NWA MEC Buffoons

[123]

Now just focussing on ASMs/gallon

By looking at the figures provided, The DC-9 series 30/40/50 seem to provide about 37 ASMs/gallon, the MD-88 about 44 and the MD-90 about 60.

This data appears to indicate that the DC-9 burns more gas per available seat mile and would suggest that it is a less fuel efficient aircraft.

I can understand how you would draw that conclusion, in light of the fact that it may appear to be so when looking at the nice graph and the fact that it supports your goal. However, focussing on figure 13, why do USAir, American and Alaska do so much better with the exact same aircraft? Do they have different engines? Are their MD80's that much more fuel efficient than Delta's? Why the difference?

 

[FDJ2]

However, focussing on figure 13, why do USAir, American and Alaska do so much better with the exact same aircraft? Do they have different engines? Are their MD80's that much more fuel efficient than Delta's? Why the difference?

You know, you bring up a good point. Looks like maybe 1-2 ASMs/gallon for USAIR and AA and Alaska is predicated on about 900 sm stage length vs. roughly 550 at DAL. I don't think the USAIR and AA numbers are that far off, but the Alaska numbers are probably driven by the large disparity in stage length. By comparison the NWA DC-9-30 stage length and DAL MD-80 stage length are very similar maybe 30 sm difference.

How do you explain that a DAL MD-80 burns so much less per available seat mile than a NWA DC-9-30 at roughly similar stage lengths? Looking at the numbers it looks like a MD-88 can carry about 18% more ASMs/gallon. Do you think the MD-88 might be more fuel efficient than the DC-9?

Figures 15-17 show the effect of increasing fuel costs on overall costs for similar stage lengths. It appears that the DC-9 suffers from "cost disadvantages" of a "fuel-inefficient aircraft."


"But what happens with higher fuel costs? In Figures 15 through 17 we show cost curves for Northwest’s DC-9-30s, Delta’s MD-80s, and Airtran’s B 717s at

various fuel prices ranging from the 70¢ per US gallon we used in our comparisons to a high of $2.00/gallon. As we write, fuel is selling in the $1.10 -$1.20 range.We set out the underlying data in Figure 18. As fuel prices rise, the cost-disadvantages of Northwest’s fuel-inefficient aircraft increase.

Thus, between 90¢ and $2.00 per gallon, Northwest would experience a unit cost increase at 800 miles from 10.7¢/ASM to 13.5¢/ASM, a nearly 3.00¢
increase in total unit costs but, more importantly, a one cent per ASM increase in its disadvantage versus Airtran’s B 717. In contrast, with its more fuel-efficient MD-80s Delta would see its cost disadvantage versus Airtran increase by one​

half cent per ASM."

It's not all grim news. The aircraft have low ownership costs and NWA has kept the maintenance cost down. However, those advantages do tend to go away when the price of fuel goes up and the aircraft is compared to more modern and fuel efficient aircraft sch as the 88/90 and 717. OTOH I think the DC-9 will have a new lease on life for a few more years with the merger when small jet lift is consolidated in small airports, it probably makes more sense to use 1 DC-9 than 2 RJ50s.




​

 

[Occam's Razor]

I didn't just post info on the 10 series, I also posted info on the 30.

Wow! You are a liar.

I'm stunned. I recognized you as a partisan, and I was able to accept that as an occupational byproduct. But I never took you for a liar.

I'm disappointed.

Here is your entire post (#80 in this thread):

No aircraft is, but some are more vulnerable than others. According to the report, a NWA DC-9 produces only 28 ASM's per gallon of fuel, while a DAL MD-90 produces 60.

Northwest’s Gamble
"A decade ago Northwest made a strategic
decision to keep operating its fleet of DC-9
aircraft, saving on the acquisition costs of
new aircraft but risking the higher
maintenance and fuel costs associated with
an aging, old-technology fleet.4
The significantly higher unit fuel
consumption of the old-technology
aircraft is reflected in Figure 13. Northwest’s
DC-9-10 produces only 28 ASMs per gall
on of fuel. At the other extreme, Delta’s
MD-90s produce more than twice as many,
just under 60 ASMs/gallon."

Sure, you selected a portion of my post and then tried to charactize the entire post as not relevant because the portion you quoted dealt with the 10 series and the portion you ignored dealt with the 30.

Nice try, liar. I quoted the entire post. I've highlighted two relevant portions of your entire post to illustrate your false assertion. First, your personal comment was that "28 ASM's" was the result for the "DC-9". Not the "DC-9-10"...you typed "DC-9".

