Originally Posted by
Sabai
Can anyone please explain how a DC-9 is materiallly worse, from a passenger's point of view, than any of its progeny - the MD 80-90 series? I get it that everyone likes to knock NW's prescient decision to refurbish these virtually indestructible AC and spend their money on IT infrastructure (hmm, Douglas aircraft or DeltaMatic??) and they are less fuel efficient than newer planes. But once inside and seated (usually in F, in my case) how is flying in one materially inferior to a Mad Dog? (not talking IFE or carts in the aisle here)
To me it's like someone who owns a Mercury looking down on a Ford; it's the same bloody vehicle.
As a passenger, I don't differentiate between the two much. I've only been in F once on a (NW) DC-9, and it barely seemed to be anything more than EconomyPlus for me. I've sat in the last row multiple times on MD-80s and DC-9s, it's a pretty miserable experience. DC-9s seem to vibrate more and be louder in general; try having a conversation with an FA during a powerback taxi. On the upside, they seem to deboard/board quicker than an MD-80. Other than that, the two are pretty much the same to me. I simply prefer the A320 or 737. But, it's not like I despise the DC-9 as to plan my itinerary to avoid it. Quite the opposite, I enjoy flying on it while I still have the chance. ^ So when I say I love to hate the DC-9 series, I encompass DC-9-10s through DC-9-80s.
Technologically, I love the DC-9 since it's one of the few airplanes anymore that you can't simply program, takeoff, and wait.