Non NW Flyer Observations Re NW Fleet
Dec 15, 2004, 10:05 am
#16
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 8,222
Keep the DC 9 flying. As mentioned earlier, they beat the RJ any day of the week. Never set foot on the DC-10. Flew on the A330 to AMS and it rocked. The A320 are fine with me as well, F seats are comfy and the footrests are wonderful as well. Long live the DC9!!!
Dec 16, 2004, 11:55 pm
#17
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: TPA, PHL
Programs: NW: SE & WC
Posts: 2,136
Originally Posted by socrates
You forgot to add "and beat an RJ any day"
Don't get me wrong, I still love those 9s, but the RJ-85 is just great!
Northwest Jet Airlink - Avro Aerospace Regional Jet RJ-85 Seat Specifications:
First Class Rows 1 - 4 Seat Width 21" Seat Pitch 37"
Coach Class Rows 5 - 15 Seat Width 19" Seat Pitch 33"
Northwest Airlines DC9-50 Seat Specifications:
First Class Rows 1 - 4 Seat Width 19.5" Seat Pitch 34"
Coach Class Rows 5 - 26 Seat Width 17.05" Seat Pitch 30-31"
-Ed
Dec 17, 2004, 1:29 am
#18
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: TPA, PHL
Programs: NW: SE & WC
Posts: 2,136
Corrected link: NorthWests OLD raggedy planes-time to retire?!
Originally Posted by themicah
This comes up a fair amount.
See also:
NorthWests OLD raggedy planes-time to retire?!
The Aging of Northwest's Fleet
Personally, the only thing that bothers me about flying old planes is fuel efficiency. I've read that even 744's use significantly more fuel/pax than 777's (to say nothing of 742's), and the environmental and geopolitical consequences of that bug me. In terms of safety and comfort, I have no problems. I've never really found NW's planes to feel raggety at all, and I think the average flyer who doesn't know a DC10 from a 777 would be hard-pressed to tell the difference (except maybe for the IFE).
And speaking of IFE, I actually really like that NW and KL have all these old PTV-less planes running transoceanic flights, b/c I _hate_ all the space encroachments of the IFE equipment (boxes under the seats, overheads filled with equipment, monitors in my face, etc.). Given the choice between a NW DC10 and a CO or UA 777 with personal video, I'll take the old plane any day.
See also:
NorthWests OLD raggedy planes-time to retire?!
The Aging of Northwest's Fleet
Personally, the only thing that bothers me about flying old planes is fuel efficiency. I've read that even 744's use significantly more fuel/pax than 777's (to say nothing of 742's), and the environmental and geopolitical consequences of that bug me. In terms of safety and comfort, I have no problems. I've never really found NW's planes to feel raggety at all, and I think the average flyer who doesn't know a DC10 from a 777 would be hard-pressed to tell the difference (except maybe for the IFE).
And speaking of IFE, I actually really like that NW and KL have all these old PTV-less planes running transoceanic flights, b/c I _hate_ all the space encroachments of the IFE equipment (boxes under the seats, overheads filled with equipment, monitors in my face, etc.). Given the choice between a NW DC10 and a CO or UA 777 with personal video, I'll take the old plane any day.
Bad link on that post (went to BA thread because the link was missing the last "1"). Corrected link: NorthWests OLD raggedy planes-time to retire?!
-Ed
Last edited by ed1; Dec 17, 2004 at 6:38 am Reason: add title
Dec 17, 2004, 1:37 am
#19
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 5,305
Originally Posted by santo
DC10: Cruising Speed 550 mph
A330-300/200: Cruising Speed 545 mph
A330-300/200: Cruising Speed 545 mph
only thing faster is a B747-400
Dec 17, 2004, 6:36 am
#20
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alexandria, VA, USA NW Platinum Elite Since 1999, United GoldMM, Hyatt Plat, SPG Gold, Hilton Gold, Hertz #1 Gold, IC Ambassador, Avis Chairman's
Posts: 7,445
Originally Posted by Jimbo
Hi all,... does NW have any plans to update its fleet?
Dec 17, 2004, 6:51 am
#21
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: GSP (Greenville, SC)
Programs: DL Gold Medallion; UA Premier Executive; WN sub-CP; AA sub-Gold
Posts: 13,393
Weren't the DC-9's re-engined not too long ago?
If so, that plus a new interior means they're really not that old at all. Imagine taking a 1965 Mustang and replacing the engine and interior -- it would be a '65 Mustang in name only.
IMHO, we will never experience 40-year old Airbus fly-by-wire aircraft because they will be in the trash heap by then (can't even turn them into beer cans because they're plastic). Boeing, maybe, but a 40 year old A320? Ha! Even their A300 is a pile of junk, and it's not even fly-by-wire.
If so, that plus a new interior means they're really not that old at all. Imagine taking a 1965 Mustang and replacing the engine and interior -- it would be a '65 Mustang in name only.
