MidnightMike From United States, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 37 Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3338 times:
Oh sure, Air Canada is part of the Star Alliance, they have been looking for
a family of 717's for some time......
CX747 From United States, joined May 1999, 4287 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3240 times:
Why should they just look at it? AC has had a very good relationship with the 717's older sister the DC-9. The Diesel 9 has served them for many years and the 717 would also. Personally, I think the 717 would fit very nicely into AC's fleet.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
CX747 From United States, joined May 1999, 4287 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3121 times:
And the 717 is not up to par with either the A318 or Bombadier aircraft? While the overall design might not be as new, the 717 is much newer than the A32X family by almost a decade. Also, the A318 is extremely overweight and not suited for flights currently being operated by the DC-9s.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
Greg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3078 times:
The 717 is the bastard child of new engines mounted on an aging airframe (40+ years) and DC-9-30 wing (40+ years). How can you say it's newer than a A32X??????
Even the 737NG's went for a maximum revamp and a new wing (which works brilliantly by the way...).
The only thing new about the 717 is the engines and avionics. The rest is pure nostalgia.
AC_B777 From Canada, joined Aug 2000, 722 posts, RR: 13 Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3076 times:
Even though I like Airbus and their planes, I would love to see Air Canada return to Boeing with some business.
I know it is a pipe dream, but I would love for us to order some 777's down the road. Oh well...
AC_B777
In life, some days you are the bug..... some days you are the windshield!
STT757 From United States, joined Mar 2000, 12125 posts, RR: 54 Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2994 times:
The lighter 717 is much better suited for trans-border flights, plus it's probably cheaper for them to operate on Domestic routes againts Canadian LCCs.
Im assuming that the 717 pay scale would be lower than that of the A318 or A319, I think the A318 pay scale is the same as the larger A319,A320s, A321s.
The 717 would be perfect for flights like YYZ-BOS,LGA, EWR, ORD, YUL, etc.
The A318 is too heavy and has "too much range" to make it economical to shuttle between Toronto and NYC.
"'Brown Sugar' could save the world..." Eddie Vedder 10/14/97 Oakland, California
Navion From United States, joined May 1999, 891 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2904 times:
Comments by posters on this issue are showing some real ignorance of this issue, the 717. I suggest (but don't expect) everyone read this months Business and Commercial Aviation magazine which test flew the 717 and wrote an in depth flight and systems report. The 717 IS NOT just new engines and avionics. There were many changes not mentioned in this thread. To say otherwise is just showing extreme ignorance. The fact is, for AC's needs, there isn't an Airbus in the sky that is as efficient on those trips and stage lengths. That's a fact. The A318 is HEAVY. It's really heavy. It is a hog next to the 717 on 100 n.m. to 1,000 n.m. flights. With regard to the fuselage and wing, they have had some drag treatments but are on the whole the same as the final iterations of the DC9. The fuselage and wing work. To tinker with them would be wasteful. And one final point, there is no 717 fuselage or wing that's 40 years old. They are new metal. One of the weaknesses of this forum are the broad and erroneous comments made by many which soon are accepted (wrongly) as the truth.
Matt From Canada, joined May 1999, 624 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2833 times:
Thanks Navion... I agree with you. Besides, do you think AC would do this just "for fun". I'm sure they've done their homework and they're seriously considering it alongside others.
Next flights : YQM-CUN; YHZ-JFK-HEL-TKU; YQM-EWR-MSY; YHZ-YYT
STT757 From United States, joined Mar 2000, 12125 posts, RR: 54 Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2762 times:
NWA is flying some DC-9-15 series that are 40+ years old, how old is the oldest Airbus. And is it even still flying? I bet not.
I doubt many Airbus aircraft will see 40 years of service, NWA's DC-9s, the USAF's KC-135s (707s) the B-52s are still flying. They are all over 40 years old, older than 90% of the people on these forums.
That's a testiment to the quality of the design.
"'Brown Sugar' could save the world..." Eddie Vedder 10/14/97 Oakland, California
Qb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2050 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2726 times:
I can be wrong - then again, who can't? -, but I would be surprised to see AC going with the 717.
Granted, the 717 is probably more fuel efficient than the 318. Still, the 318 has more range, which is quite handy in North America, where you like to serve city pairs such as YOW-YVR, YUL-SFO, YYZ-SAN or YVR-ATL. Even the high gross weight 717 could not serve those needs.
Also, AC already operates the 319,320 and 321. Can you spell "fleet commonality"?
AC is probably looking at the 717 only to keep Airbus polite.
My two cents: AC will go with the 318, some RJ-700 and some RJ-200.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
Matt From Canada, joined May 1999, 624 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2711 times:
To Qb001... For those longer domestic and transborder routes, AC has the 319, the 320 and the 321. They would not use the 717 for those routes. There are tons of other routes for which the 717 would be very efficient.
