NWA retires the DC-10

[jetflier]

Hey All,

NWA is offically parking the DC-10.
Although a lot of opnion is that its an old lumbering bird, thats not the case.

The DC-10 will be missed, having the most comfortable pilots cockpit ever built. With a superwide flightdeck that ranks among the quietest ever built. And handleing that is as light, smooth and precise as can be in a big bird.
It can even make your landings feel like a limo ride over a smooth highway.


Northwest to Accelerate Retirement of DC10 Aircraft
Wednesday June 28, 1:36 pm ET
Airline to phase in modern Airbus A330, Boeing 747-400 equipment on remaining seven DC10 routes by January 2007


MINNEAPOLIS, June 28 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Northwest Airlines today announced that it will accelerate the retirement of its remaining 12 DC10-30 aircraft in service. The airline said that during the next seven months, it will replace DC10 aircraft with new Airbus A330s and Boeing 747-400 aircraft being returned to service. Currently, seven routes are served with the DC10.
(Photos: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20060628/CGW035
Northwest-Operated Trans-Atlantic Flights To Be All-A330 Starting Oct. 31

While most of Northwest's trans-Atlantic flights already offer A330 service, during the next four months, the airline's Memphis, Tenn. - Amsterdam (Oct. 29), Minneapolis/St. Paul - London (Oct. 29) and Amsterdam - Mumbai, India service (Oct. 1) will transition to A330 service. Also this fall, the airline's entire Minneapolis/St. Paul - Amsterdam schedule, which currently is operated with both the A330 and the DC10, will be operated with the A330 (Oct. 29).

As of Oct. 31, 2006, the airline's entire trans-Atlantic schedule will be operated with the A330, which offers travelers comforts and amenities unmatched by any other U.S. airline and many international competitors.

"The conversion to an all A330 fleet across the Atlantic also will enhance the Northwest-KLM joint venture (JV) by utilizing larger capacity aircraft on most JV routes," Haan added.
A330 More Efficient, Quieter Aircraft than DC10

The A330 provides Northwest with up to 30 percent in fuel savings, lower maintenance costs, and is a much quieter aircraft, than the DC10-30 it replaces. As an example, on the Minneapolis/St. Paul - Amsterdam route, the A330 will carry 25 more passengers, yet consume 6,100 fewer gallons (23,090 liters) of fuel each way, than the DC10.
Boeing 747-400 to Operate more Asia/Pacific Routes

Northwest's plan, at this time, is to replace DC10s currently in Asia/Pacific service with three Boeing 747-400s being returned to service. The modern Boeing 747-400 will replace DC10s currently flying between Tokyo and Honolulu on July 9 and between Osaka, Japan and Honolulu by Oct. 1.DC10 History at Northwest Airlines

Northwest began operating the DC10 in 1972, when the first aircraft from an order placed in 1968 for new 22 aircraft arrived. The airline was one of a small number of carriers to fly the DC10-40 version, providing it with a competitive advantage in range, operational costs and engine commonality with the Pratt and Whitney engine-powered Boeing 747s in its fleet at the time. The first route for the 236-passenger aircraft was flight 72 from the Twin Cities to Milwaukee to Tampa, Fla.

In 1989, Northwest began acquiring the 273-seat DC10-30, primarily for trans-Atlantic service. Northwest's DC10 fleet peaked in size at 45 aircraft in 2001, consisting of 21 DC10-40s and 24 DC10-30s. It retired the last of its DC10-40s in late 2002. The airline's remaining 12 DC10 aircraft in service are all from the -30 series, including five of the last six to be built at the then McDonnell Douglas Long Beach, Calif. production facility.

The last scheduled DC10 flight for Northwest Airlines will be flight 98, currently scheduled to depart Honolulu at 6:25 p.m. on January 7, 2007, and arrive in the Twin Cities at 6:03 a.m. on January 8.

 

[accinelli]

about time. On to the 757s.

 

[XTW]

Hey All,


The DC-10 will be missed, having the most comfortable pilots cockpit ever built. With a superwide flightdeck that ranks among the quietest ever built. And handleing that is as light, smooth and precise as can be in a big bird.
It can even make your landings feel like a limo ride over a smooth highway.

