MD-80's 35% less efficient than A321's?

[MJG]

737-900ER = 757 lite.....


Thanks for the paycut boeing, I'm sure the airlines love you guys...

 

[kelbill]

I can't doubt that the engines on the A321 are more efficient, but to say they are 35-45% more efficient seems ridiculous. Just squeaking out a 10-20% increase in efficiency in the last 10 years would be superb. Heck, SWA would be buying them if they were that good. I think they were comparing apples to oranges. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Doesn't mean the A321 isn't a better deal though.

 

[yaks]

No Boeing product has ever had a malfunction within two years of delivery.

While I appreciate the sarcasm, the situation I was referring to is one of multiple failures of redundant systems. Almost unheard of. When you factor in the reliability problem of the ab and fuel burns more on the order of 6000 pph + whatever savings they can ring out from upgrades, I think AA is in a great position.

 

[aa73]

DAL has 125 MD's. AA is the one in big trouble. Last I heard they were nearly 300 MD-80's!
737

In big trouble no.. at least not yet. I think DAL is hurting a little more than us these days. Those MD80s have a pretty low break even point on most markets.

Hey, we actually turned a profit!

 

[AA717driver]

On the 717 fuel flow, I think it was around 1500-1700/side. Isn't 3000 a side a little high for the -80?

I'd rather fly a 40 year old McD product than a brand new 'Bus. JMO.TC

 

[ERfly]

I'd rather fly a 40 year old McD product than a brand new 'Bus. JMO.TC

Well, that 40-year-old Douglas is the Tank With Wings (DC-8) and yeah, I'd fly it over anything coming from those cheese eatin' surrender monkeys.

 

[aa73]

On the 717 fuel flow, I think it was around 1500-1700/side. Isn't 3000 a side a little high for the -80?

Nope, it's right around 3000 per side in the low/mid FL300s at .76.

I'd rather fly a 40 year old McD product than a brand new 'Bus. JMO.TC

Ditto!

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

I love you, man!

I'd rather fly a 40 year old McD product than a brand new 'Bus. JMO.TC

That's just something in my eye, I don't get emotional!

I think the reliability of the MD80 is one of the best in the industry. One always has to factor in the purchase price of new vs. used and the cost and dependabilty to operate the equipment

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

I only find you mildly attractive, but

Nope, it's right around 3000 per side in the low/mid FL300s at .76.



Ditto!

Right On!!!

 

[jimcav]

aa73 1500 pph per side is a little optimistic. Most loads we carry in the 717 are so heavy that anything above 350 is unusual. Even at that alt at max weight you're at 23-2500 pph. What hurts the 717 though is the DC-9 30 wing. Those BR715s can take us a lot higher, the problem is that wing. If I'm not mistaken the 80 will make the low 40s and with those BR715s that fuel flow could likely be in the 1500-1700 pph range. I have seen the 717 at 370 at 94000 lbs ( as heavy as I'll go up there with that ole 9 wing) consume 18-1900 pph. For us that is not a very good (half) load. That said the 717 is a DC-9 and not a maddog, and the wing is what holds us down. The engines are overpowered and I think will complement the 80 nicely.