My guess is that if they knew who the likely aquirerer of those airplanes were, they'd make sure they went elsewhere or just keep them.

I've been wrong lots of times, but I don't see them willingly parting with them if they were just going to be turned around and used against them.

Nu

While then they can give us some really cheap 73N's if they do not want us to play this way. Sounds like a good solution to me.

Amen brother. Bring em'!

... and that is what I think most of this MD90 talk is. Playing Boeing off a paper airplane.

There is considerable frustration in the marketplace on a 100 to 130 seat solution. I don't know why Airlines had no problem shifting half their domestic flying to a Bombardier / Embraer platform, but they now seem hesitant to give them the next 30%.

My very strong suspicion remains that the long term solution hinges on scope negotiations and the current uncertainty results in paralysis when making a 25 year commitment to the trunk of an airline's fleet.

IMHO, ALPA simply needs to make it clear that more scope sales are not not on the table and will never be on the table. The FACT ALPA will not make this statement is just as telling as their denials that they are not CURRENTLY talking about scope.

With the uncertainty about who's operating the C Series cleared up, airlines would be able to better evaluate the product's real operational costs.

MD-90-30T "Trunkliner"
Variant of the MD-90-30 assembled by Shanghai Aviation Industrial Corporation in the People's Republic of China. Production was initially planned to be 40, later reduced to 20, with only two built in the end. To accommodate the heavy aircraft on unsuitable runways, a dual tandem landing gear with more tires to spread the weight of the aircraft was designed for the Trunkliner, but ultimately not used in the two aircraft produced. The ARJ21 is built using tooling sold for the MD-90-30.

I'd love to see an MD90 with a truck.

MD90 Truck Gear ?...there is not enough space under the wing to store the truck!

Bar, maybe, maybe not. I have a sneaking suspicion that it has been clearly stated here at D-ALPA that a scope sale is not on the table. It is just not done in public.

As you know that is not ALPA National's place as they are the national arm of our union which speaks on the larger scale of this profession, and many of the carriers they represent would be adversely effected by a take back or shrinkage of their current operating arena.

Many call for the dumping ALPA because of this, but it has never been their mission to pick side but to be a unified voice on the national level for pilots with Congress, ICAO, the FAA, DOT, NTSB ect. The dealing of section six have and will always be done at the local level.

Also Bar, I agree that showing the willingness to go with a used airframe because the current options leave a lot to be desired sends a very large message to the manufacturers of the world.

Also the fact that it has been publicly stated that we have people going to YUL to talk to Bombardier is another red flag for Boeing and Airbus. It means get off your duff and deliver what your customers are demanding.

Okay, so lets say the 29 Saudi MD90s came on the market at a heck of a good price. I'm just wondering if the airframe, seating and parts are similiar enough to the current 90s and the only difference is the cockpit then why not get them and put them somewhere? Make the a DTW, DFW , MEM**** or MSP only aircraft. Or ATL*** :eek:

We've had smaller subfleets before, the 16 MD-90s in SLC, 21 767-400s in ATL and 16 744s in DTW come to mind. A differences course of 5 sim sessions would be enough and I wonder if you could do that using the 3 717 sims in Atlanta? If that would fly... not literally, just fake it, like normal.

29 MD90s x $9M (what are the current MD90s again, $8M?) = $261M. For a fleet of 29 airplanes built between 1998 and 2000* that will soon seat the same number of passengers, 160, as a 738 with a fuel burn of only 3% higher** on a 500 nm trip? I'd think differences training would be no different then the way we handle the 764 today, you complete 756 then you complete 764 differences.

I mean there is value in playing a game with B&A concerning the MD90s but for the price and given B&As recent failures of concept to market aircraft, I don't think its a negotiating tactic at all.

I've talked myself into it. Which means absolutely nothing. Thanks for reading. :D

*According to McDonnell Douglas MD-90 Production List - Planespotters.net Just Aviation

**http://www.dugankinetics.com/operato...ft-comparisons

*** where the players play and the parties don't stop til 8 in the morning

**** Why not just replace the Airbus and DC9 fleet in MEM with the Saudi MD90s? Could it go to both coasts? There is what, 230 pilots in MEM now so if you put 29 MD90s in there you'd have 8 pilots to a plane, isn't that the norm DAL staffing for a narrow body?

FtB;
It is a win-win for DAL. Play had ball and in the end they have a efficient jet that had almost no acquisition costs. Win and get a 73N with a gtf that will produce saving to make the CapEx logical.