DL/NW Regional Geometry

[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.

 

[Superpilot92]

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

I'm the "guy" constantly arguing that scope needs to be stronger and that this flying should remain on mainline's list. The best way would be a SSL. My Reps have my input. Do yours have your input yet?

Well i would love to but here recently i have seen you and others saying that 70 seaters are going to be replacing the dc9s. The only way to do that with the nwa scope clause is if Mainline gets new aircraft first. While a SSL would be nice its probably never going to happen. However protecting scope right now IS possible. You dont see any NWA guys saying that the 9's are going to be replaced completely with 70 seaters because right now we are protected. We need to keep that protection and make sure scope is maintained or made tighter. If you are voicing that, then by all means keep it up!! We all should be doing that. I am doing everything i can do to keep this subject in the forefront.

Hows training going?

 

[DoinTime]

A staple for Compass would be a good start.

First, a "staple" is never a good place to start. Second, why the discrimination on all of the other DCI/NW Airlink pilots that fly the same class of aircraft?

Thought processes like this are the reason why they always fail.

 

[Superpilot92]

First, a "staple" is never a good place to start. Second, why the discrimination on all of the other DCI/NW Airlink pilots that fly the same class of aircraft?

Thought processes like this are the reason why they always fail.

Wrong, A staple of Compass is a great place to start. Its better for them as they dont have to wait the 30 months and miss out on further seniority.

 

[Superpilot92]

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.

First i am not trying to "bash" the DAL guys i am just making sure the subject is talked about. Also you are Wrong about the 9 flying, it is currently protected under NWA scope. Sure the DC9s will eventually go away but those jobs shouldn't just go away and wont just go away unless they are let go! While its nice the compass deal is available i hope i dont have to use it even though that would give me a pay raise sooner. Lets hope nobody gets displaced, i guess we will see.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Superpilot92:

Here ya' go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25CYL1kpm04

 

[ACL65PILOT]

DC-9 JT8D engines 3000~ per side per hr. 6K
M-88 JT8D engines about the same
757 in cruise above 350. 2.7 per hr per side
767 above 350 4.0-4.8 per hr per side.
RJ-50 2.5-2.8 per hr per side
RJ-70 2.7.-2.9 per hr per side

Now you can get all of these lower in LRC but the fact is that the 757 and 767 are still very efficient birds for their age. It just amazes me how little the thing burns. We go from ATL to SAN with 35.0 on the block fuel and burn about 27.0. Not bad for a 2000 mile flight.

Now the RJ DC-9 argument is about CASM. Not fuel alone. The 9's are paid for and can operate a lot cheaper than a RJ or an 88. What it comes down to is which aircraft will provide the most yeild per seat mile. This answer is different for each market on any given day of the week. Hence there will be some of each type of aircraft for a few more years.
The 50's, 9's and 88's are short for this world. Now if oil drops as it should these bad boys will be here until the C-series and the 737E arrive.
Either way if you have 76 seaters on property you are fine. (ASA will get them as SKW is pulling theirs out west) The above posts are correct when it comes to DCI contracts. CMR will hire so that they become attractive to sell. Personally I do not see them doing that unless they can operate Compass and Pinnacle the same way as CMR. (As relief valves to their DCI contracts) CMR is a great way for Delta to stay out of court. You get the growth in good times and the ax in bad.

 

[ACL65PILOT]

Superpilot. FWIW your scope will die with the new PWA. Lets make sure that your current verbiage is in there. If not they will have carte blanch on the 9's

 

[ACL65PILOT]

First, a "staple" is never a good place to start. Second, why the discrimination on all of the other DCI/NW Airlink pilots that fly the same class of aircraft?

Thought processes like this are the reason why they always fail.

It is not discrimination. Fact is that Compass shares the same MEC with NWA. That alone is reason enough to add them to our list. I know that a few others are owned by the parent company, but how they are managed in the corporate structure varies. In addition to this you do not share the same MEC ergo your interest diverge from that of the NWA MEC. Now I am sure that we could do this, but it will not happen in the near term. Too many fish are currently in the barrel and need cooking. If it were to happen it would be after Compass came on board.

 

[~~~^~~~]

DC-9 JT8D engines 3000~ per side per hr. 6K
M-88 JT8D engines about the same
757 in cruise above 350. 2.7 per hr per side
767 above 350 4.0-4.8 per hr per side.
RJ-50 2.5-2.8 per hr per side
RJ-70 2.7.-2.9 per hr per side

Now the RJ DC-9 argument is about CASM. Not fuel alone. The 9's are paid for and can operate a lot cheaper than a RJ or an 88. What it comes down to is which aircraft will provide the most yeild per seat mile. This answer is different for each market on any given day of the week.

I agree with everything you wrote, but offer a correction.

The RJ burn you wrote is total, not per side.

If Delta is under contract to pay for the RJ then it is cheaper to park the DC9. It is hard to park assets you are still paying for.

Living in North Georgia I see this frequently. The new car is parked in the front yard, the old car is on blocks around the side of the house.

 

[wmuflyguy]

I agree with everything you wrote, but offer a correction.

The RJ burn you wrote is total, not per side.

Exactly, in cruise the 70 burns anywhere from 1500-1900 a side depending on altitude/speed. (usually somewhere between 1700-1800 at .76 to.78)