I think you have that backwards. Delta is getting all of AirTran's 717's because Southwest doesn't want them. Southwest only wants to operate 737's to keep their operating costs down.  Boeing inherited the MD-95 program when they bought McDonnell Douglas. Since the design was pretty much finished they decided to continue and produce the airplane and designated it the 717 since they skipped over it in the past. They dropped the program because it was too similar to the 737-600 and didn't want to undermine their own product.

 

That's why its IRONIC, initially Delta sold AirTran most of those 717's, now they are buying them back, if that's not a spitting image of irony I don't know what is..

That's why its IRONIC, initially Delta sold AirTran most of those 717's, now they are buying them back, if that's not a spitting image of irony I don't know what is..

 

Delta never operated the 717 in the past.  They did sell a bunch of DC-9-30's to ValuJet (who later became AirTran), but the 88 717's they are leasing from Southwest will be the first time Delta had the 717.

Delta never operated the 717 in the past.  They did sell a bunch of DC-9-30's to ValuJet (who later became AirTran), but the 88 717's they are leasing from Southwest will be the first time Delta had the 717.

 

Oh crap, I was thinking of the MD-90's they had and still have, d**n it....

This story brings back my memories of flying on a Delta MD-90 in summer 2011, probably my first and last time on the Maddog.   The leg was KPHL to KMSP, and KMSP to KSJC.   At KMSP, there was a slight delay due to technical issues, and after the captain of the flight made his announcement to the passengers at the gate, we had a brief talk about the old bird.  He mentioned that the aircraft is so aerodynamic, flaps/slats have to be dropped as early as 250kts during approach!    Also, with the engines at the back the cabin was much quieter than most airliners with wing mounted engines.

 

I've followed the fleet changes at Delta, and was sad to see the DC-9 40/50 retired, but when I see the 717 in DL colors, it looks almost identical from a distance.  I remember thinking about picking up the Leonardo MD-80, but I didn't feel like learning about a new aircraft when the PMDG NGX was due to arrive so shortly. 

This story brings back my memories of flying on a Delta MD-90 in summer 2011, probably my first and last time on the Maddog.   The leg was KPHL to KMSP, and KMSP to KSJC.   At KMSP, there was a slight delay due to technical issues, and after the captain of the flight made his announcement to the passengers at the gate, we had a brief talk about the old bird.  He mentioned that the aircraft is so aerodynamic, flaps/slats have to be dropped as early as 250kts during approach!    Also, with the engines at the back the cabin was much quieter than most airliners with wing mounted engines.

 

I've followed the fleet changes at Delta, and was sad to see the DC-9 40/50 retired, but when I see the 717 in DL colors, it looks almost identical from a distance.  I remember thinking about picking up the Leonardo MD-80, but I didn't feel like learning about a new aircraft when the PMDG NGX was due to arrive so shortly. 

 

TDFI has a 717-200 in the works, next best thing to an MD-90-30, in fact its a direct upgrade, it is on my "TO BUY" list for sure.

Well I learned quite a lot from my post, with some insightful information from the folks here and I thank you.  Probably the most adventurous leg of my journey was the approach into KGRR.  I'd never been there before, but I guess they get some decent winds and while on approach, that MD-88 was buffeted around a lot, not to mention the short approach turn it made so like I said before, I felt like I was on the Millennium Falcon.  That "bucket of bolts" held it's own and those engines, I have to say those engines were pretty hardcore for a smaller aircraft.  The sound and power alone was an adrenalin rush.

 

If I had it to do over again, I would have chosen my own flights as it never made sense to me to fly to Atlanta to get to Michigan.  For a couple hundred bucks more, I could have gotten a direct flight from KIAD to KGRR.  I will admit though, I had a little fun on the trip.  Last Friday was my B-Day and the thought of having to sit in economy on a packed flight didn't sit well with me (pun intended) so I upgraded to first class, which was the first time ever flying first class.  Needless to say, my upgrade only applied to the KATL to KIAD leg, so the flight was short.  Overall, it was a "meh" experience, nothing special or at least, not as special as I would have expected.  Then again, this was a short hop flight.  The seats in 1st class were nice and wide (I tend to get a little claustrophobic on small aircraft).  The flight attendant was cool (you should have been there for the off comment a passenger made to her and how she  handled it was very professional but stern).  Had a couple of drinks but otherwise, the flight wasn't anything special enough worth noting.

