Fleet Replacement Analysis This assignment has three objectives, to: 1) become f
ID: 1099625 • Letter: F
Question
Fleet Replacement Analysis
This assignment has three objectives, to: 1) become familiar with the type and magnitude of mainline aircraft operating costs; 2) understand the operating economics of new versus older aircraft; and, 3) see how net present value analysis is used in capital acquisition decision-making. Allegiant Airlines has engaged the aviation consulting firm SH&E to evaluate whether it should continue its fleet expansion with new aircraft instead of the aging McDonnell Douglas MD-80 aircraft that are the backbone of its small fleet. You are the senior financial analyst assigned to this project and will prepare a memorandum with your conclusions to Allegiant
Explanation / Answer
From a ground handeling point of view the MDC product is far better then Boeing's. The DC-9/MD-80/MD-90/717 requires minimal ground equipment. The cargo bin doors are located very low to the ground not requiring a belt loader. All of the ground service ports are easily accessible without ladders. The 737's potable water panel is out of reach of alot of people, and it is next to imposible to load the aft cargo bin of a 737 without a belt loader. Ground power hookups for the MDC product are logicaly on the port side where the jetway comes up to, but Boeing still seems to want to put theirs on the starboard side... A 737 requires a push back tug, (yes frontier and other airlines have been known to power back 737s) but for the most part a pushback is a must. The MDC product can be powered back from the gate . To effeciently handle an MDC product you need, A baggage tug and thats it. The 737 would require belt loaders, push back tugs, a ladder to reach the potable water if service was needed etc... My only gripe about the MDC products is the cockpit is very cramped compared to the 737.
As far as I know, no one airline bought 737's and MD80's concurrently and have both types mainly due to mergers and the fact the MD80 was being phased out anyway manufacturing wise...and I'm not so sure it was because Boeing bought the lot. Though they fullfill ostensibly the same missions, and discounting their obvious differences ( T-tail vs Conventional ) they are mechanically very different than each other...totally different schools of thought. Plusses and minusses ( IMO ) that tend to cancel each others out. As an A&P ( mechanic ) who works on both...and whose peers include many pre-merger people who were "brought up" on different planes...The Boeing or Douglas friendly debates rage on, each side having good points to support their arguments. -- Douglas simplicity or Boeing technology...it all sounds like Ford vs Chevrolet, Coke vs Pepsi with their brand loyal devotees waxing enthusiastic for "their" plane and deriding Brand X's.
The 737 does sit a bit higher it isn't so high that you can't jump in from the ground. The rear baggage compartment is a little higher on both aircraft. The pit immediatly aft on the rear baggage compartment does slope rapidly up on the 737 so it does make it a little tricky but on the MD-80 it is flatter but instead of an Aluminum floor it was covered in Gilliner which distorted between the ribs and made it very difficult to slide things on it. The way the doors on the 737 are designed the floor extends all the way to the sill of the door, again it makes it really easy to slide things on it. On the MD-80 the floor stops about four inches or so behind the outer lip. The bottom of the door fits in this space. This means that there is a gap between a beltloader and the floor of the aircraft, Also there are bolt and nut heads that stick up in this area. This again is an area that bags will snag on. Som MD-80's have a fiberglass door that goes behind the outside door. Its purpose is to keep items from falling and blocking the door, This is a good idea 737's don't have it, and anybody who has had to remove a cabin floor to get into the cargo bin will see where this is a good idea. One nice thing about the 737 sitting higher is that the wing is higher of the ground, which keeps it farther away from any GSE that may be operating around the aircraft. Definate safetey advantage. But if you are fueling the aircraft the lower MD-80 wing is better to work with. You don't need a three step latted to get to the fueling/defueling valves. I do prefer the MD-80's three shorter bellies to the 737's longer two.
737s are louder inside, especially in front (wind noise). 80s are a little less busy looking, I think. The MD is trucky loud in the rear (but that's a long way back). The climb pitch of the 80 is most amazing. MD-80 wings are cleaner looking. From a pilot's view the MD windshield might be preferred (the center window instead of the Boeing post).
They both perform well. The 80 has the aft stairway making non-jetway deplaning easy.
The Boeing has fuel in wings and perhaps in center section of wings (safer than fuel up to the side, non-wing engines).
MD-80 has main gear doors.
Pilots get whipped around more with pitch movements in the 80 than in the 37.
http://members.chello.nl/s.c.verbrugge/MD-80.html
737s are louder inside, especially in front (wind noise). 80s are a little less busy looking, I think. The MD is trucky loud in the rear (but that's a long way back). The climb pitch of the 80 is most amazing. MD-80 wings are cleaner looking. From a pilot's view the MD windshield might be preferred (the center window instead of the Boeing post).
They both perform well. The 80 has the aft stairway making non-jetway deplaning easy.
The Boeing has fuel in wings and perhaps in center section of wings (safer than fuel up to the side, non-wing engines).
MD-80 has main gear doors.
Pilots get whipped around more with pitch movements in the 80 than in the 37.
http://members.chello.nl/s.c.verbrugge/MD-80.html
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.