Talk:McDonnell Douglas MD-80/MD-90

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Series

  • I believe the MD-90 and MD-95 were the only ones in the MD-90 series, so 'series' should be removed from the 'MD-90 series' and 'MD-95 series' section headers. Any arguement against this? Thanks.. -Fnlayson 23:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That's an entirely appropriate decision. I am even in favour of shortening down the whole MD-95 entry so that it basically refers to the Boeing-717 article and only says that the MD-95 was a drawing-board prototype of the B-717. No MD-95 ever flew under that designation, and the B-717 was in many respects (hyd and power systems etc.) a redesigned aircraft.Andeln 13:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The changes after it was renamed 717 in 1998 were minor overall. The MD-95 section has been shortened a couple times already. It's OK now. -Fnlayson 14:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further Split?

The rationale at Talk:McDonnell_Douglas_DC-9#Split was that because the MD-80 and MD-90 were different generation aircraft to the DC-9, they should be split from that article. Given the MD-90 could likewise be argued to be a different generation to the MD-80, albeit one which didn't meet the same success, I think we should split this article, and have one for the MD-80, and one for the MD-90 (and move all but the basic description of the MD-95 to the Boeing 717 article).--Nick Moss 00:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't think there's enough on the MD-90 to warrant it's own article. The MD-95 is part of the 90 series so it should be briefly covered. -Fnlayson 00:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought the same originally, but there is not enough information on the MD-90. Andros 1337 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I doubt there is enough to cover a second article.. I really think the MD-90 is just a sub type of the 80 series, and not differentiated enough to warrant its own article. --Cliffb 17:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • These aircraft are in the same series. If you look at the Boeing 737 and Airbus 320, you will find all of their variants under the same heading which is how this aircraft should be represented as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.176.3.38 (talk • contribs) .
  • Well there is a problem calling all of the aircraft in the same series, yes they share design elements, but the B707,B737, and B757 all share the same basic fuselage.. shouldn't they be in the same article? I think we need to generally follow the info that comes from the manufacturer when we have the content for it. I think we should keep the MD-90 info on this page because of the sparcity of information we have. Once we've got enough content to split the MD-90 into its own article I'm all for that, but right now, I think we need to stay with one article for the MD-80 and 90 --Cliffb 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Same basic fuselage for B707, B737 & B757? Maybe designed using similar methods but that's about it.. - Fnlayson 19:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, they share almost identical barrel sections. The 707, 727, 737 (but not 757) share a common fuselage cross section and were initially stretches/shrinks of each other. Notice that the cockpits and nose structures are identical as well. ericg ✈ 06:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Same basic fuselage sections for those, right. I knew the 757 was a newer design. -06:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the MD90 has a separate name is one factor to have a separate article. There are some passenger jets that have short entries. Archtrain 16:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MD-85

Is there such a thing as a Douglas MD-85? I never heard of it before but there it is on my flight itinerary. Btyner 00:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks like they skipped that year (MD-83 to -87). I tried an internet search and can't find anything on it, except one that menat MD-95. Maybe the MD-85 was a typo by the airline or somebody (??). -Fnlayson 05:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there's never been any MD-85. Only DC-9-81/82/83 & 87, plus MD-88. --EuroSprinter 16:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northwest As a Customer?

I thought that Northwest Airlines obtained all of its MD-80s from Republic Airlines. I believe now Northwest has retired its MD-80s and now operates DC-9s.

  • Get rid of generally newer planes and keep older ones? Sounds odd. -Fnlayson 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That's exactly what they did. As far as I know, the -80s were too large for the routes nwa was flying them on, and they wanted to unify maintenance. The -9s fit the bill better, and apparently the mx costs were about the same. ericg ✈ 03:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. A bit unusual but makes plenty of sense. -Fnlayson 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
        • NW had only a few MD-80s. Large airlines often don't want a small fleet of a certain type. NW also owns a lot of their DC-9. The planes are already paid for. No need to pay lease payments or other monthly payments. I read an article where a NW corporate officer said the planes are cheap to keep, just some higher maintainance costs. Archtrain 16:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Northwest got nine MD-82 when it merged with Republic. One was lost in a take off accident in 1987, and the remaining eight were put into storage during the last quarter of 1999. The list should be renamed to something like "Major operators" to really include all major operators, or both Northest and Allegiant should be removed from it as they never ordered any MD-80s from the manufacturer --EuroSprinter 16:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Representative photography?

