Airblue From San Marino, joined May 2001, 1825 posts, RR: 12 Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3207 times:
I think if an airline doesn't fly the B737NG family and if it needs a 115 seats plane to use on short haul routes with high frequencies, the B717 is the best solution cause it offers lower operating and ownership costs.
F.pier From Italy, joined Aug 2000, 1517 posts, RR: 10 Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3193 times:
Are you sure that tha 717 offers lower operating costs?
Remember that the 737 is quite more common and there are lots of technicians able to handle it. I know that there are also many DC9 and MD80, but I think that the airlines that want to buy 717 should buy almost new Md8X from airlines who decide to buy 73X.
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4537 posts, RR: 48 Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3166 times:
F.pier - the 717 is a somewhat smaller, significantly cheaper to operate, aircraft than the MD-8x series. The MD-80 is more comparable to the 737-300/-400.
As for economics, I am pretty sure that it is cheaper to operate than the 737-600, but it can't operate over nearly as long a range, which is where it falls down. However, this doesn't seem to be much of a problem. Unless your business plan is based solely on operating the 737, the 717 shouldn't be too much of a spanner in the works.
As everyone else has been saying, airlines will make decisions based on a number of factors, including operating costs, purchase or leasing costs, and ease of integration with the intended network and current operations. The purchase of new 717s is perfectly comprehensible.
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
Lowfareair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (11 years 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3125 times:
The 736 costs more to operate on short, thin routes. The main factors is that it needs more fuel to take-off/land, and that landing fees are higher as it is much heavier than the 717. Basically, the plane is sh*t if you are trying to fly routes less than 1000 miles.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3132 times:
The 737-600 is a fairly heavy aircraft, as others have said, with almost transatlantic range. Why would you want a plane with such capabilities if you are just going to fly short hops.
On the other hand, unless they are planning to fly their new planes until the wings fall off (like Northwest did with their DC-9s) a 717 will be much more difficult to sell 5 or 10 years down the road than a 737.
Delta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3078 times:
The 737NG is not optimized for the low density short range market. However, it is attractive to an airline if they already have 737NG's for longer range routes and may only need a small number of 736's. However, for an operator that has old DC-9's and MD-80/90's, and who need a short-haul aircraft to complement their fleet, the 717 is ideal, since it shares a great deal of commonality with the above types.
For example, the auxiliary electric pump is the same on the 717 as on the MD-80/90/11, DC-10 and KC-10. There are probably hundreds of similar situations.
Il75 From Argentina, joined May 2001, 261 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3074 times:
as I understand from this thread, the B717 is a good choice for short routes (no more than 1000 miles someone said) and around 100 passengers. A number of reasons were discussed.
I wonder now which airliner competes with the B717 in those routes named above? Is Boeing giving away that strip of the market or is the understanding that operators will rely in the B737, an aircraft that seems to be something oversized for the task?
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3054 times:
I still think it's airline preference. Despite claims about lower costs with the DC-9/717/MD-80, the fact is that Southwest operates nothing but 737's, mainly on short haul legs, and still has extremely low costs per mile.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 13, posted (11 years 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3029 times:
The 717 competes more with large regional jets than it does with small airliners.
The A318 is in the same class, seeing both main survivin manufacturers of large airliners trying to break into the currently lucrative regional jet market.
Competing planes are the ERJ.170, Do-728/928 (dead), and possibly the CRJ.900.
The Fokker 100 is in the same class, but no longer in production.
Main advantage of the 717 and A318 are for operators who already have a fleet of Boeing/MD or Airbus types. For them it is cheaper to operate another type from the same source (purchase discounts on aircraft/parts/training etc. for example).
Srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 17284 posts, RR: 51 Reply 14, posted (11 years 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2971 times:
Look at a few of the airlines that have chosen the 717. AirTran, TWA, Midwest Express, and Hawaiian. What do these airlines have in common? They've all flown the DC-9 family of aircraft. The 717s were the replacement for the various earlier series of the DC-9 (10-50 series) for these airlines. In the case of TWA, it was also a complementary aircraft to their fleets of MD-80 family aircraft. While the 717 is somewhat different tech wise than the DC-9 and MD-80 series aircraft, it does share some things in common. A few airlines that were being shopped for the a/c when it was still the MD-95 included SAS and Northwest. SAS went for the 737-600 because of some delays MDD had with the program, and Northwest decided to just fly their DC-9s until they are out of cycles.
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6 Reply 16, posted (11 years 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2868 times:
Activale: It's also got 20% less capacity than the 737-600 and A318. So if you can fill the seats, it's a break-even. Not to mention that if you already have a fleet of Airbus or Boeings, you don't need another type.
In short, as Southwest as proven, it's more important how you operate your airline than what your airline flies.
AKelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2139 posts, RR: 6 Reply 18, posted (11 years 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2757 times:
Where in the h*ll did you come up with the idea that the 717 holds 20% less passengers than the 737-600 or A318?? In a mixed class layout there is less then a 2% difference between the aircraft. In an all economy layout there is less than a 5% difference.
These number are straight from the manufacturers websites:
117 passengers one-class (economy) at 32" pitch
106 passengers mixed class
8 first class at 36" pitch and 98 economy class at 32" pitch
117 passengers one-class (economy) at 32" pitch
107 passengers mixed class
8 first class at 38" pitch and 99 economy at 32" pitch
123 passengers one-class (economy) at 32" pitch
108 passengers mixed class
8 first class at 36" pitch and 100 economy at 32" pitch
747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6 Reply 19, posted (11 years 4 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2753 times:
The 717 is a derivitive of an old design, just like the 737-600, both with their inital designs in the period of 1965-67.
If an airline is already a DC-9 or MD80 operator, they may be more likey to buy it since they have an infrastructure which will only need minor re familiaraztion with the type instead of having to learn for a whole new type.
The 717 is more of a competitor for RJ's than the 737-600 which is more of a competitor for the A318.
Southwest places their emphasis of operating efficiency rather than type. Remeber they did operate 727's in their fleet in the late 70's early 80's (leased in).
The 717's landing wieghts allow for less fees as well as being able to land at smaller airports when needed to.
Lahaina From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 257 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (11 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2701 times:
Another big factor in choosing the B717 over 737-600 has to do with the cost of engine maintenance. The B717 engines are designed for high frequency cycle. Aloha airlines used to have 737-300 and 737-400 series flying interisland but soon disposed of them. The reason given to me by the mechanics and pilots were that the engines were very expensive to maintain in short, high cycle flights. That is why Aloha is still hanging onto their 737-200 planes around. At one time they were going to replace their 737-200s with Avro jets but that was placed on hold after September 11.
FBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7 Reply 21, posted (11 years 4 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2671 times:
SAS was interested in the MD-95 but did not order it.Not because of some delay as has been mentioned in a previous reply but because of the future of McD at the time.
Boeing was desperately looking for a major airline as a launch customer for the 737-600 and gave SAS a ridiculously low price on the 736 The offer was accepted and now we've got an airliner that needs some 110% load factor to break even on costs.
There have been sold almost twice as many 717's as 736's,and half of the 736's sold went to SAS.
No need to say more.
Besides,the 736 has some very lousy flight caractheristics,especially in turbulence,and there's noise wherever you sit in the cabin.
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6 Reply 22, posted (11 years 4 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2638 times:
Ah, well, I guess I was thinking of 717's as 100 seaters because that's how thew TWA aircraft were set up, roughly.
But as I said before, the truth is that the airplane is only a portion of costs, as Southwest has demonstrated.
One of the things I dislike about the DC-9 and derivatives is that the F seats can't be as wide as they are on the Boeings. So it's a tossup; in Y I prefer the two seat side on the DC-9 derivatives, but in F I far prefer the 737's.
Acvitale From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 921 posts, RR: 11 Reply 23, posted (11 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2576 times:
Think about what you type. The questions was why would an airline choose the 717. The answer is simple.
It is cheaper to operated
It is easier to maintain
The answer was given and you had to create a bogus statement to try to dis the 717. Seriously, If you have an axe to grind fine. But, In F class on the TWA 717 vs. The wide 757s I noticed no difference in width. It was inpercievable.
IFlyADesk From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 309 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (11 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2530 times:
Regardless of which is the 'better' aircraft, something stinks with Boeing marketing. The fact that Aeromexico announced the purchase of 15 737-700s as DIRECT replacements for their 15 DC-9s is fishy. AM has been interested in the 717 ever since it was still referred to as the MD-95.
Here is Boeing's strategy: Yes the -700 is too large an aircraft to be a D93 replacement. SO, when AM 'discovers' this Boeing will offer the 736 (slow seller) at a great price and probably 100% financing (as with the -700s). When the -700s arrive the D93s will evaporate quicky and soon will the M80s.
Regarding the SAS 736 vs. MD-95 deal, it was all a matter of cost. DAC was selling the MD-95s at $21M per and Boeing (pre-merger) offered the 736s at $19.5M each. Money is money and Boeing did the same deal to DAC that Airbus is doing these days...
25 Sllevin: Activale; 1) If you've flown the AA 738's with the newer-style (blue recaro) seats, you would know they are significantly wider than the same style (o
26 Mandala499: So how much are 717-200s and 737-600 and -700s nowadays (if someone got A319 too)... Just curious... I heard a CRJ is about US$20m too... Mandala499
27 Dash8King: How is it incomprehensible? You can't comprehend much can you?. The 717 is for short haul and has better economics compared to the 736 for that market