FastDEW

I seem to remember that NWA has retired A320's while still keeping 35+yo DC9's flying. That either says the 9 is very long life and/or the A320 isn't.

UAL T38 Phlyer

It could mean they would rather fly a gas-guzzler that's paid-for instead of an efficient airplane with an expensive lease.....

III Corps

The -9s have been paid for a LONG time ago and the only charges are labor, fuel and maint. You can probably operate a 100 seat -9 cheaper than a new RJ.

One site lists average cost for leasing a -320 at around $600,000/mo.

and just to add a little spice, go here. The image won't imbed.
Photos: BAE Systems Avro 146-RJ85A Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

You will notice 747s, DC-10, 727 and nearer the camera two 777, one scheduled for parting out. ??

FastDEW

Interesting photo. Thanks for sharing.

From the pilots perspective, I have flown the MD80 and the 320. I would take the 320 everytime without even thinking about it. Great plane to fly.

alvrb211

Quality and longevity?

I see you're a 747 guy. I suspect, like me, you've been around the world.

If you think about it, you've probably seen examples of exceptional engineering that are a heck of a lot older than the entire Boeing company that are still in use today.


JJ

III Corps

I have had the privilege of flying Airbus, Alenia, Boeing, BAe, Beech, Bombardier, Cessna, Dassault, Embraer, Fairchild, Fokker, Gulfstream, Lear, Lockheed, McDoug, Northrop, Optica, Partinavia, PZL, Saab, Tupolev and a few others (the CJ-6 was a nice machine for what it was supposed to do). What I have discovered are ALL have good points and not-so-good points (forgot Nihon.. now there was an odd duck). You play to the strengths, respect the weaknesses and let the others fuss about which is the greatest and which is a POS.

Funny thing is that often the strongest critics never fly the airplanes they have the most dislike for. ?? And no airplane is from X country. The components and systems are world wide. It has been that way for a long time but it frequently is Airbus vs. Boeing. I read an email a while back from some guy with a bazillion type ratings and a gazillion hours talking about airplanes and he noted the A330 was a real flying coffin. But he also mentioned he had been on the A330 for a number of years and had thousands of hours flying it. What guy flies a death trap for thousands of hours IF he really believes it is a death trap? Something escapes me.

And the guy who salvages airplanes and all the 'buses come in just about to fall apart'. Does anyone really think that any company can sell a product with a short life span in today's environment without suffering signif consequences in sales? I don't. There is TOO much info readily available.

11Fan

No intent to diminish the 320 whatsoever as I have no experience with them but having some OEM experience with the DC-9, I would suggest that while it was built to last, credit is due to NW for taking very good care of the aircraft. We typically use them as a benchmark for the life span of the twin-jet as well as all it's cousins over the years; 80, 90, 95 (717).

That said, NW had some superb maintenance and kept those birds flying. You could sense the pride in their work when you dealt with them. The same is true for everyone I have ever worked with at Delta as well.

FastDEW

III Corps,

I agree with your thoughts on this. However, I will point out that I believe the -9 has a longer life than most other birds out there. It seems that the number of cycles on many of the -9's would not be realistic on the 320 or even 737 for that matter based upon the data available.

As for the comments of the Bus tails falling off and the 330 being a death trap.... well that is just garbage talk. All of these planes, Boeing, Airbus, etc are very reliable and durable. They have to be due to regulation and because if the economics weren't so, the manufacturer could not sell them for 10's or even 100's of millions of dollars.

III Corps

The -9 is truly a remarkable airplane. We were in IND a few days ago and there was a 9-10 (the short one with no slats). It had to be one old dog but it was still in the hunt. I know some guys who flew that model and they said 1) it was a hot rod and joy to fly and 2) don't screw with ice when in a -9-10 model.

They also said the -9 was like a baseball bat; very simple, very effective and it was either good or broken. Like the 727, the -9 and the -80s I flew were very good at going down and slowing down. The other airliners I had the chance to fly paled in comparison and some didn't have that ability (go down/slow down at the same time).

The 737-300 was so bad that I never accepted a crossing clearance before doing a quick calc, especially if it included a speed restriction. More often than not I would ask, "Which one do you want.. unable both."

ToiletDuck

Lol no. Liquid metal was created by NASA, California Inst. of Tech, and the Department of Energy. The concept came around years ago but it was way to brittle. Recently they've made new developments that have made it capable of being molded like plastic, can handle high loads of stress without losing shape, and is over twice as strong as titanium. Here's a link.

NASA - Liquidmetal: Redefining Metals for the 21st Century

I stumbled across it one day. I think it's when HSLD posted a link to apply for pilot positions in NASA. I clicked on a few links while there and saw this. Looks promising.