N1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26795 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3530 times:
>it seems its only a little larger and heavier than the 717. how do they compare in terms of fuel burn, operating costs etc?<
Max Y PAX on the 736 is only 7 more than on the 717, and it is significantly heavier and burns much more fuel. This is the same case with the A318. The whole reason the 717 was not pushed as much as it could have been is because Boeing wanted to sell 736s. That did not work, and they seem to have largely given up on the 100 seat market and left it to Embraer and Bombardier
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 1 hour ago) and read 3173 times:
One thing I do know is that the 717's are a real bastard to load there weigh distrubution is very "Touchy"
In the loader's eyes the 736 is a much better a/c also its "generally" a lot more ridgid and easier to service
Aaron J Nicoli
Is this a characteristic of the 717 or is this typical for rear-engined, mainline sized aircraft?
Anyway, Stonecipher has hinted at a 737 replacement with 7E7 technology. If this happens, it is likely that there will be "heavy" and "light" versions of the replacement aircraft family - just like there will be for the 7E7. The "heavy" version would cover 737 markets, and the "light" version would cover EJet and 717 markets. But as with the 7E7, both versions would be the same except for the changes needed to generate the weight savings in the short-ranged version.