Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A318 Vs. B717  
User currently offlinePratt-Whitney From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2257 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.

54 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1926 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


User currently offlineLH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1922 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.

LH423



« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11496 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1913 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.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineLH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1905 times:

The A318 is now being offered with CFM after Air France withheld their order until CFM was offered and confirmed.

LH423



« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
User currently offlineBoeing757/767 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2282 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1887 times:

Good points about the different roles for the aircraft. Personally, I prefer the A318, as do many airlines that have ordered it (100-plus aircraft so far).

I'm glad Pratt is able to get back into the narrow-body market now that the JT8D is slowly dying out.



Free-thinking, left-leaning secularist
User currently offlineUSAirways737 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1026 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1890 times:

What makes the 717-200 not a good choice for medium haul?

Change subjects-
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.


User currently offlinePratt-Whitney From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1892 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.

User currently offlinePratt-Whitney From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1880 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.

User currently offlineJet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1884 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!!!

James 


User currently offlinePratt-Whitney From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1876 times:

Thank you! Yours is the kind of post I hoped this thread would attract. Not the immaturity that was shown in the first responce!

User currently offlineJet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1875 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

Pratt-Whitney:
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!

James


User currently offlineUSAirways737 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1026 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1871 times:

why is the 717 only good for short hops and not medium skips like the A318?

User currently offlineAcvitale From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 922 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1872 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.


User currently offlineJet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1874 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!

Hope that explained it OK

James


User currently offlineUSAirways737 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1026 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1870 times:

Just because the 717 has short turn around times and can take off from short runways makes it a bad medium haul airliner?

User currently offlineJet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1859 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!


User currently offlineDeltaAir From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1094 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1860 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.

User currently offlineBo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1862 times:

Pratt-whitney, you cannot deny that your reason for posting this topic was your shock that PW had not entered the market. Not a very clever guise pretending to be concerned for the world's airlines.

Don't worry, your fabulous company will live long and prosper.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11496 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1859 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?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineLH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 54
Reply 20, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1861 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.

LH423



« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
User currently offlinePratt-Whitney From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1857 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?


User currently offlineJet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1858 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!

Happy Flying
James 


User currently offlineJet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1853 times:

I was under the impression BA had retired all 747-100s effective 1 November 1999. Maybe I'm wrong?!?!?!?

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11496 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (14 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

just some more numbers to throw your way about the 717 and the 318 that should really show how different their roles are.

MTOW (the limit of how much the plane can weigh when taking off)

717 - 52t..55t
318 - 59t..66t

These are metric tonnes, btw.

