OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2005 times:
Seeing how they just agreed to lease a couple of dozen more 717s (ex-AA/TW), I don't see either the 737 or A320 in their future. More likely, IMHO, that you'll see them pick-up used MD-80 or -90 series aircraft for the longer flights, so they can have at lease some degree of commonality with the 717s. Don't know if the pilot type ratings are common, but at least some parts would be...
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1916 times:
I actually don't think it would be a bad idea for AirTran to stick with the 717 and basically flesh out their current niche; that is, no transcon service, no international service, but continue to focus on building profits and customer base for the next three or four years.
Elwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1811 times:
AirTran is not considering any new aircraft at this time. The 737-800 was looked at, but the showcase model was returned to Boeing. At this time, AirTran's expansion and route plans call for more 717-200s, and that is all.
The only new aircraft for AirTran right now is the CRJ-200, operated by Air Wisconsin as AirTran Jet Connect.
And no, type certification of MD-80/MD-90 and 717s is different, largely because landing/takeoff characteristics are different and the cockpit of the 717 is all glass, while the MD-80/MD-90 are mostly standard avionics (though some have been replaced in some models by digital readouts).
AirTran will eventually pick up either the 737-800 OR convince Boeing to start construction of the 717-300, the larger, longer range version that is only in blueprint, while picking up MD-80s/MD-90s to fill out the routes until the 717-300 can replace them.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
Gr8slvrflt From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1583 posts, RR: 16 Reply 12, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1648 times:
I think the 737-800 is likely but not for a couple years at least. However, the industry is changing so fast its hard to predict. If the majors continue to scale back operations as much as they have been, the LCCs will have a lot of opportunities to expand. AirTran is already much larger than it expected a year ago and expected growth for 2003 is also more than planned just a few months ago. Who knows?
Srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 16896 posts, RR: 51 Reply 13, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1620 times:
AirTran will not acquire any MD-80-90 a/c because they do not want any a/c in their fleet that are out of production. If AirTran can convince Midwest Express to come onboard the project, the 717-300 may be a viable program. Midwest Express will need to replace their MD-80 family a/c a few years down the road, and AirTran needs an a/c with longer range and more pax capacity. With AirTran being the largest 717 operator, Boeing will do what it takes to keep AirTran happy, and away from buying any Airbus products. It would take more than just an order from AirTran to launch the 717-300; the plane is still on the drawing boards so to speak, and a final design has yet to be finalized. The question is how many 717-300s would AirTran need? My guess is that they would need between 25-40 717-300 for future growth, and such a small number of a/c does not start up a new production line. With the other 717 operators (and future operators) added to this, there may only be a demand for under 100 of these stretched 717s from current operators. But perhaps if Boeing does launch the 717-300, it may get orders for them from airlines that currently operate MD-80 family a/c, but considering the state of the industry right now, to only companies that seem to be getting new a/c are the leasing companies.
PSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 6910 posts, RR: 29 Reply 14, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1567 times:
Ummm 25-40 aircraft is certainly a HUGE order (for expansion for that matter) for an airline the size of AirTran. Think of all the other fixed costs associated with that much expansion in terms of labor and capital.
You don't think these type of carriers too are waiting to see how things shake out. Obviously they know that their future could become more difficult too. The big question is what will happen when the playing field becomes more level and the cost structures level out between the "Majors" and "Low Fares" Its obvious, that in one way or another the majors that do survive are going to have much lower costs. Its also a fact that the current young low-fares carriers are going to experience a rising cost structure as the airline matures. It will be interesting to see how market share and customer preferences shake out. These airlines aren't gonna be expanding at break-neck pace until some sort of certainty develops again in this industry.
Travatl From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2172 posts, RR: 11 Reply 15, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1461 times:
I don't think the order of 25-40 aircraft is very large at all. AirTran just announced the delivery of 23 additional aircraft for next year, and ORDERING, certainly does not mean they will all be DELIVERED in one lump sum. Look at the number of A320s on order at jBlue. An order of 30 aircraft to be delivered at a rate of 1 - 1.5 a month for expansion purposes is certainly within the growth infrastructure of AirTran, especially as we condense the fleet to one aircraft type (finally) and can truly "look forward".