Next flights : YQM-CUN; YHZ-JFK-HEL-TKU; YQM-EWR-MSY; YHZ-YYT
Srbmod From United States, joined Mar 2001, 14241 posts, RR: 62 Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2598 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
The 717 is designed with high ultilization rates and flights of under 2 hours in length in mind. The a/c is designed with 16 hour days and 30 segments flown a day. The A318 is designed for longer range thinner routes, like say PDX-BOS. It is a heavier a/c not designed for high utilization operations, while the 717 is. Yes the 717 is based on a design that is nearly 40 years old, but the 717 has as much in common with the DC-9 as a 737NG has in common with a 737-200. They make look very similar on the outside, but share very little in common in terms of systems. As technology improved, the avionics, engines, airframe materials, basically everything needed to build a plane, the future versions of a/c gained as a result, and the older a/c gained upgrades. Air Canada needs a 100 pax a/c to impliment their new business model, and the 717 is an already proven design (been in service since October of 1999), and could be in service in large numbers quicker than any of the competing a/c. Add to this the fact that one of the a/c under consideration has yet to leave the drawing board, and Boeing seems to have a good opportunity. The CRJ-900 may have an edge because it is Canadian-built, but nationality should not play a role in this decision. With Air Canada's order being part of a larger Star Alliance order, I see the Alliance as a whole going for the 717-200, as Boeing could have them delivered the quickest, and with several Star members either currently operate 717 family a/c (MD80/MD87/MD88/MD90) previously or are former DC-9 operators.
LGB Photos From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2361 times:
Because the 737-600 is a piece of crap. Heavy and porpoises in flight. Just ask SAS who has parked a bunch, leased a few out and told Boeing they don't want the rest of the order for -600s. The 717 would fit very well into the AC fleet for what they need it for.
Slawko From Canada, joined May 1999, 3790 posts, RR: 13 Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2285 times:
I agree with Artsyman, in that both airplanes are too much of a shrink of a much larger airplane. In this case I think both companies were to focused on aircraft commonality and other important factors such as how these sized aircraft are used by airlines and what role they would fill was overlooked...Boeing would have done better marketing the 717 as a step down from the 737-700, rather then sticking the 600 and 717 into the same pot to fight it out....
With respect to the 717 at Air Canada, I would not rule it out, its a great airplane for the type of flying the "New AC" will be doing, and it will be a great compliment to the 50-70 seater they will get for Jazz...It will do what the DC9 did at air canada, and would likely bring mainline jet service back to many smaller communities, as well as taking on some of the DC9's old routes like YYZ-BOS, LGA, YQB etc... The 318 is not what they need, as was mentioned above the pay scale would either have to be the same as on the 319/20/21 or they would have to keep the 318 crews separate from the 19/20/21 crews which would through commonality out the window. The 18 is also to heavy and its economics are realized on longer flights rather then multiple short segments. The 717 can also operate out of less prepared airports not needing a bridge or stairs, or even baggage loading belts as it is low enough to the ground to be handled with little infrastructure. The 318 being a shrunken 320 does not have these benefits....
"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
Elwood64151 From United States, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 9 Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2228 times:
So the 717 is just a re-engined, updated-avionics DC-9?
Doesn't that mean the 737NG is just a re-engined, updated-avionics 732?
Doesn't that mean the A318 is a shortened A320 with no other useful features?
The generalization of arguments is counter-productive.
The 717 is a very useful aircraft in the 90-110 pax, 1-2 hour flight market. It is a mainline aircraft, so most of those flights will include premium classes, which smaller RJs will not, even though they may carry comparable number of passengers.
While the A318 is going to be in the 100-120 pax market, it has been optimized for significantly longer distances (more like 3-5 hours) and is heavier as a result. This leads to higher landing fees and at many airports higher parking costs.
The difference is the scalability. The A318 could operate shorter-ranged flights. The 717 could not operate longer-ranged flights. So the A318 makes some sense for a small carrier that needs a significant amount of scalability of service and may or may not operate a larger aircraft like the A321 or 757.
But it may not make as much sense for an established carrier like Air Canada, which already has scalable range in its A320 fleet, but needs scalability of frequency, which the 737 and to a greater extent the 717 are better suited.
As stated before, the 717 could fit very well into YYZ-BOS, YYZ-LGA, YYZ-ORD, even YYZ-ATL and YYZ-IAD, where the number of flights and convenience of those flights are far more important than the number of seats available. This is market planning, the part of airline operations that is frequently forgotten both by members of this forum and by the airlines themselves.
