Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 Gamblejust under 60 ASMs/gallon."
"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,
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.
That 28 ASM's per gallon of fuel for the DC9 you are quoting is for the DC9-10. NW no longer operates the -10.
I was just looking at the analysis that was provided. I don't suspect that the DC-9-30 is muuch more efficient that the DC-9-10 and probably certainly not as fuel efficient as a 88/90.
you posted bad info and now are back stepping. Why not just admit you made an mistake? The -10 is much smaller than the 30,40,50=difference in seats.
Looks like we should park all our DC-9-10's then, eh?
Yeah, but the fuel economy of the 30,40,50 series isn't that great either.
Just as a comparison, in Figure 12 you can see that the direct operating cost attributable to fuel and oil at 70 cents a gallon is:
DC-9-30: 2.29 cents
DC-9-40: 2.30 cents
DC-9-50: 2.27 cents
MD-88: 1.51 cents
MD-90: 1.08 cents
and that's at 70 cents a gallon. At closer to $3/gallon, the difference gets bigger.
Looking at figure 13, your 30/40/50s come in at about 37 ASM's/gallon. The MD-90 comes in at 60 ASMs/gallon and the 88 at about 44 ASMs/gallon, which make the 90 and 88 approximately 62% and 19% more fuel efficient/ASM respectively.
Here's the link.
http://www.unisys.com/eprise/main/admin/micro/doc/Feb_Mar.pdf
That's the part Occam conveniently didn't address and apparently neither do you.
I clicked "Quote".
I repeated what you posted. I'm not sure why you chose to quote CASM data for an aircraft we haven't operated for 6-years. It appears to be the data that most strongly supports your point.
I didn't just post info on the 10 series, I also posted info on the 30. You don't want to talk about that. That's o.k., I understand why.
See how it happens?
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.
Two sides with differing perspectives often do things like that to strengthen their position in the negotiations. Just because you've done that here doesn't make you evil, or a weasel. It means you tend to judge yourself based on your intentions, and not your actions.
Sure, and just because you selectively quoted a part of my post that dealt with the DC-9-10 series and tried to characterize that as the entire thrust of my post, while you ignored the part that dealt with the 30 series doesn't mean you're a weasel or evil either. You're just trying to strengthen your position by not wanting to deal with the relatively poor fuel economics of the Dc-9 series.
As long as you recognize it, and don't try to vilify the other side when they do the same.