Pratt-Whitney From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1813 times:
Which do you all prefer? I think the 717 is better plane, but it's lack of choice and commonality hurt its sales. I believe the 717 would have a better chance if it offered a choice of engines, possibly the PW6000 or CFM56-9. Which would you rather have, and do you think that Boeing should listen to those customers who've said that mulitple engine choices are better. Please state your reasons for the A318 vs. the 717 and you opinion on engine choice.
Bo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1482 times:
You are being a very naughty boy Mr. P&W....
Why should anything else be offered on the 717? The BR710/715 is one of the best engines out there in terms of power, reliabilty, and most importantly efficiency. Ever 717 customer simply adores these engines.
Sorry your precious Pratt wasn't invited to the party
LH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 55 Reply 2, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1478 times:
There is a mistake here! People tend to lump these planes together simply because they seat the same amount of people. The 717 and the A318 are not really in the same categories. The 717's rôle will most likely ebd up being one of short haul, low density flights, whereas the A318's will most likely become medium haul, low density routes. So to compare them simply on the basis that they they fall into the same seating category. This would be like comparing the MD-80 and the 737-800, or the 757 and the A321, they have similar capacities, but differ in weight and range.
Remember that this plane was originally the MD-95 so it was a McDonnell Douglas, meaning that Boeing had no option in the engine exclusivity. Although this does fall into Boeing's 777X exclusivity agreement with GE.
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10794 posts, RR: 52 Reply 3, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1469 times:
First, the 717 and the 318 are not true competitors. The heavy 318 is much better suited for long-thin routes, and the 717 is much better suited for frequent short-hops.
As for engine choices, I could have sworn that the 318 was only to be offered with PW engines, so there wouldn't be any commonality anyways unless you had PW engines. And even then, the PW6000 is a totally new design (with gearboxes!!! yes!!) without much similarity to other PW engines.
Limiting the number of engine choices lowers the cost of the plane. I'm not sure specifically, but I think at least for the 717, the CFM56 was too big for such a small plane.
USAirways737 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1026 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1446 times:
What makes the 717-200 not a good choice for medium haul?
I think if the 717 wants to compete Boeing needs to make a 85 pass. and a 70 Pass.(similar to dc-9-10).
It could go larger say like 120 pass. but then that would take from the 737. But airlines now want commonality and that is why Airbus is doing so good now. So boeing should shrink and stretch it to make it a good competitor.
Pratt-Whitney From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1448 times:
The PW6000 is NOT the GEARED turbofan. The PW8000 is and it hasn't been launched yet. The PW6000 is lighter and has much fewer parts, as well as being lighter than the BR715. Does anyone on this forum research before they post? In addition I said the CFM56 -9 that's the -9 the CFM56LITE engine proposed for 100 seat jets. And the commonality I mentioned was with the rest of the Boeing aircraft fleet, not engines.
Pratt-Whitney From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1436 times:
I think it's a great plane, I want to see it survive. However, often customers have said, example British airways that they prefer engine choices. I was just wondering if anyone thought that more choices would help it sell better.
Jet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1440 times:
Boeing wants to keep the cost of the 717 to an absolute minimum to make it competitive with the regional aircraft and also the help offset the cost of the 717 being part of a family.
The Rolls Royce GmbH BR715 is an excellent, reliable, quiet and efficient engine - just what the airlines want for short hop regional operations.
If Boeing offered a choice of engine this would drive up their costs. New design and certification to add the engine to the 717 lineup. Loss of economy of scale on the production line due to the two different engines.
As far as I know, the airlines don't want a choice of engine. There's little to gain from having the 717s engines compatible with the A320/737. The engines fit the plane perfectly and many regional airline customers won't operate either larger type so would not benefit.
How many regional aircraft types offer a choice of engine? None as far as I know! The market for this type of aircraft doesn't require it. Also, in the regional airline business airlines change hands quite frequently, and if all 717s have BR715 engines there are no commonality worries when aquiring 717s.
Boeing would only hurt it's interests by adding a PW or CFM engine to the 717. While being strongly against exclusivity on the 777, in the regional sector it is a good thing. The BR715 is the right engine for the 717 - leave it as it is!!!
Jet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1431 times:
Sorry, The first sentence should read:
Boeing wants to keep the cost of the 717 to an absolute minimum to make it competitive with the regional aircraft and also the help offset the cost of the 717 not being part of a family
If BA was so keen to have a choice of engines, why did they chose the PW6000 for their A318 when the CFM-56 was available. BA don't have a single PQ engine in their fleet but they do operate 10 CFM-56 powered A320s and over 50 CFM-56 powered 737-300/400s. PW benefitted from this deal, which shows airlines don't always want fleet commonality. You proved my point for me!
Acvitale From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 921 posts, RR: 11 Reply 13, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1428 times:
I have to agree on the single engine option for the 717. It would cost to much to certify the type with multiple choices and the benefits might turn to headaches later on as operators try to acquire or lease 717's from other than boeing sources.
I think the 717 will see a sharp uptick in sales as fuel prices are now 3 times what they where just 1 year ago. This makes the 717's 15% less fuel burn than the A318 and 10% less than the 737-600 a very big sell point.
Consider that airlines average 3/4 of their expenses for fuel. That means that a fleet of 717 vs A318 could have a net effect of 12% profit margin difference.
If you have enough of them and they prove to be as reliable as the early reports are the 717 will start to show some definate in-disputable advantages that even A319/320/321 operators will have to look at.
This does tend to feed the US Air rumors that have been running rampant.
