Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
I'm curious what is in a DOT Form 41 (T2 and P-5.2) document. The only thing I see is you download an adobe $700 program and you can see the free download from the DOT.
https://1bts.rita.dot.gov/pdc/user/p...SC,%204%20DESC
I look at those numbers and this is what I wonder, are the numbers skewed because of the extremely small size of the MD90 fleet? Such as we only have 16 aircraft in the fleet of 600 with those particular engines. I realize that the fuel burn of the 738 and 90 are almost identical so once the seating is identical then they should be very similar CASM in fuel numbers alone right?
And this is before we talk acquisition prices which I take it is not included in these numbers? Otherwise it'd be more economical to dump every 88/90/9/737/738 and order 320s as a replacement.
The most current data I have is the 12 month period ending September 2010.
Here are some highlights:
----------738-----MD90-----MD88-----320
BH Cost--$3765---$3795----$3850-----$3394
Gal/Hr----787-----795-------896-------806
Stage----1180----806-------613-------1124
CASM----6.7------7.3-------8.9--------6.0
Of note is that the MD90 data is for 17 a/c all with 150 seats.
Also, the 319 CASM is 8.3 vs the 737-7 at 6.8. Crew cost make up almost 1 cent of that differences. IMO the 320 CASM data iserroneous due to accounting issues between it and the 319.
A little off topic but if there was ever a no brainier here it is:
Similar Aircraft Comparisons Chart
This mod would make the whole MD fleet about the same efficiency.