Second only to the L1011!


X

 

[Piper877]

The DC-10 is definitely one of my favorite airplanes. Also it's one that I'll probably never get to fly unfortunately. I used to try to jumpseat MSP-HNL just to ride on that thing but it never fit into my schedule unfortunately. Stupid jet fuel prices.

 

[USNFDX]

I suspect some of those -30s will end up with a puple tail an MD-10 on the nose.

 

[circletoland]

There are 2 DC-10's here at Opa-Locka, Just saw one land the other day, they are going to be in peices soon

 

[Huck]

My pop was on the NWA DC-10 panel when they grounded them after the ORD accident...... 1976? Something like that.

 

[Tomct]

:crying:Great Airplane! I knew a lot of guys who had the "Privelege" of flying that airplane! Wish I could have! You could fit a King size bed in that cockpit and then some.....

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

My old man was an IP on them- got me in the sim for about 60 hours when I was just barely a commercial pilot and was the most valuable time of any in my logbook. That was his fav plane at NW. They will be missed.

 

[PowerRanger]

The A330 provides Northwest with up to 30 percent in fuel savings, lower maintenance costs, and is a much quieter aircraft, than the DC10-30 it replaces. As an example, on the Minneapolis/St. Paul - Amsterdam route, the A330 will carry 25 more passengers, yet consume 6,100 fewer gallons (23,090 liters) of fuel each way, than the DC10.
Boeing 747-400 to Operate more Asia/Pacific Routes

This not a a.net post or to be confused with a Boeing vs. Airbus post. But the 777 was created to replace the aging DC-10/MD-11. They could operate those routes much cheaper on a 777. The 777 is kicking the A340's ass so imagine what they could be doing with a 777 on those routes.

 

[jetflier]

Second only to the L1011!


X

I've never flown the 1011, but when I flew for Pan Am , the pilots who flew it said that the 1011 was their favorite out of all of 'em.

I think the Lockheed was faster than the DC-10. At any mach above .83, the DC-10 would shimmy and shake. It was always a challange on the atlantic tracks with other aircraft at the standard .85 mach.

A lot of tailgating but never road rage....

 

[XTW]

The L10 was originally designed to cruise at M .90. The the fuel crunch of the early '70s hit. It was more efficient cruising at .84-.86. Anything below .83, and it was a handful keeping "on speed". Set it at .84-86, and just slowly creep the throttles back as you got lighter. FEs made great autothrottles. It was a definite technique to learn.


X

 

[mdanno808]

The 10 is a great airplane. As for the MD-10 at FDX, didn't they stop the conversion program?

 

[Thedude]

What is the possibilty these hull will be converted into freighters rather than chooped up for parts?

 

[CaptSeth]

Anyone got a DC-10 study guide they don't need?

 

[Schwanker]

This not a a.net post or to be confused with a Boeing vs. Airbus post. But the 777 was created to replace the aging DC-10/MD-11. They could operate those routes much cheaper on a 777. The 777 is kicking the A340's ass so imagine what they could be doing with a 777 on those routes.

Here's NWA's analysis of the A330 vs the 777. Sounds like the A330 was the cheaper avenue. The 777 also was overkill for the Atlantic operation.



By Tim Campbell, Managing Director- Performance
Analysis

From On Course, Northwest Fligiht Operations Magazine
May/June 2001

The January February issue of On Course contained an
article by Capt. Jeff Carlson that outlined the
details of Northwest's multibillion-dollar ivestment
in new aircraft. A large component of this order
includes 24 PW4168A-powered A330-300s. Numerous
questions have arisen since the announcement of this
order, specifically why the A330 was selected instead
of the 777.

This article will address these questions by
summarizing our assessment of the performance
characteristics of the A330 relative to the 777 and
how this information was used in the final evaluation
of these two aircraft.

The competition between the 777 and A330 was for a new
aircraft that would replace our DC-10-30s on dedicated
transatlantic missions.

Perhaps the most important performance-related aspect
of this aircraft evaluation was finding the best match
between aircraft payload-range capability and
forecasted payload demand. We were seeking an aircraft
that efficiently meets our projected requirements. As
shown in the graphs, the A330 most optimally meets our
payload requirements in the Atlantic. This payload
capability, when coupled with operating costs and
projected market requirements (demand) for both
passenger and cargo traffic, offers the highest
earnings potential.