Then, the only segment of the data you posted from the analyst's report was for the DC-9-10 (note highlight)

That could have been a simple mistake, and I responded that it was.

But your Time Machine can't go back an undo what you REALLY posted, including your own comments.

Oopsy!

You're just trying to strengthen your position by not wanting to deal with the relatively poor fuel economics of the Dc-9 series.

This is not about DC-9's, or fuel efficiency metrics! It's about trying to merge two pilot groups without resorting to lying. I even read two publications from your MEC discussing their disappointment with "untruths" and "lies".

Oh, sweet irony!

It's not a big deal, I guess. But I want you to know I'm disappointed. I know pilots on your leadership team and your MEC that have some integrity left, so all's not lost.

But you're worthless.

New Fly Delta Jets 2 slogan: "Screw Integrity! Win At All Costs!"

 

[General Lee]

Wow! You are a liar.

I'm stunned. I recognized you as a partisan, and I was able to accept that as an occupational byproduct. But I never took you for a liar.

I'm disappointed.

Here is your entire post (#80 in this thread):

No aircraft is, but some are more vulnerable than others. According to the report, a NWA DC-9 produces only 28 ASM's per gallon of fuel, while a DAL MD-90 produces 60.

Northwest’s Gamble
"A decade ago Northwest made a strategic
decision to keep operating its fleet of DC-9
aircraft, saving on the acquisition costs of
new aircraft but risking the higher
maintenance and fuel costs associated with
an aging, old-technology fleet.4
The significantly higher unit fuel
consumption of the old-technology
aircraft is reflected in Figure 13. Northwest’s
DC-9-10 produces only 28 ASMs per gall
on of fuel. At the other extreme, Delta’s
MD-90s produce more than twice as many,
just under 60 ASMs/gallon."




Nice try, liar. I quoted the entire post. I've highlighted two relevant portions of your entire post to illustrate your false assertion. First, your personal comment was that "28 ASM's" was the result for the "DC-9". Not the "DC-9-10"...you typed "DC-9".

Then, the only segment of the data you posted from the analyst's report was for the DC-9-10 (note highlight)

That could have been a simple mistake, and I responded that it was.

But your Time Machine can't go back an undo what you REALLY posted, including your own comments.

Oopsy!



This is not about DC-9's, or fuel efficiency metrics! It's about trying to merge two pilot groups without resorting to lying. I even read two publications from your MEC discussing their disappointment with "untruths" and "lies".

Oh, sweet irony!

It's not a big deal, I guess. But I want you to know I'm disappointed. I know pilots on your leadership team and your MEC that have some integrity left, so all's not lost.

But you're worthless.

New Fly Delta Jets 2 slogan: "Screw Integrity! Win At All Costs!"

Wow, you are getting mad. You know, this isn't a sim where you can hit the stop motion button anytime you want......(oh wait, I can't wait to read your response---like "you have no idea what is going on.....boy!!" Thanks Dad)

Guess what? The DC9 is an OLD PLANE with bad economics. Your article means NOTHING. You probably drive a beat up Delorean.... Time to go BACK TO THE FUTURE.......DC9s are OLD. You cannot change that.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Schwanker]

Guess what? The DC9 is an OLD PLANE with bad economics. Your article means NOTHING. You probably drive a beat up Delorean.... Time to go BACK TO THE FUTURE.......DC9s are OLD. You cannot change that.
Bye Bye--General Lee

GL,
I guess you didn't catch the Q4 Q&A. When asked, DS stated the -9 costs approx $35 less per seat per segment than new 737s at Jan fuel prices. The mx costs are very reasonable due to the surplus of parts, aircraft reliability, and NWA's 30+ years experience working this jet. I know you like to ignore this and put out your BS as Gospel. Unlike Puffy who is a serious kool-aide drinker, I believe you know better and just like to stir the pot.

Schwanker

 

[General Lee]

GL,
I guess you didn't catch the Q4 Q&A. When asked, DS stated the -9 costs approx $35 less per seat per segment than new 737s at Jan fuel prices. The mx costs are very reasonable due to the surplus of parts, aircraft reliability, and NWA's 30+ years experience working this jet. I know you like to ignore this and put out your BS as Gospel. Unlike Puffy who is a serious kool-aide drinker, I believe you know better and just like to stir the pot.

