Another broken MD-80
Feb 13, 2008, 3:05 pm
#31
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Programs: AS MVP, Elevate, AAdvantage, Mileage Plus
Posts: 1,992
The bulkhead row 6 on the MD-80 has pretty good legroom...better than on some other planes. I don't think there is any more legroom in the bulkhead row of F compared to the bulkhead row of Y, possibly even less. If you sit in 6c, you can extend your legs into F since the bulkhead does not go all the way to the aisle. The exit rows (21 and 22) are also good. Avoid 21A and F if you want to recline.
I always found the AS MD-80 seats to be pretty comfortable, especially in F.
I always found the AS MD-80 seats to be pretty comfortable, especially in F.
Feb 13, 2008, 3:07 pm
#32
Moderator Communications Coordinator, Signatures
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: deep within the Eskimo lair
Programs: TubWorld, Bar Alliance, Borratxo Legendarium
Posts: 16,968
Feb 14, 2008, 10:28 am
#34
Join Date: Apr 2007
Programs: Alaska Airlines MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 475
Feb 21, 2008, 3:20 am
#35
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend, Moderator, Information Desk, Ambassador, Alaska Airlines
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: FAI
Programs: AS MVP Gold100K, AS 1MM, Maika`i Card, AGR, HH Gold, Hertz PC, Marriott Titanium LTG, CO, 7H, BA, 8E
Posts: 42,958
For me, as far forward as you can get on the port side. Starboard is 3 seats across, port is 2 seats and there's a steadily increasing gradient of noise and smell as you move aft towards the engines/lavs. That said, some folks prefer to be near the wing since there's generally less motion near the center of lift. That puts the sweet spot around row 12 unless you're in FC.
The bulkhead row 6 on the MD-80 has pretty good legroom...better than on some other planes. I don't think there is any more legroom in the bulkhead row of F compared to the bulkhead row of Y, possibly even less. If you sit in 6c, you can extend your legs into F since the bulkhead does not go all the way to the aisle. The exit rows (21 and 22) are also good. Avoid 21A and F if you want to recline.
I always found the AS MD-80 seats to be pretty comfortable, especially in F.
I always found the AS MD-80 seats to be pretty comfortable, especially in F.
Feb 21, 2008, 7:13 am
#36
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hollywood, Florida
Programs: US Dividend Miles/NW World Perks
Posts: 184
The MD80 is by far my favorite short haul plane, I'll get on one of those before a 737-300/400 any day. When I flew Alaska routinely I always chose the MD80 over the 737. A very cool plane.
Feb 22, 2008, 9:09 am
#37
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SW Washington
Programs: Marriott Plat, Delta Platinum, Alaska Gold, HH Gold,
Posts: 50
Agreed. I am amazed at the number of people who like row 6. I can't stand it on either MD80s or 73's. I will also miss having the option of sitting two across when in coach. That was a nice feature. I know they are gas hogs but it does amaze me that there are several other airlines that use them (and their predescessor the DC9 or its replacement the 717) extensively and appear to be in no hurry to get rid of them.
Feb 28, 2008, 8:24 am
#38
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ketchikan, Alaska
Programs: GSA City-Pair; emeritus AS MVPG/UA 1K/US Plat, etc.
Posts: 2,635
I think they're letting these planes go to seed before they retire them. My SEA-OAK MD-80 flight this morning has been on a maintenance hold for the last 20 minutes, and it's looking like another 10 minutes at least, before we board.
Feb 28, 2008, 1:11 pm
#39
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Beaverton OR
Programs: GE, AA PLT/2.6MM, BR Gld, Royal Carib. DM+, Celebrity Elite, NCL PLT, Princess Elite
Posts: 1,643
So is aircraft 960 still at SFO? We were supposed to be on AS345 last Saturday (23Feb), and the crew boarded and immediately got off. I head the captain say "I'm not going to accept this aircraft." The GA responded with "that's what another captain told me yesterday." 
At least the GA protected me on QX a couple of hours later; the unfortunates were bussed to SJC. I know that 345 was cancelled on 22Feb, 23Feb, and 24Feb.
At least the GA protected me on QX a couple of hours later; the unfortunates were bussed to SJC. I know that 345 was cancelled on 22Feb, 23Feb, and 24Feb.