IMHO, we will never experience 40-year old Airbus fly-by-wire aircraft because they will be in the trash heap by then (can't even turn them into beer cans because they're plastic). Boeing, maybe, but a 40 year old A320? Ha! Even their A300 is a pile of junk, and it's not even fly-by-wire.
Dec 18, 2004, 4:14 pm
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Some place in this wonderful world (usually at 39,000 ft in seat 1C)
Programs: CO Gold Elite / NW Gold Elite
Posts: 13,747
Originally Posted by ed1
While that's absolutely true of the CRJs, the RJ-85s are GREAT! They have the most comfortable coach seats in the fleet (almost as wide as the 9s F seats) and, while I haven't flow these in F yet, their specs are also better. The main reason is the plane can seat more, but to keep them as an RJ (AirLink), they had to limit the seating.
Don't get me wrong, I still love those 9s, but the RJ-85 is just great!
Northwest Jet Airlink - Avro Aerospace Regional Jet RJ-85 Seat Specifications:
First Class Rows 1 - 4 Seat Width 21" Seat Pitch 37"
Coach Class Rows 5 - 15 Seat Width 19" Seat Pitch 33"
Northwest Airlines DC9-50 Seat Specifications:
First Class Rows 1 - 4 Seat Width 19.5" Seat Pitch 34"
Coach Class Rows 5 - 26 Seat Width 17.05" Seat Pitch 30-31"
-Ed
Don't get me wrong, I still love those 9s, but the RJ-85 is just great!
Northwest Jet Airlink - Avro Aerospace Regional Jet RJ-85 Seat Specifications:
First Class Rows 1 - 4 Seat Width 21" Seat Pitch 37"
Coach Class Rows 5 - 15 Seat Width 19" Seat Pitch 33"
Northwest Airlines DC9-50 Seat Specifications:
First Class Rows 1 - 4 Seat Width 19.5" Seat Pitch 34"
Coach Class Rows 5 - 26 Seat Width 17.05" Seat Pitch 30-31"
-Ed
Dec 18, 2004, 4:16 pm
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Some place in this wonderful world (usually at 39,000 ft in seat 1C)
Programs: CO Gold Elite / NW Gold Elite
Posts: 13,747
Originally Posted by JS
Weren't the DC-9's re-engined not too long ago?
If so, that plus a new interior means they're really not that old at all. Imagine taking a 1965 Mustang and replacing the engine and interior -- it would be a '65 Mustang in name only.
IMHO, we will never experience 40-year old Airbus fly-by-wire aircraft because they will be in the trash heap by then (can't even turn them into beer cans because they're plastic). Boeing, maybe, but a 40 year old A320? Ha! Even their A300 is a pile of junk, and it's not even fly-by-wire.
If so, that plus a new interior means they're really not that old at all. Imagine taking a 1965 Mustang and replacing the engine and interior -- it would be a '65 Mustang in name only.
IMHO, we will never experience 40-year old Airbus fly-by-wire aircraft because they will be in the trash heap by then (can't even turn them into beer cans because they're plastic). Boeing, maybe, but a 40 year old A320? Ha! Even their A300 is a pile of junk, and it's not even fly-by-wire.
Dec 18, 2004, 10:50 pm
#24
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: TPA, PHL
Programs: NW: SE & WC
Posts: 2,136
Originally Posted by socrates
I've been in coach & F on the 85 and yes your correct they are great...but there isn't enough of them and their days with F might be numbered or at least NWA ALPA would like to take them over...has been some rumors about NWA Alpa flying them versus Mesaba Alpa which would then allow NW to make them all coach....but rumor only (and it's been around for a while)
-Ed
Dec 18, 2004, 10:50 pm
#25
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: PBI
Posts: 754
Originally Posted by socrates
it was decided that a hush-kit was a better option over retirement/replacement
indeed. NWA was the laughing stock of the industry at the time because they decided to refurbish the DC-9's i.s.o. replacing them with brand new a/c.
Well, it turns out it was a genius move by uncle Dasburg at the time.
Dec 19, 2004, 12:53 pm
#26
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,039
Jimbo,
I continue to wonder why many of FlyerTalk’s UA faithful make an issue of the age of NW’s fleet. Yes, the DC-9 were built in another era but the plans have modern, 717-like interiors (which makes the planes appear younger than say a 767 without the 777-style interior). Meanwhile, much of UA’s fleet is in dire need of refurbishment - the manner in which the airline regularly mixes seat cushions & seat backs of its old and new fabric colors should be considered embarrassing.
And while many FTers would like to see NW retire the DC-10 as well, I’d bet the airline’s marketing team wouldn’t. I guarantee you that an exterior shot of a DC-10 is a stronger marketing tool than that of a 777 (simply because the tri-jet design is much more recognized, having around much longer & incorporated as a jumbo jet emblem in drawings, tv, toys, etc.)
I continue to wonder why many of FlyerTalk’s UA faithful make an issue of the age of NW’s fleet. Yes, the DC-9 were built in another era but the plans have modern, 717-like interiors (which makes the planes appear younger than say a 767 without the 777-style interior). Meanwhile, much of UA’s fleet is in dire need of refurbishment - the manner in which the airline regularly mixes seat cushions & seat backs of its old and new fabric colors should be considered embarrassing.