Schwanker

Of course I like to stir the pot. It gives this board ENTERTAINMENT value. Anyway, the DC9s are old, and they have money losing aspects like lack of FMS and autothrottle, which really can add to losses. If we do merge, let's hope they stay as long as possible, which I don't think is very long in these high oil times. We shall see, but they are old and could be the first on the chopping block, followed by the 742s. Even UPS dumped their 742s.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[123]

How do you explain that a DAL MD-80 burns so much less per available seat mile than a NWA DC-9-30 at roughly similar stage lengths?

That is not at all what the data is saying, that is what you are reading into it.

Looking at the numbers it looks like a MD-88 can carry about 18% more ASMs/gallon. Do you think the MD-88 might be more fuel efficient than the DC-9?

The author might be talking about fuel efficiency in the narritive, but the data as titled (it is not explained at all how the final product was produced, ie, formulas used) as Available Seat Miles per Gallon of Fuel. What is the authors definition of efficiency? What is your definition of efficiency? You are reading into the information what you want. Now, here is where it is going to get tricky.

How many seats are in the DAL MD88? 148?
How many seats are in the NWA DC9-30? 100!

If you really want to talk about efficiency of a seat mile, in order to be on par with the efficiency of a DC9-30 on similar stage lengths, the MD88 really should be able to carry approx. 50% more ASM's just basing it on the number of seats available in the aircraft. Remember, number of seats in the aircraft is THE limiting factor in these calculations. Therefore, your assertion that the DAL MD88 can carry about 18% more ASM's per gallon leads me to believe that they are not as efficient as the NWA DC9-30.

If you will go back and read page 11, the author states "Thus when we look for the most-efficient, lowest cost operator of an aircraft type we need to adjust for seating density. The simplst way to do this is to look at costs on a plane-mile, rather than a seat-mile basis."

Now go ahead and take a look at Figure 8 and let me know which aircraft are the most efficient based on the authors definition.

 

[FDJ2]

Wow! You are a liar.

I'm stunned. I recognized you as a partisan, and I was able to accept that as an occupational byproduct. But I never took you for a liar.

I'm disappointed.

Here is your entire post (#80 in this thread):

No aircraft is, but some are more vulnerable than others. According to the report, a NWA DC-9 produces only 28 ASM's per gallon of fuel, while a DAL MD-90 produces 60.

Northwest’s Gamble
"A decade ago Northwest made a strategic
decision to keep operating its fleet of DC-9
aircraft, saving on the acquisition costs of
new aircraft but risking the higher
maintenance and fuel costs associated with
an aging, old-technology fleet.4
The significantly higher unit fuel
consumption of the old-technology
aircraft is reflected in Figure 13. Northwest’s
DC-9-10 produces only 28 ASMs per gall
on of fuel. At the other extreme, Delta’s
MD-90s produce more than twice as many,
just under 60 ASMs/gallon." [end of quote]




Occam, my bad, I thought you were responding to my post #78 not #80, which also includes that quote. It was just a simple mistake because both posts contain the same quote from Unisys and I assumed you were responding to the first post, #78, which also discussed the DC-9-30.

Here's the entire post from my post # 78.

No one is immuned, but but some fleets are more vulnerable than others. It is highly unlikely that a 35 year old DC-9 fleet will stick around much longer.

There will continue to be a role for the DC-9 in the short term, mostly by default since NWA has no replacement orders, but definitely not much longer.

There are two costs to consider, the cost of ownership and the cost of operation.

From the link you provided:

Northwest’s Gamble
"A decade ago Northwest made a strategic
decision to keep operating its fleet of DC-9
aircraft, saving on the acquisition costs of
new aircraft but risking the higher
maintenance and fuel costs associated with
an aging, old-technology fleet.4
The significantly higher unit fuel
consumption of the old-technology
aircraft is reflected in Figure 13. Northwest’s
DC-9-10 produces only 28 ASMs per gall
on of fuel. At the other extreme, Delta’s
MD-90s produce more than twice as many,​

just under 60 ASMs/gallon."

The Direct operating costs/ASM for fuel and oil at 70 cents a gallon:

NWA DC-9-30: 2.29

DAL MD-88: 1.51
DAL MD-90: 1.08

"As Northwest’s unit costs demonstrate, however, it has been able to overcome the fuel-efficiency disadvantage at average costs of 70¢ per gallon, at least for so long as it is competing with other legacy carriers. See Figure 14.

