Quote:
As was said in the crewroom they are after all 115 or 116 MD90s in existence including the Saudi's with the 717-LIKE cockpit.
According to this the $60M 160 pax 738 burns 7611 lbs on a 500nm trip, the also 160 pax but $8-12M and 10-14 year old MD90 burns 7800 lbs and the 8600 lbs or about 150 gal more for a total cost of somewhere around $330 more at $2.2/gal. Thus, the question is and seems to already be answered, put the MD80s on the shorter range flights and 737s on the longer and thus do you have enough 737s given your huge fleet of 757s? I think nothing will be done until there is a Boeing replacement, just hope the Boeing replacement is worth the wait.
Source: Similar Aircraft Comparisons Chart
I had no idea the the MD90s were so efficient, maybe Delta should have kept their MD90 plan a little more quite, wouldn't want American getting any ideas.Originally Posted by forgot to bid
They won't move until there is a better option then cheap MD equipment and super efficient MD90s. Someone mentioned one of the things the DC-9-50 has going for it is not only is it paid for but the engines are dirt cheap which according to them offsets fuel inefficiency especially divided out over its 125 seat frame. As was said in the crewroom they are after all 115 or 116 MD90s in existence including the Saudi's with the 717-LIKE cockpit.
According to this the $60M 160 pax 738 burns 7611 lbs on a 500nm trip, the also 160 pax but $8-12M and 10-14 year old MD90 burns 7800 lbs and the 8600 lbs or about 150 gal more for a total cost of somewhere around $330 more at $2.2/gal. Thus, the question is and seems to already be answered, put the MD80s on the shorter range flights and 737s on the longer and thus do you have enough 737s given your huge fleet of 757s? I think nothing will be done until there is a Boeing replacement, just hope the Boeing replacement is worth the wait.
Source: Similar Aircraft Comparisons Chart