The match between capability and market requirements
is important because it is inefficient to operate
aircraft with excess capability. Our evaluation clearly
shows that the 777-200ER aircraft has significantly
more payload-range capability than the A330-300.

The additional range capability could be helpful if
the same aircraft were also flown across the Pacific.
However this possible dual mission capability was
determined to be impractical because Pacific aircraft
require a much greater share of World Business Class
seats than Atlantic aircraft. Furthermore, the Pratt
powered 777-200ER could not fly many critical Pacific
missions with full passenger load, and most missions
required weight limits on cargo.

This is not necessarily apparent if one looks from the
generic marketing material from Boeing because the
range of the 777-200, evaluated with Northwest rules
and interiors, is approximately 1,100 miles less than
advertised.

The 777 can carry more seats than the A330 although
the A330 already carries 29 more seats than our
current DC-10-30s. The optimal 777-200 configuration
we modeled had 27 more seats than the A330-300
(329-302) and 56 seats more than the DC-10-30
(329-273). However, these additional seats were
economy seats that typically would be filled with
lower yielding passengers.

The 777 has the same empty weight for all available
MTOW's (580,000-656,000 lbs). Northwest requires only
the lowest weight for nearly all markets, roughly
comparable to the A330. The net result to Northwest is
that the 777 is more than 41,000 pounds heavier than
the A330 yet provides minimal additional revenue
capacity.

The heavier weight of the 777 translates directly into
a fuel burn penalty. On a typical 3,500 nm mission,
the A330 burns approximately 28% less fuel than a
DC-10-30; accounting for its higher seating capacity,
it burns 35% less on a per seat basis. The much
heavier 777 burns approximately 16% more fuel than the
A330 on a per trip basis, and 6% more on a per seat
basis.

Questions have arisen about the cruise speed of the
A330, largely due to issues surrounding the cruise
speed of the A340. NW intends to operate the A330 at a
cruise speed of Mach 0.82. This speed corresponds to
the aircraft's LRC (long range cruise) Mach number for
most gross weight/altitude combinations. While the
published cruise speed of the A340 is Mach 0.82, our
analysis substantiates the experience of line pilots
taht certain operators fly slower to avoid excessive
fuel burn. Airbus has implicitly recognized the cruise
speed issue with the "first generation" A340's by
redesigning the wing on the A340-500 and -600.

757/767 DC10-30 A330 777/747-200
Cruise speed .80 .82 .82 .84


As shown in the table, the A33's cruise speed is
slower than the 777, but it is consistent with our
DC-10-30 and faster than other aircraft operating
across the Atlantic. The cruise speed differences
between the 777 and A330 equates to a trip length
difference of approximately 10 minutes on a typical
Atlantic mission. It may be interesting to note that
Northwest negotiated stringent, comprehensive
contractual commitments from Airbus to ensure the A330
will meet our performance expectations both at the
time of deliver and for several years thereafter.
This is a requirement we make of airframe/engine
manufacturers, including Boeing. The performance level
of the new 757-300's has a similar level of
protection. Our agreement with Airbus also provides us
with mission flexibility we could not achieve with
Boeing. The Airbus agreement is structured to allow us
to take delivery of other members of the A330 family
if our requirements change over time. A shorter
member of the A330 family, the A330-200, has 257
seats in the Northwest configuration. It has
approximately 900 nm more range than the A330-300.
This added flexibility to tailor capacity to market
requirements not offered by the 777 since Boeing was
unwilling to formally offer a smaller, lower priced
version of the 777.

In summary, the excess capacity of the 777 leads to
operating economics inferior to the A330. This
situation is further degraded when the notably higher
puchase price of the 777 is factored into the
analysis. The marginal improvement in revenue the
777's size offers simply cannot overcome its increased
operating and ownership costs. Our Atlantic
replacement decision does not mean that the 777 will
be excluded from future aircraft competitions. The
longer range version of the 777-200 and 777-300 will
be evaluated against the A340-500 and A340-600 when we
begin the 747-200 replacement analysis.

 

[PowerRanger]

Thanks for the info!