But what happens with higher fuel costs? In Figures 15 through 17 we show cost curves for Northwest’s DC-9-30s, Delta’s MD-80s, and Airtran’s B 717s at various fuel prices ranging from the 70¢ per US gallon we used in our comparisons to a high of $2.00/gallon. As we write, fuel is selling in the $1.10 -$1.20 range.​

We set out the underlying data in Figure 18. As fuel prices rise, the cost-disadvantages of Northwest’s fuel-inefficient aircraft increase.​

Thus, between 90¢ and $2.00 per gallon, Northwest would experience a unit cost increase at 800 miles from 10.7¢/ASM to 13.5¢/ASM, a nearly 3.00¢ increase in total unit costs but, more importantly, a one cent per ASM increase in its disadvantage versus Airtran’s B 717. In contrast, with its more fuel efficient MD-80s Delta would see its cost disadvantage versus Airtran increase by one half cent per ASM."​

http://www.unisys.com/eprise/main/ad...oc/Feb_Mar.pdf​

I apologize for the confusion. Perhaps you could discuss the fuel economics of the DC-9 vs the 88/90 and 717, if not, that's cool, I understand.

 

[FDJ2]

[/color] Now, here is where it is going to get tricky.

How many seats are in the DAL MD88? 148?
How many seats are in the NWA DC9-30? 100!

If you really want to talk about efficiency of a seat mile, in order to be on par with the efficiency of a DC9-30 on similar stage lengths, the MD88 really should be able to carry approx. 50% more ASM's just basing it on the number of seats available in the aircraft. Remember, number of seats in the aircraft is THE limiting factor in these calculations. Therefore, your assertion that the DAL MD88 can carry about 18% more ASM's per gallon leads me to believe that they are not as efficient as the NWA DC9-30.

Wait a second, whether or not the MD-88 has 50% more seats doesn't matter when determining fuel efficiency as based on fuel burned to move one available seat one mile, because the fuel burn was predicated on the available seat miles to begin with, was it not?

If you will go back and read page 11, the author states "Thus when we look for the most-efficient, lowest cost operator of an aircraft type we need to adjust for seating density. The simplst way to do this is to look at costs on a plane-mile, rather than a seat-mile basis."

That's the argument that was used for the RJ, it worked great at 70 cents a gallon, not so good at $2.70.

From page 12:

"Note that the fuel efficiency of each
aircraft is a function not only of the
technology it employs but of the stage
length over which it is operated and, for
consumption per ASM, its seating density.
As noted above, however, in the case of the
DC-9 family of aircraft as operated by the
US Majors and Airtran seating density is​

not much of an issue."

Now go ahead and take a look at Figure 8 and let me know which aircraft are the most efficient based on the authors definition.

Figure 8 I believe is total cost per aircraft mile, which takes into account a variety of different costs, not just fuel. Nevertheless, as you pointed out, the MD88 has about 50% more capacity, but figure 8 only shows about 20% more cost to move 50% more seats. Keep in mind that's at much lower fuel costs than we have today. If you continue through the analysis, the author shows that with increasing fuel costs, the fuel inefficiencies of the DC-9 series really begin to catch up with them.

Excellent debate though. I appreciate your willingness to debate the data and abstain from personal attacks.

 

[~~~^~~~]

General: Don't be so quick to dismiss the old Delorean. Remember:

"Flux Capacitor: Its what makes time travel possible."​

Now, if we could just power a DC9 with a rotted banana peel and oyster shells from Spondivits all of NWA's claims of the DC9's omnipotence would be true.

 

[Noserider76]

I appreciate your willingness to debate the data and abstain from personal attacks.

Dude, calling you a liar was a BS manuever. No need to aplologize. The fact is that we (all of us) need to force management's hand to commit to a mainline replacement for these old (yes, they're ancient. I flew it and they were ancient 9 years ago) dinosaurs that are on the ragged edge of their lifespan. Both sides can throw out any numbers they want, but like it or not, it's a big issue for a large part of the combined group. I'm not interested in gaining leverage. I'm interested in keeping the jobs of everyone who's here now, and calming some of the uncertainty in this whole screwed up process.

The reps on both sides need to stop the childish attack-retaliation loop and start working on our behalf. There are many things that need to be in the joint contract but one of the key points, in my opinion, is to get language that ensures DC-9's will be replaced 1 for 1 by mainline aircraft.

 

[~~~^~~~]

you got an amen from this corner.