I would also like to find the empty weight of the 318 to compare to the 717 (32t) but I can't find it anywhere. Does anyone happen to know it? I know it is much higher than the 717 though.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
25 Acvitale : I would add the following to range and use arguments. The cruise speed on the A318 and 717 are not that far apart. The 717 from St.Louis should be abl
26 Pratt-Whitney : Sorry, I didn't mean to flame you. I made a bad choice of words and hope that you can accept it, and that we all can move on flame free!
27 Pratt-Whitney : They did, my bad.
28 TEDSKI : I would prefer the 717, being that it is the desendent of the famous DC-9/MD-80 series. Don't trust fly-by-wire in a passenger plane, like all of my c
29 D L X : Anywhere in the US from STL? I guess that means TWA got the High Gross Weight version of the 717, because the basic version can't do it. Maybe they go
30 Post contains images D L X : No problem. The flag has been picked up off the field, and ref calls first down. Speaking of TWA, Saint Louis just scored a touchdown!! Go Rams!!
31 Post contains links and images Jet Setter : Hey TEDSKI! The 717 does have FBW! The spoilers are Fly-by-Wire, does that change your opinion of the 717? No - I didn't think so! The 717 is a fantas
32 D L X : Just a thought here about FBW. I had this sinking feeling that the Valujet DC9 that crashed a while back lost control when the flight cables got toast
33 Jet Setter : That's a really interesting point. You mean route a second set of essential conrol lines, along the crown of the fuselage away from fuel lines and pos
34 LH423 : To some extent it would drive up costs for Airbus, but I really don't think Airbus cares that much given some of the ways they've gotten their sales,
35 Post contains images D L X : Okay, I'll do it, but you'd better be the first response with your comment.
36 Pratt-Whitney : Airbus actually has no exclusivity deal with RR. It is the policy of the company (Airbus) not to take part in such contracts as they feel they limit s
37 MD-90 : Is everyone forgetting that in the beginning the 737 struggled along and was almost canceled? Give the 717 a chance. Boeing saw the demand for a bigge
38 Sonic : I think, that B717-200 will make some competition to another Boeing plane: 737. Passenger capacity difference is very small, and airlines, used B737 p
39 D L X : Geesh. I guess the 717 also competes with the Concorde with that logic? Like the 318, the 736 is not in the same market as the 717. The 736 is fat and
40 Hypermike : Hasn't it been said that the RR engines were the killer of the L-1011. If it would have been made with different engines, or a choice of engines, it w
41 D L X : Well, think about the 737. The 737 has never been offered with more than one engine. The 731s and 732s are all JT8D (I think) and the rest are all som
42 TEDSKI : I agree Hypermike, if the L-1011 had 2 more engine options from P&W and GE instead of just the Rolls Royce engine, it would have attracted more custom
43 Jet Setter : It probably would cause headpain if you operated all those types, fortunately no airlines do (or will) If you had an all Airbus or all Boeing fleet yo
44 Pratt-Whitney : I agree that the A318 better competes with the 737-600, however many airlines who are looking at the 717 are evaluating the A318 as well and not the 7
45 TWA902fly : Personally, I would fly either, but if it was a "thingy" situation, I would have to go with the A318. I am a big A319 fan, so it wouldn't hurt to try.
46 D L X : I think these airlines that are choosing between the 717 and 318 are actually in the midst of figuring out what kind of market they want to fly in. (A
47 LH423 : The perfect example of the cons of having a plane with engine exclusivity is the L-1011. The then CEO of Lockheed was quoted saying that if he conceed
48 Post contains images Jet Setter : LH423, You can't realistically compare the problems that occured with the early RB211s with the BR715 being the exclusive powerpalnt on the 717. Back
49 Coronado : They are different aircraft serving different markets. The 318 is a low capacity long range 'heavy' narrow body ideal for 1500-2000 mile runs. with 2
50 Pandora : enough said
51 Acvitale : Actually, If I were going to do LAX-DSM in the 100 seat market the 717-200IGW is still preferred for operating costs and servicability. The A318 can o
52 Acvitale : Also forgot to mention the following... The Boeing 717 and Airbus A318 order tallies are almost identical.... Both are just over 110 aircraft firm and
53 D L X : Acvitale, you are awesome. A voice of reason. Yes folks, no matter how many people you hear saying that the 717 is getting beaten up by the 318 (even
54 Pratt-Whitney : Who ever mentioned comonality w/ the A340, not one of the engines brought up in this discussion have anything to do with the A340. The PW6000 is an 18
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A318 Vs. CRJ900X - Atlas Jet Case posted Wed Jun 21 2006 20:26:48 by Bahadir
A318 Vs ERJ 195 posted Tue May 10 2005 18:52:44 by Dsa
JETBLUE: A318 VS RJ 190 posted Mon Nov 10 2003 17:33:19 by PBIflyguy
Category For A318 Vs. 736 posted Tue Jan 22 2002 20:52:40 by Legolars
A318 Vs 736 Vs Dc-9-30 posted Sun Jan 20 2002 03:48:49 by Lubcha132
A318 Vs EMB-175...competition? posted Fri Jan 18 2002 09:17:16 by Funny
DC-9 Vs. B717 posted Mon Dec 18 2000 00:27:07 by SXM727
B717 Vs. A318 posted Mon Sep 27 1999 02:38:51 by Dazed767
B717 vs A318 commonality a key? posted Mon Mar 1 1999 00:35:52 by CX747
JetBlue EMB 190 Vs A318 posted Tue Apr 19 2005 06:56:18 by UAXDXer