SAD day at HAWAIIAN Airlines! No more DC-10's!!!

[Guest HeavyFan]

WOW!Actually i am the one that is very SAD!! Just seen on the local news here in Honolulu, that Hawaiian Retitred thier Last remaning DC-10 today!! The last DC-10 flight arrived from L.A today as Flt#1! Man I rode on these DC-10's a couple of times during the trips to VEGAS, L.A! I am really going to miss these AWESOME SHiny Tri-Jets!!-:( there are not too many that fly to HNL Intl anymore except for the Northwest and Omni Air International DC-10's and the occasional FED EX DC-10. but thats it, all are now 767's and 777's! never been on either of these new jets yet! But I am still fond of the ole DC-10! I will miss them greatly! RIP HA DC-10! MIKE-:(

[Guest]

I was wondering why I haven't seen the Hawaiian DC-10 at KPDX lately..Guess that explains why.Thanks for the info.. I'm going to miss them too.

[Guest DanWalloch]

Darn....no more gas guzzling, steel tubes..... :-) I'm just play'n with you. I know how you feel, northwest only runs their dc-10s into milwaukee during the summer, I love watching them waddle their way down the runway and slowly crawl up into the skies.

[Guest]

Yeah am also very sad to see them go i loved watching the hawaiian Dc10 when i was at hnl and las :( :( such a great looking aircraft now all planes look the same :-grr

[Guest HeavyFan]

Glad i am not the only one who feels SAD with this news! -:(

[Guest]

Same here, I felt the same when United retired their DC-10s and Delta their L-1011s. :-fume

[Guest]

I once flew the Scandinavian polar route from Copenhagen to Anchorage in their last DC-10. (1993) What a beast and what a ride, why are they scrapping them? Too expensive?-halabraham

[Guest HeavyFan]

I hope they don't get scraped! But yeah they are replacing the DC-10's with newer more Fuel Efficient 767-300ER's! Like everyone else has! at least United still uses some 777's to HNL, while all the rest are 767's and 757's! kinda scary to fly a narrowbody samller twin engine plane for 5 1/2 hours to the mainland!-:(

[brucek 38]

Hi,I agree- a sad testimony to progress...Regarding the fuel efficiency- I really wonder about that. I did read recently on a real airline forum that, as the B763's are much slower than the DC-10 (which is something akin to a Ferrarri in performance, along with the B74, for that type of transport), that crews are now having to lay over to meet the maximum daily flying duty time provisions- I believe on the PHNL-KLAX routes. I gather that a crew of 3 could make a round trip in the given time (I assume 8 hours flying time?), but the B763 doesn't. Of course, the other side of that is that the -10 has 3 flight crew members.I do economic analysis for a living, and I always wonder- especially now with some of the majors in deep trouble. It's one thing to be concerned about the fuel economy and crew costs. But there's also a huge "cost of ownership" for a newer model too- which could come in the form of a loan, a lease, or just lost interest in the bank and inflexibity. One major airline has the debt repayment wolves at the door, and given the amount of new equipment it purchased in the good times, a lot of that debt has to be capital purchases. I often wonder if anyone looks at that, rather than the operating costs and fancy designs of new a/c? It's a mistake to think of large capital purchases as "one time", as they all have this "cost of ownership" that stays around for a significant time.Bruce.

[Guest]

Thanks for brining that up bruce i always wonderd about that stuff.

[Guest]

Lucky people at Hawaiian !!!I'm with an outfit in the UK that still flies 10-10's. Everyday I go to work I hope to hear they have been retired or up for the axe man...in which case I might finally get my flight deck section for the garden and a great home for simming.CheersWaco

[Guest cw1011]

Well, I think a quick visit to HA's website and annual report is instructive and gives a very good picture at how complicated this calculus really is. First, the biggest operating expenses for the airline (like all airlines) is wages/benefits at $189 million, follwed by fuel at $112 million and mainenance at $99 million for the year 2001. Rentals and landing fees, where lease payments for airplanes is recognized, was $61 million, a big jump from $39 million the year following due mainly to the acquisition in 2001 of an additional DC10, plus the airline's new 717 fleet. Interest costs are a miniscule $2.2 million.This is consistent with other airlines. Check AMR's 2001 annual report. Similar percentages. Using these as baselines, let's say you are able to reduce fuel consumption by 20% by going to one third fewer engines for transpacific flights and with the more fuel efficient 717s between the islands. The savings may be greater - their old fleet was designed in the 1950s and 60s, when gas was really cheap. That would cut $22 million from your fuel costs in 2001. Now let's say the newer planes reduce maintenance costs by 15% as well. Newer planes break less frequently than older planes, parts are more plentiful, and two engines are cheaper to maintain than three on the long haul planes. That saves you another $15 million. So, just from maintenance and fuel savings, we've cut $37 million from those expense lines. Let's say that the new airplanes also help reduce labor costs by 10% by eliminating the third guy from all trans pac flights and probably having to have fewer maintenance calls on the ramp. There's another $9 million in savings. So, we've now hit $46 million in savings from moderinization. That's a lot of room to take up higher lease payments. Look at the difference between 2000 and 2001 for rental and lease expenses and you can see how this probably makes sense. Yes, they did increase by about $20 million, becuase of the acquisition of the 717 fleet. That's half their airplanes. I don't know how much the 767ERs will be in comparison to the DC-10s, but if you read the notes, the DC-10s were leased as well and it looks like they were not cheap airplanes. It does not look like HA had any airplanes "paid off" or free in clear. Then you also have to take into consideration other benefits of new airplanes. I'm guessing the 767ERs will go down far less frequently than the old DC-10s, and the 717s than the old DC9 51s. That means huge savings in airport costs (think about having to re-book 350 passengers when your DC-10 goes down and can't make the flight), much less fluctuation in revenue and better customer service overall. Also, both the DC9-51s and the DC-10s were at the end of their service lives. I took my first ride on a DC10 in 1973. The plane has been flying revenue routes for 30 years+. This increases your insurance costs becuase of higher risk of of catastrophic airframe or engine failure. Also, as these planes are phased out of everybody's fleet, parts become less widely available, further adding to the potential for maintenance issues disrupting your flight schedule. Neat stuff. I think the majors like UAL got into trouble not becuase they invested in too many new airplanes, but because they didn't cut the old ones agressively when they did, and ended up with far to many airframes. It was estimated that UAL even during the boom times, had huge overcapacity and absolutely terrible assett utilization (both planes and drivers).So, I'm sad to see the DC-10 fly off into the sunset, just as I'm sad to see the 727 go. But they had their time, they served their purposes, just as the 707s, the Connies and the DC-4-7s did before them.

[brucek 38]

Some interesting facts there :)Once you factor industry specific factors into the equation it gets more real. I certainly agree with you on the over-capacity of UA, especially the older a/c. The UA story may be required reading for business majors at college one day (of course no-one will recall what "UA" is :) ......Bruce.

[Mike S KPDX 597]

now that you mention it I have not seen it either, that one single plane has been a fixture out at the end of the KPDX concourse for many years. I have three trips on it out to the islands. I will have to keep an eye out for its replacement.

[Guest imemyself]

It seems like the couple years or so a lot of a/c have been phased out of sevice in atleast US major airlines.