BA319-131 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 8276 posts, RR: 56 Reply 18, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1400 times:
I understand Airtran are asking Boeing for a longer range 717-200 first.That is not such a difficult task,however Boeing won't want to until additional or new customers to commit to the type before they fork out money to modify and certify a new model.
Given the current market conditions the market looks very bleak for the 717.The CRJ-700/900 and soon EMB-170/190 will do the same routes for far fewer $.While the A318 has few orders at the moment,it does have the range and it has the advantage of being built along with the whole A320 family, so it is not a stand alone production line.
Boeing are under pressure from all sides.They need to make a stand and decide if and what they are doing with the 717.
Lymanm From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1133 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1354 times:
In addition to Midwest Express, could Spirit also within the next 5-10 years be looking for an MD80 replacement? These two, combined with Airtran, could perhaps generate enough of a market for Boeing to go through with the relatively low R&D cost of the 717-300. Just a thought...
PSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 6910 posts, RR: 29 Reply 20, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1313 times:
Spirit's business model does not go for the purchase of new aircraft. They have a near endless pool of used MD-80's to draw from as necessary. They do just fine using previously owned aircraft and their cost structure does not support being able to pay for a fleet of brand new aircraft.
Travatl From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2172 posts, RR: 11 Reply 21, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1274 times:
There is some misconception here.
Boeing approached AirTran about launching the 717-300, not vice versa. The reason AirTran doesn't want it as proposed? The 717-300, as designed, does not have an MD80 wing, but rather a DC9-50 wing. It is not a replacement for the MD80 series of aircraft. The increase is in capacity, not range. A 717-400, or redesigned 717-300, both of which would be YEARS away, would be more likely to fit AirTran's needs.
For the short term, AirTran is therefore looking at an increased-range 717-200 model to address it's expansion plans. But a second aircraft type will surely be decided upon in the latter half of 2003.
FlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6088 posts, RR: 25 Reply 22, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1252 times:
I think over time Boeing is going to try to wean AAI off of the 717 and move them into the 737.
There are few customers that have shown any interest in the 717. AA, CO, DL and WN (some of Boeing's most loyal customers) have all turned down the 717 and do not want another fleet type. NW wants to keep the DC9's around for another 10 years and after that they will replace the DC9's with a mix of A319's and RJ's. Few European, Asian or South American carriers have expressed much interest except for a few tiny orders which aren't enough to sustain the line.
Manuel From Portugal, joined Aug 2004, 1 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1114 times:
When stretching the 717-200, can't Boeing use parts of the MD-87 and MD-90 design? I know the characteristics of the 87 and 90 are to some extent different compared to the 717, but all three planes derive from the same basic design, so there must be commonality in many parts. This way they would have a 717-300/400 with a greater capacity and the greater range of the MD-87/90.
Just a thought....
Elwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 7 Reply 24, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1003 times:
Yes, there is a commonality of parts between the 717 and the MD-87/88/90, but that commonality is similar to the commonality of the DC-90 and the MD-81/82/83. It doesn't make up enough of the aircraft to be all that incredibly similar.
However, you are right. I don't know the actual number, but I imagine the 717 and MD-80/90 series aircraft share about 40% commonality of parts.
And as far as the 717-300 having the DC-9-50 wing, that's the wing the 717-200 has. So I can't imagine that was a breaking point for FL ordering 717-300s. The 717 is designed to replace the DC-9, not the MD-80/90. There will probably never be an MD-80/90 replacement. The 737NG serves the same purpose.
And the 717-200ER concept could certainly be used. There is PLENTY of room in bin 2 of the 717 for additional fuel, similar to the MD-83. The real question is weight and balance.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
25 BR715-A1-30: And as far as the 717-300 having the DC-9-50 wing, that's the wing the 717-200 has. WRONG!!!! The 717-200 has a wing based on that of the DC9-34. Trav
26 Yyz717: There was an AirTran article in a recent Flight Intl issue. The CEO stated that thet are not looking for a larger aircraft. They ARE interested in an