD88. Discuss.

I hope they do get rid of every CRJ. They are a cancer. They should replace them with something cheaper, like a twin otter.

 

[~~~^~~~]

You DAL guys need to stop trying to justify giving away your/our jobs. You guys need to stop rolling over to mgmt with scope. Scope relaxation a major part of why this industry is in the position it is. It needs to stop now while we actually have some leverage to fix it. Not holding my breath...:erm:

You need to stop throwing around your assumptions about "you DAL guys."

I agree with you on scope. My Reps know what I want, have you written yours?

 

[~~~^~~~]

I hope they do get rid of every CRJ. They are a cancer.

No more so than a DC9. It is an airplane and has a market.

What we need to do is recognize it for what it is and deal with it. Totally arbitrary lines in the sand do not improve our profession. We need to get this stuff on mainline's list. A staple for Compass would be a good start.

 

[~~~^~~~]

1 paid for DC9 is still cheaper to run in place of 2 crj-200s.

You wrote that you had the ALPA EF&A merger presentation. If you do, please explain which is correct, your post, or the economists' numbers.

If you want the presentation, PM me your e-mail address and I'll get a copy to you in the next couple of days.

 

[Popeye0537]

The DC9 still is very useful on certain routes. Even if the numbers you used were right it doesnt matter what a 450,000 pound 767 burns because they arent used for the same purpose. You're comparing apples to bananas.

1 paid for DC9 is still cheaper to run in place of 2 crj-200s. The fuel used is about the same and you are moving more seats with the 9. Not to mention the crew cost might actually be less also. The DC9 still has a place until a mainline replacement is found. You DAL guys need to stop trying to justify giving away your/our jobs. You guys need to stop rolling over to mgmt with scope. Scope relaxation a major part of why this industry is in the position it is. It needs to stop now while we actually have some leverage to fix it. Not holding my breath...:erm:

I think you should be preaching to your pops about giving up scope at NWA and stop bashing the DAL guys.

The 9's are going to go away and so are the jobs.....unfortunate for you and every one who jumped ship within the last 6 months to go to NWA....but at least you have Compas as a fall back somewhat.