I agree with the Chinese and Bemused.

It seems somewhat ironic to me that the company that produced such a superior product didn’t survive. The marketplace really isn’t fair sometimes.

No one has even mentioned how revoluntionary the DC-9 was in 1965 with the two pilot cockpit. Two engines, two pilots, and beat the 737 into service by several years!

Plusses: “built like a tank,” reliable/simple flight controls, small enough to get in and out of many smaller cities’ airports, efficient (at the time it was built), an aft airstair, an APU (rarity in 1965).

Minuses: Poor “hot and high” performance, aft engines prone to picking up FOD, noisy cockpit with windows prone to squealing, poor air conditioning during high ambient temps on the ground, relatively high cockpit workload compared to today’s aircraft (especially for the right seater).

There is really no reason why Delta or any other airline couldn’t operate the type indefinitely. Like the 757, there isn’t today a real replacement for this aircraft….though the latest round of Embraers are approaching it. Hopefully the 717’s and MD-90’s will remain operational for some time.

Fact is, no one knows the commercial arrangements made on the 764 or the A342, thus no one here can say whether they were “successful” (ie., profitable) or not.

If they had “made money” the next layer of critiques would be did they make enough to obtain an “adequate” ROI? Who knows? The bottom line is that we are enthusiasts and speculators and it’s kind of supposed to be fun, isn’t it?

The fact is that the 767 line has had a pretty good run, and it is going to continue on awhile longer. IMHO, if more efficient engines were available for upgrade, it would run an quite a while longer. The airplane that ushered in ETOPS lives on!

Imho these ULH flights are one of the reasons why the 787 has a lower cabin altitude and humidity control.

On the one hand, it’s easy to see that ULH flying will continue to grow as the 787 rolls out……it is smaller, thus more suitable for long, thin routes. It is also extremely efficient, which might make those routes profitable.

On the other hand, how much demand is there between relatively few city pairs? For those few city pairs, one can generally find a hub to connect in, and many people prefer to break up the flight anyway. Also, with the state of the world economy, one wonders how much demand will exist for these flights. I suppose, once the economy gets rolling again, India and China will be the main destinations, from all over the world.

One also wonders about the sociological aspects of making all these cultures so much closer together…how will people who want to live under sharia law cohabitate with those who do not…..not to mention the medical factors, drug-resistant TB for example. Pretty scary stuff really.

Now whilst I am a firm believer in workers rights this is a situation that has been building for a while in the old large airlines. They are no longer state sponsered monopolies that were also in a price fixing cabal with each other. They now have to compete with younger airlines who charge much less and don’t give the kind of perks and pay conditions of the old airlines. Certainly a sad situation especially for the workers but the other option is the airline going belly up!

Agree completely. Why is it that so many established workers in the “first world” seem to think that their employers are the enemy, and that they are owed a living just by the fact that they are breathing the air?