Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:33 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Malcolm Weir) Organization: Little to None References: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
On 01 Jul 98 02:42:22 , Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) caused to appear as if it was written: >In article <airliners.1998.956@ohare.Chicago.COM>, >EHaase2463 <email@example.com> wrote: >>The June issue of World Airline Fleets states that Northwest estimates >>a 42 year life for 173 of its DC-9's and an even longer life for its >>DC-10's. The article indicates that the DC-9's may last for 15 more >>years and that DC-10 could fly 23 more years. Is it desirable and >>realistic for a major airline to keep its aircraft for so long? >NW made the statement during a time when Boeing and Airbus are heavily >pitching the B717 and A319M5, respectively, to NW. I think NW is >trying to tell the manufacturers that only if the price is right will >NW considering purchasing a 100-seat replacement. After all, NW >has another 15 years to make a decision (as the study shows), while >the B717 desperately needs a reputable customer and Airbus refuses to >let Boeing get too much ahead in the 100-seat market. NW is no doubt >in the driver's seat. I seriously doubt NW will keep the DC-9s for >another 15 years (i.e., I think NW is bluffing). What would the operating economies of a DC9 dragged into Stage 3 compliance look like compared to a new build aircraft? What are NW's options and obligations regarding Stage 3? As far as I know, there is a hushkit developed for the things by ABS Partnership, but I don't know how many DC9s need this... Malc.