 

[FDJ2]

Dude, calling you a liar was a BS manuever. No need to aplologize.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

I'm not above apologizing for a misunderstanding, but I must admit, I was stunned. Generally Occam is level headed. This was nothing more than a misunderstanding. I'm sure Occam will eventually realize that and come to the conclusion that there was no intent to deceive and that I had previously posted info on the DC-9-30, just 2 posts up and provided a link for further unbiased analysis. One poster has even engaged in a productive exchange on the information provided. I've extended a good faith apology for any misunderstanding, once Occam realizes that it was nothing more than a misunderstanding, like the man I believe he is, he'll retract his statement.

The fact is that we (all of us) need to force management's hand to commit to a mainline replacement for these old (yes, they're ancient. I flew it and they were ancient 9 years ago) dinosaurs that are on the ragged edge of their lifespan.

Management will have to deal with that issue not because we pressure them, but because the aircraft is past its prime. A great aircraft in its day, much like the 707, Connie and DC-3, but now due for retirement. By necessity, it will need to be replaced in the near future.

Currently there is only a band-aid replacement, emphasis on band-aid, for the venerable 9, a combination of 76 seat CRJs, E-175s, A319s and MD-88/90s.

When the next generation 100-120 seater appears, it needs to be a mainline aircraft.

Both sides can throw out any numbers they want, but like it or not, it's a big issue for a large part of the combined group.

I know it is, for me too. The fate of the 747-200 is also on the radar screen.

I'm not interested in gaining leverage. I'm interested in keeping the jobs of everyone who's here now, and calming some of the uncertainty in this whole screwed up process.

Time has a way of calming those uncertainties.

The reps on both sides need to stop the childish attack-retaliation loop and start working on our behalf.

I think we are on our way, however, to be fair, after a month of DALPA bashing, DALPA has only just responded and only with two communiques.

The good news, IMO, is that maybe the message has been received, the latest hotline from NALPA, May 20th I believe, strikes the right note.

Hopefully we can get back on track. There will be bumps in the road between here and single operating certificate, joint contract and SLI, but I think we can get there. At least I hope we can.

There are many things that need to be in the joint contract but one of the key points, in my opinion, is to get language that ensures DC-9's will be replaced 1 for 1 by mainline aircraft.

That's an excellent point and input. Please e-mail your rep, attend an LEC meeting if able and express that to them.

 

[Occam's Razor]

I'm sure Occam will eventually realize that and come to the conclusion that there was no intent to deceive and that I had previously posted info on the DC-9-30, just 2 posts up and provided a link for further unbiased analysis. One poster has even engaged in a productive exchange on the information provided. I've extended a good faith apology for any misunderstanding, once Occam realizes that it was nothing more than a misunderstanding, like the man I believe he is, he'll retract his statement.

Golly! That's how it works?

Veritas #2008-01, published by your MEC, claims it's "...designed to counter these misstatements of the facts."

Veritas #2008-02 tells us "A half-truth is the most cowardly of lies"

You made a misstatement of the facts and expect a pass. Had my MEC done what you did, we'd all be reading Veritas #2008-03 regarding selective use of fuel efficiency data. Then a thread would be started here proclaiming the NWA MEC to be "buffoons", and you'd jump in...strictly in the interests of fraternity and brotherhood, of course.

See the real issue here?

You extracted one data point from the analysis, and stated it as a factual conclusion: DC-9's provide 28 ASM's per gallon. The data point happened to be irrelevant, since the aircraft you chose to reference hasn't been here in many years. You did it because it made your case appear stronger. According to your MEC, you are a cowardly liar. I merely saved them having to accuse one of their own o being such.

Now put that "misstatement" in the context of discussions at the table or official pronouncements from your leadership...and you'll get a feel for the problem with tit-for-tat carping at each other.

Had my MEC been focused on spanking your leadership, they'd have made a big deal out of the stunning misstatement ("cowardly lie") published by your Chairman, claiming DAL pilots are the only group to provide medical benefits to their furloughed members.

The fact is...they weren't the first, the largest, or for the longest. We did it FIRST in 1992. In fact, your MEC got the details on how to do it from our Membership Committee Chairman.

I suppose we could have published our own "Veritas" to tweak you with the actual facts, but the decision was made not to. It wasn't that big a deal. Kinda like harping on WHO coordinated seats at a Congressional hearing.

Give my team the same consideration you give your own team, and you expect right here on this Forum...you "cowardly liar".

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

oyster shells from Spondivits .

hmmmmmm Spondivits......

where the oysters can get you dead....