Jet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1430 times:
I don't think the 717 has the range. TWA says the 717 can reach "most of the West coast" from their St Louis hub, so it's not a long range type. TWA also say the BR715 is beating fuel burn figures and may be able to reach all the West coast from STL. Wait and see!
The design philosophies of the 717 and A318 are totally different. The 717 is optimised for short flights, quick turnarounds, short runways and flights spending very little time in level flight. The A318 is a shrink of a much larger aircraft, so it has a lot of fuel capacity but it is also VERY heavy for an aircraft of it's size. Too heavy to make it viable on short hops, but good for long thin routes where the extra fuel that it's "overweight" structure can hold are a bonus!
Jet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1415 times:
No, I was demonstrating the different design philosophies behind the aircraft. The 717 is not good on longer routes because the Wing, Engines and the whole thinking behind the aircraft combine with the aim of making it very efficient on short hops.
Also, In terms of fuel capacity the 717 phsically can't do what an A318 can.
Remember the 757 was designed as a short-haul airliner, optimised for short routes which is why the wing isn't very swept. It just happened that ETOPS came along and the aircraft had the size and capacity to make Atlantic service viable, it was never designed to do that!
DeltaAir From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1094 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1416 times:
Boeing also offers the 717-200HGW, which adds extra fuel and brings its range to within 200 miles of the A-318. Also, Boeing is considering the 717-100, which will seat around 50-60, an advantage since physics doesn't allow Airbus hardly anymore room to shrink.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10794 posts, RR: 52 Reply 19, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1415 times:
Okay LH423, about the second engine choice for the 318 now. You learn something new every day. I personally think that is a mistake by Airbus because it will drive up costs.
Now as to the flame from Pratt-Whitney... What's up with that? I am human, I make mistakes. My bad. But, you cry about another poster criticizing you (really not as harsh as you took it to be considering no one used the word 'insane') and then you flame me for an honest mistake?
Anyways, I do clearly remember reading in AW&ST that P&W were considering a geared turbofan for the 318 project.
USAirways737: As for the 717-200 not a good choice for medium range, that's not really what I was getting at. It only has a range of nearly 1600 miles. (Obviously not enough for US transcon.) The 318 range is a whopping 3200 miles. That range comes at a price, and that is structural weight; it weighs much much more than the 717. I believe though it is also much faster than the 717. The end results of all these facts is that the 717 being slower, but incredibly efficient, and short ranged makes it an EXCELLENT short hopper jet, with quick turnarounds, and serviceability at locations that don't offer ammenities such as large ground staff or long runways. Its slow speed isn't much of a consideration since the trips will be spent mostly taking off and in landing patterns where all planes go about the same speed anyways. The 318, being bigger (in weight) affords it double the range of the 717, and allows transcontinental service from markets that are too small to justify any other bird. Think about it! Providence to Fresno, or Tallahassee-Wallawalla. Well, maybe not that small, but the 318 would allow nonstops that currently aren't feasible.
Just don't make the mistake that if two planes are the same capacity that they serve the same role. The 717 and the 318 are not in the same market, and do not serve the same purpose. I get a little upset when I hear things like "I prefer the 318 over the 717." (Let aside that not a single one of us has ever seen or riden a 318...) Well, I prefer the 777 over the J41. Doesn't really say much though, does it?
LH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 55 Reply 20, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1417 times:
If you are able to pick up this weeks Flight International it will exlplain what you originally wanted to know. If not, I'll tell you.
The article basically said that at the current time the ecomomics do not make sense for Boeing to design and manufacture a 717 family. It's basically a catch-22 situation! Boeing won't manufacture either the 717-100 ot the 717-300 due to lack of customer appeal. The 717 doesn't appeal to customers due to the lack of a family. Boeing feels that the current lack of an order book would be a waste of time and materials to produce a family of aircraft around a basic model that isn't seeling that well. The have tentatively shelved any plans for shrink or stretch versions of the 717, but maybe if the orders begin to come, Boeing will re-open the possibility of a family of airliners based on the 717. But until then, the 717-200 will be it.
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Pratt-Whitney From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1413 times:
When they ordered their A320 series jets one of their big selling features was said to be that the A320 offered the choice of V2500s and CFM56. They said they liked the choice because if forced the engine manufacturers to compete on pricing. They said they thought it was better for competition, it doesn't mean their order will reflect that. The fleet comonality I was mentioning was with flight-crews, cockpits etc. Not engines. Once again airlines prefer choice, it makes them feel as though they are getting the best deal for their money. 2 bidders is better than one.
Off topic but BA has, to my knowledge 7 or 8 747-100s w/ JT9Ds.
Engine comonality isn't as important as it used to be, and I was not intending to make it an issue. With either engine the BR715 or the PW6000 the comonality factor is about zero. My point was this, PW has offered to pay for the certification costs and nacelle design for the PW6000, why should Boeing not offer it?
Jet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1414 times:
If Airbus shrunk the A318 any more the engines would be alongside the flight deck and you wouldn't be able to get to the doors with steps or an airbridge. Boarding would have to be strictly by stepladder! Also, the hold doors would have to be made smaller, meaning anything bigger than a ruck-sack couldn't fit in the hold!
The damm thing would be so heavy the seat mile costs would be awful!:o
We're safe - It won't happen
When Airbus looked at smaller aircraft they were a 5-abreast design based on the A320, not a shrink og it. I think it would be funny if someone could get a photo of an A318 and artificially shrink it - just to see what it looked like!