Are these DAL MD-90s on the way?

[moonship]

There have been 6 or 7 MD-90's sitting at TIMCO in GSO for the past 6 plus months. Some China Southern and the others were HELLO airlines. They have started to get them into the hanger, a few a month. They are coming out in Delta colors.

 

[another cfii]

The MD90 we have now seats 150, but all will be re-configured to 160 soon. Comparing to the MD88, it has increased ZFW by 12k, max t/o weight increased by approx 11k. Fuel burn is slightly better than the MD88, around 3.5k per side crz at FL32 or so (Our usual cruising alt). Comparing to the MD88, it actually cruises at a lower alt, and the range isn't as great as the 88, but it hauls more pax+cargo, which makes it cost effective.

On another note, the MD88 will be soon configured to 149 as well.

 

[dicko]

The MD90 we have now seats 150, but all will be re-configured to 160 soon. Comparing to the MD88, it has increased ZFW by 12k, max t/o weight increased by approx 11k. Fuel burn is slightly better than the MD88, around 3.5k per side crz at FL32 or so (Our usual cruising alt). Comparing to the MD88, it actually cruises at a lower alt, and the range isn't as great as the 88, but it hauls more pax+cargo, which makes it cost effective.

On another note, the MD88 will be soon configured to 149 as well.

I know I must be missing something here:

The 737-700 burns around 2.2K to 2.4K per hour/per side with 137 pax. 737-800 will be :erm: configured for 160 pax. I'm assuming its burn will be slightly higher.

Given the MD90 is burning around 2000 PPH more fuel; how can it be more efficient ?

Just curious. I'm not playing 'my airplanes better than yours'.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Acquisition costs.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Any plans to enlarge the overhead bins on the 90s? Last one I was on had the same "short" bins on both sides of the aisle, filled up awfully fast. I think there must have been at least twenty of us who had to plane-side check our bags. I don't believe that would have happened on an MD88.

 

[JAM-BRO]

Hi!

DAL has said in numerous press releases that the MD-90 is by FAR their lowest seat-mile cost of ANY of their narrow body jets, so they want as many as possible. They were planning on acquiring 74 of them, but that was WITHOUT the Saudia jets...so could be as many as 102. Boeing should have kept the 717 line open, and added the 717-200 as AirTran wanted. Now they will be getting their 737 ass kicked by Bombardier's "C"!

The lowest seat-mile cost of ANY of their narrow body jets is the 757...

 

[ACL65PILOT]

The lowest CASM of the 744 is a little bit lower than the 753, but yes you are correct.

 

[FLYLOW22]

I have seen a handful of China Eastern MD-90s in GSO in front of the paint shop... I heard they are getting the DAL livery.

Just taxied past Timco today in GSO... nothing but Air Force DC10 types sitting around.

 

[atpcliff]

The CEO said the MD90 costs were lower...I am guessing because the acquisition cost is so low.

 

[n757st]

Just taxied past Timco today in GSO... nothing but Air Force DC10 types sitting around.

Ive been in and out of GSO for the last couple days, there are at least 4 MD-90s outside the northeast part of the TIMCO facility.

 

[St. Nic]

The CEO said the MD90 costs were lower...I am guessing because the acquisition cost is so low.

That's the Allegiant model in a nutshell.

 

[FLYLOW22]

Ive been in and out of GSO for the last couple days, there are at least 4 MD-90s outside the northeast part of the TIMCO facility.

They must be in the standard Delta Camo paint jobs then. I'll look again... headed out this afternoon.

Nothing but widebody city around the Timco hangar I saw. Are there multiple hangars?

 

[another cfii]

I know I must be missing something here:

The 737-700 burns around 2.2K to 2.4K per hour/per side with 137 pax. 737-800 will be :erm: configured for 160 pax. I'm assuming its burn will be slightly higher.

Given the MD90 is burning around 2000 PPH more fuel; how can it be more efficient ?

Just curious. I'm not playing 'my airplanes better than yours'.

No Worries, mate. With the new mod, the MD90 won't be commuter friendly, as it'll need 4 FA, as there won't be a cabin JS available if needed. If i remember correctly, the 800 burns about 3.5 per side, since it cruises way up in mid to high FL30s. I believe the extended overhead bin is a must if they intend to continue use these planes for it's purposes.

I was told the 800 takes about 25 days in a month to break even and then make some money, but the MD90 takes only 5 days. So there's your CASM comparison, fwiw

 

[dicko]

No Worries, mate. With the new mod, the MD90 won't be commuter friendly, as it'll need 4 FA, as there won't be a cabin JS available if needed. If i remember correctly, the 800 burns about 3.5 per side, since it cruises way up in mid to high FL30s. I believe the extended overhead bin is a must if they intend to continue use these planes for it's purposes.

I was told the 800 takes about 25 days in a month to break even and then make some money, but the MD90 takes only 5 days. So there's your CASM comparison, fwiw

Mate ......

Riveting stuff. I was surprised to hear that the 800 burned 7000 PPH in the cruise. Very surprised.

Words to live by: Borrow the company bike. Don't buy it.
The 737NG does not have a stick pusher :laugh:

Cheers,

JP.

 

[FLYLOW22]

I stand corrected.

2 China Air MD90's parked at the North Timco Hangar in GSO in various stages of disarray...

One of them parked parallel to us while taxiing was just reregistered as N921DN.

To Delta they go. At least they won't be more blasted Regional Jets... or let me rephrase... at least the jobs will be going to Mainline Pilots.

How do the Tech Ops folks in ATL miss out on these new aircraft inspections though?