And while many FTers would like to see NW retire the DC-10 as well, I’d bet the airline’s marketing team wouldn’t. I guarantee you that an exterior shot of a DC-10 is a stronger marketing tool than that of a 777 (simply because the tri-jet design is much more recognized, having around much longer & incorporated as a jumbo jet emblem in drawings, tv, toys, etc.)
Dec 19, 2004, 8:54 pm
#27
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA UA Premier Plat , 1.24MM, AA EXP
Posts: 271
Originally Posted by Bagels
Jimbo,
I continue to wonder why many of FlyerTalk’s UA faithful make an issue of the age of NW’s fleet. Yes, the DC-9 were built in another era but the plans have modern, 717-like interiors (which makes the planes appear younger than say a 767 without the 777-style interior). Meanwhile, much of UA’s fleet is in dire need of refurbishment - the manner in which the airline regularly mixes seat cushions & seat backs of its old and new fabric colors should be considered embarrassing.
And while many FTers would like to see NW retire the DC-10 as well, I’d bet the airline’s marketing team wouldn’t. I guarantee you that an exterior shot of a DC-10 is a stronger marketing tool than that of a 777 (simply because the tri-jet design is much more recognized, having around much longer & incorporated as a jumbo jet emblem in drawings, tv, toys, etc.)
I continue to wonder why many of FlyerTalk’s UA faithful make an issue of the age of NW’s fleet. Yes, the DC-9 were built in another era but the plans have modern, 717-like interiors (which makes the planes appear younger than say a 767 without the 777-style interior). Meanwhile, much of UA’s fleet is in dire need of refurbishment - the manner in which the airline regularly mixes seat cushions & seat backs of its old and new fabric colors should be considered embarrassing.
And while many FTers would like to see NW retire the DC-10 as well, I’d bet the airline’s marketing team wouldn’t. I guarantee you that an exterior shot of a DC-10 is a stronger marketing tool than that of a 777 (simply because the tri-jet design is much more recognized, having around much longer & incorporated as a jumbo jet emblem in drawings, tv, toys, etc.)
Dec 19, 2004, 9:35 pm
#28
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 51
Defending the NW fleet
I sure someone has mentioned that the DC9 fleet has been rebuilt COMPLETELY. The avionics is still dated, but I feel much better on a DC9 that one of UA's 737s. Yes, some of the A320s are getting old, but NW maintains their aircraft well.
My cousin is an AA pilot. He and his other pilot friends prefer the older birds since the bugs have been worked out of them. If anything, they are more dubious of newer Airbus designs (since testimony in the Airbus/AA lawsuit revealed that Airbus lied about the stress-testing of their aircraft).
My cousin is an AA pilot. He and his other pilot friends prefer the older birds since the bugs have been worked out of them. If anything, they are more dubious of newer Airbus designs (since testimony in the Airbus/AA lawsuit revealed that Airbus lied about the stress-testing of their aircraft).
Dec 19, 2004, 11:08 pm
#29
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,039
Jimbo,
You didn’t offend me. Actually, I’m amused that so many obsess with the age of an aircraft.
- Many FTers advocate that CO retire its 735, even though several of them are younger than its 737NG (and the oldest only 4-years-older).
- A two-year-old UA 763 looks older than a nine-year-old UA 777 simply because it has an older interior design.
- Even though WN’s installing new seats into its 733/735, the overall interiors appear much, much, much older than CO’s versions of the jets that are about the same age.
- While it may seem the high, curved ceilings on NW’s rebuilt DC-9 may not make much of a difference, try looking at the ceiling on an AA MD-80 for awhile!!
It’s not the age of an airplane that makes its interior look old - it’s the airline caring for it.
You didn’t offend me. Actually, I’m amused that so many obsess with the age of an aircraft.
- Many FTers advocate that CO retire its 735, even though several of them are younger than its 737NG (and the oldest only 4-years-older).
- A two-year-old UA 763 looks older than a nine-year-old UA 777 simply because it has an older interior design.
- Even though WN’s installing new seats into its 733/735, the overall interiors appear much, much, much older than CO’s versions of the jets that are about the same age.
- While it may seem the high, curved ceilings on NW’s rebuilt DC-9 may not make much of a difference, try looking at the ceiling on an AA MD-80 for awhile!!
It’s not the age of an airplane that makes its interior look old - it’s the airline caring for it.
Dec 19, 2004, 11:25 pm
#30
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 5,075
Originally Posted by Bagels
And while many FTers would like to see NW retire the DC-10 as well, I’d bet the airline’s marketing team wouldn’t. I guarantee you that an exterior shot of a DC-10 is a stronger marketing tool than that of a 777 (simply because the tri-jet design is much more recognized, having around much longer & incorporated as a jumbo jet emblem in drawings, tv, toys, etc.)