JBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 11035 times:
Where've you been?
Boeing announced several months ago that the 717 production line would be closed once all current orders (which I believe are comprised of AirTran and Midwest, not sure if any others have outstanding orders yet) are completed.
Unless someone comes out with a huge last-minute order, I doubt the line would remain open. Plus, given the fact that Boeing already announced the closing of production, I doubt anyone would order an aircraft that's about to be discontinued.
I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
Pitched to a few customers (FL) but lacked the payload/range uplift AirTran needed. They basically wanted 73G performance in size from the 717 platform, but Boeing wasn't going to invest a considerable sum to make their own products redundant.
B6sea From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10870 times:
I think it would be cool for Boeing to introduce something of a small version of the 737 (maybe when they make the new one... however many years out that is) that could compete with the EMB 190 and the Canadair C-class? But I agree, it would have been a good plane but it was introduced at the precise wrong time.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 10688 times:
I don't think Boeing was ever fully commited to the B-717-200, as it competed directly with their own designed B-737-600, as well as the A-318. Boeing inherited the program when they bought out Mad Dog. The, then, MD-95 already had the 50 airplane launch order (and options for 50 more) from Value Jet, which became Air Tran. So, Boeing had to build the MD-95, but renamed it the B-717 (to the displeasure of the KC-135 community) to fit within their own airplane line up. Later came the TWA, Aloha, Midwest, and other orders.
Boeing found itself in the unusual position of marketing to airplanes with the same number of seats, the B-717-200 and the B-737-600, while at the same time, trying to compete against the A-318 and the bigger (and cheaper) RJs. So, the 90-110 seat airplane market became flooded with choices. Combined, the A-318, B-717-200, and B-737-600 all had miserable sales records because there were just to many competing airplane types in this size market.
Today, the surviving airplane types (A-318, B-737-600, and E-190) may do a little better in sales as the market is still the same size, but with fewer choices to compete against.
Planemanofnz From New Zealand, joined Sep 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 10636 times:
Quoting 777ER (Reply 8): Same could be said for Jetconnect (QF) for domestic operations, instead of B733s and shortly B734s
Definately agree, I think that the 717 is very well suited to NZ domestic routes. Of course I doubt NZ will be buying any, leasing any e.t.c but maybe Qantas could put some of those Jetstar/Qantaslink 717's on the NZ network.
Onedude From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 214 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10493 times:
I know when QF inherited the 717's from Impulse, that they found adding galleys and catering added a significant weight issue to profitable routes for the 717. I also understand that they do not operate that well in extreme temperature conditions; having said that the 717s are on the PER/PHE run in WA and are slotted for DRW/ASP/AYQ/CNS so be interesting to see how they perform.
The NZ market cannot sustain anything bigger than a 737 domestically, hence AN NZ running 146s for so many years. Be interesting to see the 717 fleet in NZ however suspect for QF that they would not win market share in the crucial business market, also QF intersperse Jet Connect aircraft on selected routes across the Tasman so fleet utilisation becomes constricted.
Kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8626 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10482 times:
Quoting Onedude (Reply 12): Be interesting to see the 717 fleet in NZ however suspect for QF that they would not win market share in the crucial business market,
3+2 seating on a 717 ( or 2+3 , I can never remember which) would be pretty attractive against the 3+3 NZ offer on the 733s - higher frequencies with a smaller capacity a/c could attract a lot of the corporates who would like to fly QF on the AKL-WLG / AKL-CHC routes but have shied away from them in the past due to low frequency services .
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
StuckinMAF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9466 times:
The major indication from the start that the 717 would be short-lived was that Northwest didn't pick it up as a replacement for their DC-9-30's. That was the main market McD was targeting, they saw it as a natural like-for-like replacement for about 400 planes. There was also the hope that the military would see it as a cheap way of replacing their C-9's. It still ended up being a successful program because development costs were extremely low due to it being a very mature design. It made money for McD and for Boeing and it is still making money for it's operators.
Long live the 717! Hope they stay in the sky as long (or longer) than their predecessors!
Milesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2012 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8057 times:
The knock on the 717 seems to be its range, but what percentage of mainline operations in the USA are longer than the ATL-DEN segment?
Furthermore, how much more costly is it to operate the 737-700 than the 717? The 717 seats 100+ so it requires 3 F/A's, but does the extra range and payload of the -700 justify its additional costs? Or was the timing of 717 its real problem, as no legacies have the money to purchase a great number of new aircraft?