Feb 28, 2008, 2:16 pm
#40
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend, Moderator, Information Desk, Ambassador, Alaska Airlines
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: FAI
Programs: AS MVP Gold100K, AS 1MM, Maika`i Card, AGR, HH Gold, Hertz PC, Marriott Titanium LTG, CO, 7H, BA, 8E
Posts: 42,958
So is aircraft 960 still at SFO? We were supposed to be on AS345 last Saturday (23Feb), and the crew boarded and immediately got off. I head the captain say "I'm not going to accept this aircraft." The GA responded with "that's what another captain told me yesterday." At least the GA protected me on QX a couple of hours later; the unfortunates were bussed to SJC. I know that 345 was cancelled on 22Feb, 23Feb, and 24Feb.
At least the GA protected me on QX a couple of hours later; the unfortunates were bussed to SJC. I know that 345 was cancelled on 22Feb, 23Feb, and 24Feb.
Feb 28, 2008, 3:04 pm
#41
Join Date: Dec 2005
Programs: Alaska MVP
Posts: 413
I was just checking out space on flt 532 SEA-PSP for Sunday 3/2 and saw it is an MD-80, which seemed strange as I haven't seen one on that route for a long time. Did a look-back on FlightAware and see its a 737/Q during the week and an MD-80 on the weekends. Seems weird they would do that...
Feb 29, 2008, 12:34 am
#42
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SFO, mostly
Posts: 2,204
So is aircraft 960 still at SFO? We were supposed to be on AS345 last Saturday (23Feb), and the crew boarded and immediately got off. I head the captain say "I'm not going to accept this aircraft." The GA responded with "that's what another captain told me yesterday." At least the GA protected me on QX a couple of hours later; the unfortunates were bussed to SJC. I know that 345 was cancelled on 22Feb, 23Feb, and 24Feb.
At least the GA protected me on QX a couple of hours later; the unfortunates were bussed to SJC. I know that 345 was cancelled on 22Feb, 23Feb, and 24Feb.If AS were not in the middle of pilot pay negotiations right now, I would find it more concerning that different pilots on different dates were unwilling to accept an aircraft. However, I have actually been told by more than one gate agent in the past that there are some pilots "with a reputation" for excessive write-ups or otherwise trying to disrupt flights. Of course, it could well be that there was a legitimate reason for not accepting the aircraft...that's the problem with trying to play armchair expert. N.B. I don't think this is a widespread problem, and on-time performance has actually been improving the past several months.
Last edited by sltlyamusd; Feb 29, 2008 at 1:13 am
Feb 29, 2008, 11:57 am
#43
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Beaverton OR
Programs: GE, AA PLT/2.6MM, BR Gld, Royal Carib. DM+, Celebrity Elite, NCL PLT, Princess Elite
Posts: 1,643
I flew on aircraft 960 (the one with the plaque on the interior) on Monday, 25 Feb, between Oakland and Portland on AS 419. I do remember thinking it was odd to see a MD-80, since this flight was scheduled for a 737...they must have subbed it on the inbound from PDX. However, the flight operated on-time, and without issue. I also recall flying on the same aircraft last year between SEA and LAX, and the flight was also on-time and uneventful. I do remember one MD-80 flight I took last year where the pilot reminded us of the safety card in the seatback pocket prior to pushback and rather emphatically recommended we look over it! I actually thought it was good to remind us, since many people never bother to look, but I did think it was odd, since the flight attendant safety demo should be sufficient.
If AS were not in the middle of pilot pay negotiations right now, I would find it more concerning that different pilots on different dates were unwilling to accept an aircraft. However, I have actually been told by more than one gate agent in the past that there are some pilots "with a reputation" for excessive write-ups or otherwise trying to disrupt flights. Of course, it could well be that there was a legitimate reason for not accepting the aircraft...that's the problem with trying to play armchair expert. N.B. I don't think this is a widespread problem, and on-time performance has actually been improving the past several months.
If AS were not in the middle of pilot pay negotiations right now, I would find it more concerning that different pilots on different dates were unwilling to accept an aircraft. However, I have actually been told by more than one gate agent in the past that there are some pilots "with a reputation" for excessive write-ups or otherwise trying to disrupt flights. Of course, it could well be that there was a legitimate reason for not accepting the aircraft...that's the problem with trying to play armchair expert. N.B. I don't think this is a widespread problem, and on-time performance has actually been improving the past several months.
Feb 29, 2008, 4:39 pm
#45
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,959
Wow!!! This thread took a surprising (and unexpected!!!) turn. I have to say, as much as I really don't care for the MD80, I will be just a tiny bit sad to see them go. They take me back just a little to my Republic/Northwest days when we flew the DC9's. None the less, their day is over - it's time to let them retire to the desert or to where ever they plan on sending them.