Also, I think AC is looking at FL's success and recent significant aircraft order and wondering if, "Hey, maybe we can do this if we copy their model..."
The long and the short of it is: Who knows? They'll buy what they think they need for the company to get back on track.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
Sv11 From United States, joined May 1999, 154 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2195 times:
Do you think Air Canada will look at the 100 seat Embraer ordered by Jetblue.
But Canada and Brazil have had disputes at the WTO so probably not likely.
Elwood64151 From United States, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 9 Reply 25, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2140 times:
Sv11:
I believe someone mentioned that AC will be looking at several aircraft types, including the EMB-170/190 and the CRJ-700/900.
The A318 and 717 are different from those types because they are mainline aircraft, easily fitting premium seats that the RJs do not. Whether or not AC will be worried about this is anyone's guess, but mine is that they will want to sell premium seats.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
26 Flynavy: 737-600? Because it is too heavy for it's size. It carries less passengers but weighs the same as a -700 model.
27 Slawko: Air Canada is really placing two orders here, one will be for a 50-70 seater, this aircraft will likely be placed with the Jazz operation, and a 90-11
28 Elwood64151: Slawko: If you're right, we'll likely see an order for 40-60 717s and 50-70 CRJs (or their Airbus and Embarer counterparts). The article says they wan
30 AC320: I'd say actually given the situation and current fleet, the Bombardier option is most likely going to be the one, followed by the 'bus, and the 717 th
31 AWspicious: Perhaps FlyYUL, or any other A.net member out at Dorval can keep us posted by trying to get some info regarding the 717's visit. A.W.
32 Dc10guy: I'm not a big A vs B fan but this sounds like the exact reason why Boeing says the A380 won't sell in big numbers .... And again why get a 717 when a
33 Crj 900: Here is a report from a "big wig from head office" that was on our flt the other day. The 25 existing CRJs operated by mainline will go to Jazz + 15 n
34 RayChuang: I think before AC gets the 717-200, they better make sure the plane can handle the VERY cold weather conditions of Canadian winters, which can be almo
35 Alitis: Why shouldn't the 717 be able to handle the cold weather? Don't forget, temps drop to below -65 at crusing altitude which all jets handle just fine. -
36 Qb001: With all due respect for all the very interesting comments written above, I have to say that the one point that most are missing, as it was stressed b
37 Yyz717: Fleet commonality becomes somewhat less important when you operate large fleets. If AC had a fleeet of 20+ 717's, the collective improvement in effici
38 Navion: First let me say, I appreciate your comments. I would like to point out the 717 is effective up to 1,700 nautical miles with a full load. That will co
39 Ouboy79: I think a lot of people here are putting blinders on when it comes to the 318. It is an extremely overweight aircraft that can't do short hops effecti
40 CanadianPylon: The comment for 717 having an effective range of 1700 nm... That is a best case scenario. FL operates the 717 and states on their website that the eff
41 Qb001: Fleet commonality becomes somewhat less important when you operate large fleets. In most cases, I'd agree with that point of view. But somehow, the bu
42 Srbmod: AirTran's success with the 717 has been noted in many articles; unfortunately, that has not translated into sales for Boeing. With AirTran being the m
43 United777: Can't you get the CRJ-900 and ERJ-170 /-190 in two class seating? I thought I saw somewhere you can get business class with coach class on the jets.
44 Navion: Is it safe to assume the rugged 717 airframe is more durable than the much lighter (and arguably more efficient) new CRJ airframes such as the CRJ900
45 FLYYUL: Ok the plane is now at YUL.. http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued.php?id=22322 SO AC is definitely checking it out. Mark
46 DIA: Wooo-Hooo! Hope they get a rocket launch during the show-and-tell! Let's hope this creates a huge boost to the 717 program. DIA
47 Jean Leloup: A lot of people are saying that the 318 would be no good for shorter-range routes, and therefore can't fulfill what AC needs? But who says they need i
48 Srbmod: Seeing an AirTran 717 in YUL could become a common sight in a few years. What would make it even better would be to see Air Canada 717s along side.
49 Fallingeese: So am I correct in assuming that if an order for a 717 or any 100 passenger aircraft goes through than no 90 seat aircraft would be ordered?
50 Ouboy79: Jean, I think the problem is that no one knows what AC wants to use the 100 seat aircraft for. If it is short hop, then the 717 is ideal. Your idea of
51 OzarkD9S: Blah Blah Blah...the 717 is IDEAL for the "shuttles" between YYZ and YUL/YOW, and YVR and YYC/YEG. Not to mention flights from YWG to the above mentio
52 717fan: So, has anybody inside information? How was the presentation? Thanks
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined May 1999, 624 posts, 
From United States, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, 
From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 6495 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, 
From India, joined May 1999, 1637 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
