STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 17031 posts, RR: 50 Posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 15660 times:
Having just returned from Maui where I flew on a 717 for the first time I was anxious to get back on here and ask for a comparison between the 717 and 737-500 which I've often flown. CO and UAL are retiring their 737-500s, UAL will completely retire their 737-500s while CO will keep 35 of their 737-500s with all 35 to be retrofitted with winglets.
The 717 in comparison seems to be going strong, with Hawaiian picking a few from the market and Airtran previously trying to acquire Midwest to acquire their 25 or so 717s. How does the 717 rank vs the 737-500 from an operation stand point, they have similar capacity.
CASM, fuel burn etc..
What are the specific advantages and disadvantages each aircraft has other the other.
Also worth noting is that AQ briefly operated a few odd-ball 733 and 734. The 734 may have been too large, but I also recall reading that the CFM56's didn't like flying 10+ times a day between the islands. Check the forum archives for more speculation/history of AQ's fleet decisions and the endless "When/how will AQ replace the 732?" debates.
The 717 and its RR engines, we can surmise, are more suited to the high-cycle ops the HA bird you flew on is used for. Not sure a 735 would be able to do the job as well with its CFM engines.
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 10186 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 14680 times:
The 717 has operating costs on routes less than 1200 miles that were equivalent to the much larger 737-800. The 717 beat the 737-600 and 737-700 easily on a per passenger basis. Boeing built it because it was a very economical aircraft. It's hard to compare to a 737-500 since the MD-87 did a better job of competing in that area since they were of the same generation. The 737-500 was far better than the MD-87 if you look at sales numbers.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6057 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 14577 times:
The DC-9 family had the great advantage over the 737 of the airframe weighing LESS. A 737 has a heavy wingbox structure that the DC-9 doesn't need. The T-tail design is heavy, true enough, but not horribly so.
The 717 is powered by BR715 engines, which are wonderfully efficient and emit low levels of pollutants. The 737-5 is powered by older CFM variants, which were great at the time, but have been improved on multiple times since.
The main advantages of the 717 are LOW cost and HIGH tolerance to pressure cycles.
The disadvantage of the 717 is that they're hard to come by, and are NOT part of a marketing family. Boeing never went ahead with the 717-300 variant. Meanwhile, the 737 is on its ninth iteration, and each one is somewhat similar to the one before, with four variants currently available for sale.
ThePinnacleKid From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 736 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14487 times:
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 7): The disadvantage of the 717 is that they're hard to come by, and are NOT part of a marketing family. Boeing never went ahead with the 717-300 variant.
I also sometimes wonder if it wasn't slightly a bad decision on the part of McDD pre-Boeing to have the 717 be larger than the DC-9-30 size... by having a seating capacity over 100 people it required an additional F/A... which at the time, when fuel is cheap, why not have an aircraft slightly more "uneconomical" but could maximize labor resources and a plane in the 130-150 seat range... most "bang for the buck" in terms of labor costs.
I think the 717 was the right aircraft at the wrong time... I think it would have been perfect for carriers such as American, Continental, (beaten to death) but Northwest, the list could go on...
I mean in the instance of American it would today fill a perfect niche roll for markets out of O'Hare, DFW, St. Louis to midwest cities that are slightly too small for MD-80's or 737-800's but too large for the CRJ-700, ERJ-145's.... Plus with 300 MD-80's to be replaced, not all should be 737-800's and while the 737-700's would be perfect for crew utilization, general fleet standardization, they aren't necessarily the end all be all when you can still achieve an economy of scale with a large fleet of 717's (if they were still around)...