 

I did forget to state that the leg from KGRR to KATL was especially interesting as I was seating in the very very back of the plane...any further and I would have been seated in the lavatory.  I never sat that far back before, but the cool thing was that I could chat with the flight attendant.  I made a comment about her flight manual (thicker than the holy bible) and she mentioned that Delta crews were getting tablets soon.  The pilots and co-pilots already have theirs.  She also said that when the FAA releases addendums and other info, the flight attendants MUST keep their bible up to date constantly or there is a hefty fine from the FAA, something like a $1000 per flight that didn't have the update and you have to write a check immediately...thought that sounded odd, but then again, safety is a major concern. 

 

I am looking forward to flying again in October when the wife and I take a one week vacation to London with a day in Paris.  I DO plan on picking my flights based on aircraft.  I want to fly on the 777 and the A380...two of my favorite aircraft.

Hi Jim

 

If you are planning a trip to the UK In October, you might look into either BA, or Air France, or Lufthansa for your A380 dream.

 

I was fortunate that I chose the right flight from Dubai, on Emirates and fulfilled my dream of a 777-300ER/A380 combo.

Personally, I was a bit uneasy the last time I flew on an MD-80, and that was 6 years ago.  These have been fantastic aircraft since they went into service 34 years ago, but they are getting pretty old.  You can't really compare these jetliners to the old DC-3s, for example, and say that they are still flying after 80 years.  The fuselage can only withstand so many pressurization and depressurization cycles before it begins to weaken due to metal fatigue, and 30+ years is a lot of those cycles.  Sure, with careful maintenance and inspections these aircraft can probably continue flying for many years, but I'd still feel a bit safer on a newer aircraft.  The older mechanical and electrical parts get, the greater the chance they will fail.

Personally, I was a bit uneasy the last time I flew on an MD-80, and that was 6 years ago.  These have been fantastic aircraft since they went into service 34 years ago, but they are getting pretty old.  You can't really compare these jetliners to the old DC-3s, for example, and say that they are still flying after 80 years.  The fuselage can only withstand so many pressurization and depressurization cycles before it begins to weaken due to metal fatigue, and 30+ years is a lot of those cycles.  Sure, with careful maintenance and inspections these aircraft can probably continue flying for many years, but I'd still feel a bit safer on a newer aircraft.  The older mechanical and electrical parts get, the greater the chance they will fail.

You do realize that the youngest MD-80 is only about 15 years old right? There are probably many 737NGs still flying which are older than the youngest MD-80s. There are still 737 Classics flying around. There are 777s which are older than MD-80s flying, and many many 747s too. The same would go for many Airbus variants.

 

I think this is a case of making totally irrational gut based conclusions about the safety of an aircraft because of the perceived age of it, when if you look at it its not that old, and there are many many aircraft which people would have confidence in which are much older and still flying and which have considerably worse safety records.

 

There's the fear that MD-80s could stop being safe versus clear realities that if you flew exclusively on MD-80s you'd be statistically safer. The flying public is honestly ill equipped to make much in the way of an informed decision about airline safety.

 

Fact remains that the biggest threat to your safety in the air isn't the airframe itself, but the safety culture of the company which is responsible for training and hiring the flight crews and maintenance personnel. Criminal neglect in maintenance has probably alone killed more MD-80 passengers than anything else. I think sometimes too much focus is put on the airframe when in reality the thing that makes aircraft fly and not crash these days are people. The safest aircraft can be crashed by incompetence. I believe there was an Indonesian airline that crashed a brand new 737NG with not even a hundred hours on the airframe.

The Mad Dog is performing an important role in the short to medium haul routes, otherwise they would have been replaced a long time ago.  With engine upgrades and avionics upgrades, the airframe is able to maintain it's relevancy.  Not a RW pilot, but I love flying them in FSX (I fly the Flight one Coolsky McPhat UHD MD-80) and I love flying in them when I travel.  

You do realize that the youngest MD-80 is only about 15 years old right? There are probably many 737NGs still flying which are older than the youngest MD-80s. There are still 737 Classics flying around. There are 777s which are older than MD-80s flying, and many many 747s too. The same would go for many Airbus variants.

