Jump to content

Photo

DC-9

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1
chuckmorris

chuckmorris

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 91 posts

Why are the DC-9s and MD-80s in the same family, but the 717 is not?



#2
aeroplaneman747

aeroplaneman747

    AE Addict To-Be

  • Member
  • 13 posts
It appears that in order to meet Boeing's standards, the MD-95 (which became the 717) had to have changes made to 13 major systems. This effectively removed all commonality from the MD-90 and previous DC-9 variants. Had McDonnell Douglas built the MD-95, it likely would have had the commonality.

http://www.airliners...read.main/54405

#3
TheGreatOP

TheGreatOP

    TheGreatOP

  • Member
  • 193 posts
  • Skype Name:TheGreatOP

It appears that in order to meet Boeing's standards, the MD-95 (which became the 717) had to have changes made to 13 major systems. This effectively removed all commonality from the MD-90 and previous DC-9 variants. Had McDonnell Douglas built the MD-95, it likely would have had the commonality.

http://www.airliners...read.main/54405

Airliners.net is not a reliable source; from what I know, the MD-90 shares a common type rating with the 717, but the DC-9 and MD-80 have the same type rating. Why this makes the MD-90 and not the 717 'eligible' for 'common family status' with the DC-9 and MD-80 is unknown.



#4
aeroplaneman747

aeroplaneman747

    AE Addict To-Be

  • Member
  • 13 posts
I would consider airliners.net a reliable source, there are many industry professionals on there. Anyway, here's the Boeing website, it describes, in detail the changes made to the 717 from its predecessors. If you scroll down to "Continuous focus on maintainability and reliability targets." It lists all the systems changes made. Also, the fleet commonality appears to be under the 'maintenance' category, and not crew type rating commonality, meaning the type rating commonality is irrelevant in the context of AE.

http://www.boeing.co.../717_story.html

#5
dieseltu

dieseltu

    AE Luver

  • Member
  • 436 posts

User's Awards

3   

I would argue that Boeing bought McDonald  Douglas to shut it down and eliminate the superior aircraft, and competition.  They changed the engine on the MD90, because it needed it. And because they needed to look like they wern't shutting MD down.  And nobody else had the money to do so.  Otherwise,  such a great airplane, that Boeing improved immensely  ,  would still be in production.  Jet Blue proves that used  MDs are  still untouchable. Even with the current fuel cost disadvantage. They cost about 10% of a 737 to put into service.    Commonality as far as I see , comes down to the engine change.  Which required different training for the 717  crews.



#6
TheGreatOP

TheGreatOP

    TheGreatOP

  • Member
  • 193 posts
  • Skype Name:TheGreatOP

I would consider airliners.net a reliable source, there are many industry professionals on there. Anyway, here's the Boeing website, it describes, in detail the changes made to the 717 from its predecessors. If you scroll down to "Continuous focus on maintainability and reliability targets." It lists all the systems changes made. Also, the fleet commonality appears to be under the 'maintenance' category, and not crew type rating commonality, meaning the type rating commonality is irrelevant in the context of AE.

http://www.boeing.co.../717_story.html

I'm just repeating what DCs said to me for all of what I said. I agree that the 717 should be part of the DC-9 family, and also wish that it was so, but it doesn't seem like that will be the case any time soon.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users