Shouldn't this page picture an MD-80 series aircraft in the AA livery? Since American operates a good chunk of the entire DC-9 series aircraft produced, it seems like a truly representative article ought to have a picture of this model aircraft in AA colors.

  • Good images can never hurt. But an AA one is not required. Different livery doesn't make it a different plane. -Fnlayson 03:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How about a picture from a past operator ? --EuroSprinter 16:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Sure. I'm not aware of images being limited to current operators. Some more flight images would be great. -Fnlayson 16:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name field in Infobox

There's not enough room to have 'McDonnell Douglas' with 'MD-80 and MD-90' in the Infobox name field. Project Aircraft guideline says For the most part, as there is an appropriate field in the infobox itself, including the manufacturer in the "name" field is not necessary. Some exceptions exist, such as aircraft which only have model numbers.. The MD planes does not fall in the only model number group. -Fnlayson 03:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

See also User talk:68.127.49.140, where I have placed a similar exp[lanation. Thanks. - BillCJ 03:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like that covered it. Thanks. -Fnlayson 03:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cargo and military versions

I am curious why user BillCJ made his 10 July edit of this article, removing my information about cargo and military versions MD-80 (which for various reasons are almost non-existent); he doesn't respond on his own talk page to my query about that. I am a most humble beginner in (English) Wikipedia, and will do my utmost to please everybody in here... Andeln 14:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK here's the entry that was removed.

  • Contrary to numerous other passenger aircraft types, including its predecessor, the DC-9, no MD-80 has ever served as an all-cargo aircraft. Neither has the MD-80 been converted for military use like the DC-9 - with one exception for an MD-83 VIP aircraft being operated for the Kuwaiti State by the country's air force in the 1990's.

The last sentence about the Kuwaitit MD-83 should be mentioned if a reference for it can be found. The rest is speculation. These planes were not really meant for cargo and there was not a good niche for them in military use with C-9s already in service. -Fnlayson 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Highest number operations entry

The entry below is currently in the Trivia section. The DFW Inter. article states the same thing without a source.

But I can not find a source for it and it's been unsourced since February. I'm going to remove the entry and the section (nothing else in it). Someone can add it back to the article with a source if one can be found. Thanks. -Fnlayson 21:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] End of MD-90 production

It looks like there is a discrepancy with when MD-90 production ended. The section for the MD-90 has 2001, but the box at the top of the article has 2000. --Jbaylor (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I've seen both 2000 and 2001 for end of production. The last ones were assembled in China. Will have to check on that.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grounding

We ought to mention this, see here for example. --John (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • A user added it to the Incidents section. I hid it because that's not an incident. If someone has a good idea proper placement speak up. It seems fairly minor to me. Each Delta plane was grounded for only a matter of hours to do the inspect. They were to do most of their fleet over last thursday and friday.[1] -Fnlayson (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

American Airlines having to cancel over 1000 flights (as of April 9th) is not "fairly minor". There should be a small section created to mention the problems/ incidents that lead to the grounding. Eg. AA flt 862 needing to make an emergency landing a couple months ago in Miami. That incident made national headlines and the landing was featured live on CNN and other networks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.34.158.66 (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add an entry on emergency landing to Incidents and accidents section please do so. That'd be a good place for a sentence or two on the groundings due to the related servicing. Given the the short time for servicing/checking each plane it's still a minor thing in the history of the airliner. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
For three days running, American has canceled around 1,000 flights, that's minor? Pdbailey (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 3 days? Delta got all theirs done in about a day. From what I've read AA has had to inspect/fix and then redo it. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)