 

I think this is a case of making totally irrational gut based conclusions about the safety of an aircraft because of the perceived age of it, when if you look at it its not that old, and there are many many aircraft which people would have confidence in which are much older and still flying and which have considerably worse safety records.

 

There's the fear that MD-80s could stop being safe versus clear realities that if you flew exclusively on MD-80s you'd be statistically safer. The flying public is honestly ill equipped to make much in the way of an informed decision about airline safety.

 

Fact remains that the biggest threat to your safety in the air isn't the airframe itself, but the safety culture of the company which is responsible for training and hiring the flight crews and maintenance personnel. Criminal neglect in maintenance has probably alone killed more MD-80 passengers than anything else. I think sometimes too much focus is put on the airframe when in reality the thing that makes aircraft fly and not crash these days are people. The safest aircraft can be crashed by incompetence. I believe there was an Indonesian airline that crashed a brand new 737NG with not even a hundred hours on the airframe.

The discussion here was about the MD-80, hence I didn't mention other aircraft.  Most MD-80s are significantly older than 15 years, by the way.

 

I also didn't make any conclusions about the safety of the MD-80.  I simply said I was a bit uneasy flying on it and that I'd prefer to fly on a newer aircraft.

 

The older a machine is, the greater the chance that it will suffer a failure; there's no getting around that fact. 

 

If you choose to have faith that the airlines can be trusted to ensure that their older aircraft are safe and airworthy, then you're a whole lot more trusting than I am.

Its interesting to note that when you examine the MD-80s safety record I can't find a single instance where the aircraft itself was the cause of the crash except in cases of a failure to perform correct maintenance or to operate the aircraft properly. Pilot Error, gross negligence, and corporate culture seem to be the focus of all MD-80 family crashes and when you look at the rate of incidents it seems that the rate has gone up greatly since the bulk of the fleet has been sold off to the "second rate" airline companies who have significantly lower safety standards, training, etc.

 

Observing crashes and incidents involving "new" aircraft in the western world with the "first rate" operators there have been cases of aircraft, very new aircraft I might add, which have failed and these aircraft have been newer than MD-80s. I mean you want to fly on a brand new aircraft? Not much newer out there than the lovely modern sexy sensual lines of the 787 Dreamliner. However passengers of this modern marvel may have experienced in flight fires owing to batteries. 777 passengers at one point faced fuel icing problems. 737s have had rudder issues. All of these things are design problems, all of these things have been apparent in young airframes.

 

When you look at the data its hard to rationalize a reason for thinking being in an older MD-80 is on any level actually dangerous. If anything the maturity of the aircraft's design, its proven history shows that its loath to fail unless its human minders are negligent, underpaid or undertrained. I think airframe age is much ado about nothing provided its been designed by the right people and maintained by the right people and is being operated by the right people.

 

If its just about irrational emotional responses then feel free to be irrational. It'll give you better peace of mind I guess and generally speaking even the most dangerous airframe isn't likely to kill you, statistically that is.

I work with them everyday and I can agree with you. Some of them look quite worn out and need to be replaced. But it's a good thing that my airline is getting more 717's soon. Also a bit old but better IMHO.

One of the main reasons I don't use American is because of their massive fleet of MD80s.  Once they replace them with A319s I will probably start booking more flights.  Until then I prefer to hitch a ride with the United A320s and 737 NGs.  Love the United fleet... got two unique planes coming up in October that will be fun... 757-300 from Houston to LA and then the brand new 787-9 from LA to Houston.

Deaf ears I guess.

 

Go talk to the USAF. They use lots of aircraft that are much much older than MD-80s and they dont' crash every 5 minutes and they fly them as hard if not harder. You can't find an F-22 airborne without an E3 Sentry nearby which is just a Boeing 707.

 

Meanwhile United passengers have faced the 737 Rudder issue and the 787 battery issue.

 

The only reason to not want to fly on an American Airlines MD-80s is because you think they don't maintain them properly or perform routine inspections which would reveal whether the aircraft is no longer airworthy and should be replaced. If however you think they do their jobs properly and within regs I would assume then that you're under the impression that perfectly well maintained aircraft with impeccable safety histories which have been examined and determined to still be airworthy must spontaneously erupt in disaster once they reach an arbitrary age owing to... uh what i can only presume would be a computer game like random incident generator that is trigger after 20 years of service.

 

Why bother.