Delta CEO on CNBC

[Superpilot92]

Wait a minute what do we have here? Is this a decent debate and discussion about the merger? I am shocked!! Keep it up guys. :beer:

 

[flatspin7]

Agree with that. I said that they would try. Just like they did with the 765 and 767.

.

Whats interesting is here at CAL the 757 base covers 757-200,757-300, 767-200 and the 767-400 (I have no clue why at DAL its called the 765---Maybe someone could chime in)

At the same time I just flew a trip where I was flying a brand new 737-900ER and then the next leg we were in an old -300 round dial, but there is word that the -300 fleet will get split off when the fleet type starts getting shrunk down. (RUMOR ALERT)

Now for combining DC-9 and MD-88 fleets... I wold ventrue to say there is no way that would happen, very different aircraft.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Yes, one has FMS the other does not. I just find it funny that the DC-9 all the way to the 717 are on the same type certificate.
I do not see that happening either. I just think that it may be attempted by management.

The 765 is the international version of the 767-400. We used to have a domestic category called the 765 but that changed a few years ago.
They do not have them all in one category because we negotiated it that way. I am sure that if we wanted to the company would be more than happy to make all 767 derivatives one category. There are many reasons why we do not.

 

[Superpilot92]

Whats interesting is here at CAL the 757 base covers 757-200,757-300, 767-200 and the 767-400 (I have no clue why at DAL its called the 765---Maybe someone could chime in)

At the same time I just flew a trip where I was flying a brand new 737-900ER and then the next leg we were in an old -300 round dial, but there is word that the -300 fleet will get split off when the fleet type starts getting shrunk down. (RUMOR ALERT)

Now for combining DC-9 and MD-88 fleets... I wold venture to say there is no way that would happen, very different aircraft.

Supposedly differences training between the nine and the md80 would only be 3 days. It would be more efficient to have it all the same but we all know thats not how things seem to work at the airlines.

 

[Fly4hire]

Agree with that. I said that they would try. Just like they did with the 765 and 767.

Different animal - the 80 and above have auto-throttle, MCP, auto-land Cat II, and some have FMS. Differences training can be done in a few days, but they are different enough, unlike 757/767 to run as separate categories. When I was at TWA they were run separately for the above reason.

 

[Noserider76]

Companies love combined categories because they require less pilots. We should have absolutely no interest in a combined DC-9 and MD-88/90 category. We don't need to give them any reasons to shrink the combined group, not to mention the fact that they're completely different cockpits and the -88s/90s are FMS, glass, CATIII etc.

 

[Superpilot92]

Companies love combined categories because they require less pilots. We should have absolutely no interest in a combined DC-9 and MD-88/90 category. We don't need to give them any reasons to shrink the combined group, not to mention the fact that they're completely different cockpits and the -88s/90s are FMS, glass, CATIII etc.

I just took a look at it and while i agree they are different but i wouldn't say they are "completely" different. Almost everything is in the same positions. Do you guys still have the old pressurization's system on your 80's?

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Most of the stuff on the md-88/90 looks like you took a DC-9 and DC-10 and jammed them together, then some stuff from the MD-11 too.

 

[FDJ2]

Supposedly differences training between the nine and the md80 would only be 3 days. It would be more efficient to have it all the same but we all know thats not how things seem to work at the airlines.

It won't happen for the same reasons the 747-200 is not in the same category as the 747-400, or the 737-200 was not in the same category as the 737-800.

One is a FMS glass cockpit aircraft and the other isn't. Cockpit procedures and standardization issues start to get complicated. Recurrent becomes a nightmare. The Feds don't tend to like it unless you dumb down the FMS aircraft etc. Can it be done? Yes. Will it? No.

Besides the obvious standardization issues, the cost of creating a training program that would accommodate it, and the cost of cross training 1200 88/90 crews and 800 DC-9 crews is prohibitive and outweigh the benefits derived from doing it.

The reduced DC-9 fleet may survive the next 2-3 years, but probably not five more. By then the merger will/should be complete with a joint contract, SLI and single operating certificate. The DC-9 is already 35 years old, five years from now the average age will be 40. For the same reason in the 80s you didn't see too many legacy carriers still flying Connies and DC-3s, 5 years from now you wont see too many DC-9s either.

I suspect current DC-9 lift will be satisfied with the E-175s, 76 seat CRJ and a few MD-88/90s.

That's not a slam on the aircraft. It was a great aircraft, just like the DC-3, Connie, DC-8 and other legendary aircraft, but she's past her prime.

 

[tomgoodman]

Don't throw any parts away

Most of the stuff on the md-88/90 looks like you took a DC-9 and DC-10 and jammed them together, then some stuff from the MD-11 too.

Some of the stuff is even older than that. At the MD-88 school in LGB, the old Douglas instructor asked "What's the reason for the spring-loaded 'override' position on the right hyd aux pump switch?" Somebody gave the standard answer about bypassing an overheat sensor, forcing the pump to run. The instructor said "Well, that's what we put in the book, but the fact is, we had a lot of those switches left over from the DC-8 program, so we had to come up with some function for that unneeded switch position."

 

[castle bravo]

Talking about leftover parts, some say that the black plastic cockpit window crank knobs used on the 9 and MD-80 are actually leftover DC-3 throttle handles....

 

[~~~^~~~]

.... and did anyone appreciate the little black rubber U shaped thingy that we all thought was just there to help hold your approach plates on the yoke clip? Turns out the entire top of the light housing is hot as a firecracker and without the little rubber foot it shorts out on the holder and catches fire.

After flying the Boeing, you start to fully appreciate what a bunch of lazy jerks those Douglas engineers were. They never fixed anything, all band aids and strap ons.

The DC9 has to be a better airplane than the MD88. The 88 is just a -9 taken to the limits of what trim tabs & JT8D's can do, with a hoopity pre-pong version of a FMC.

 

[~~~^~~~]

I suspect current DC-9 lift will be satisfied with the E-175s, 76 seat CRJ and a few MD-88/90s.

I'm glad somebody gets it.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

I like that FIN
Enjoying 767 school are you?

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Fin as I stated in the near term yes that will be how they do it. But long term it will be the C-series and a new 7E7.