Guest

A318 Vs. B717

Mon Jan 24, 2000 6:28 am

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.
 
Guest

RE: PW

Mon Jan 24, 2000 6:31 am

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
Posts: 5869
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 1999 6:27 am

RE: A318 Vs. B717

Mon Jan 24, 2000 6:38 am

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
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: PW

Mon Jan 24, 2000 6:49 am

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.
 
LH423
Posts: 5869
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 1999 6:27 am

D L X

Mon Jan 24, 2000 6:58 am

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
 
Boeing757/767
Posts: 2179
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 11:05 pm

RE: A318 Vs. B717

Mon Jan 24, 2000 7:16 am

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
 
USAirways737
Posts: 986
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 7:20 am

717

Mon Jan 24, 2000 7:18 am

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.
 
Guest

RE: PW

Mon Jan 24, 2000 7:19 am

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.
 
Guest

RE: 717

Mon Jan 24, 2000 7:23 am

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.
 
Guest

Why BR715 Exclusivity Is Right For The 717

Mon Jan 24, 2000 7:32 am

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 
 
Guest

RE: Why BR715 Exclusivity Is Right For The 717

Mon Jan 24, 2000 7:39 am

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

RE: Why BR715 Exclusivity Is Right For The 717

Mon Jan 24, 2000 7:42 am

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
 
USAirways737
Posts: 986
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 7:20 am

Hello?

Mon Jan 24, 2000 7:44 am

why is the 717 only good for short hops and not medium skips like the A318?
 
acvitale
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 8:25 am

RE: A318 Vs. B717

Mon Jan 24, 2000 7:53 am

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.
 
Guest

Mission Differences: A318 And 717

Mon Jan 24, 2000 7:56 am

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
 
USAirways737
Posts: 986
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2000 7:20 am

I Still Dont Get It

Mon Jan 24, 2000 8:05 am

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

RE: I Still Dont Get It

Mon Jan 24, 2000 8:13 am

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
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 4:41 am

RE: I Still Dont Get It

Mon Jan 24, 2000 8:14 am

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.
 
Guest

RE: A318 Vs. B717

Mon Jan 24, 2000 8:16 am

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.
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

To LH423, P-W, US737, And Then Some

Mon Jan 24, 2000 8:16 am

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
Posts: 5869
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 1999 6:27 am

USAirways737

Mon Jan 24, 2000 8:18 am

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
 
Guest

RE: Why BR715 Exclusivity Is Right For The 717

Mon Jan 24, 2000 8:19 am

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?
 
Guest

A318 Shrink!

Mon Jan 24, 2000 8:22 am

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 
 
Guest

RE: A318 Vs. B717

Mon Jan 24, 2000 8:26 am

I was under the impression BA had retired all 747-100s effective 1 November 1999. Maybe I'm wrong?!?!?!?
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Numbers

Mon Jan 24, 2000 8:32 am

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.
 
acvitale
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 8:25 am

RE: A318 Vs. B717

Mon Jan 24, 2000 8:39 am

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 able to make every market they serve in the contiguous 48 states. Albeit it with some load restrictions on some flights in certain conditions.. However, I doubt you would see a 717 doing STL-SEA,STL-SFO,STL-LAX etc etc... If anything you might see the 717 on runs like STL-PVD perfect for opening a new station. STL-MDT, STL-PNS, STL-GPT, STL-BVT and others that would make sense with the 717 and it's great economics.

I personally would not want to be the accounting dept of a carrier that had to operate the A318 against the 717 on short to medium haul markets ie (100-1200 miles), The 717 would kill the A318 economically. As for pax preference the 717 has been getting nothing but rave reviews. Those who call the 717 just a DC-9-30 with new engines obviously have never been in one. And I personally prefer 2-3 seating over 3-3 even if the bus is wider than the 727/737/757 series.

Happy flying
 
Guest

To DLX - Apology

Mon Jan 24, 2000 8:39 am

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!
 
Guest

RE: 747-100 You Are Right

Mon Jan 24, 2000 8:42 am

They did, my bad.
 
Guest

RE: A318 Vs. B717

Mon Jan 24, 2000 8:55 am

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 control surfaces to be manually operated.
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: A318 Vs. B717

Mon Jan 24, 2000 9:06 am

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 got some of both?
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: To DLX - Apology

Mon Jan 24, 2000 9:08 am

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!!
 
Guest

FBW On The 717

Mon Jan 24, 2000 9:12 am

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 fantastic aircraft, can't wait to fly it but in the UK I might have to wait a while.

I also think anyone who says the 717 is a re-engined DC-9 is wrong.

Here's a pic of the 717 internal mock-up

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © David Mueller

 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

FBC Vs. FBW

Mon Jan 24, 2000 9:12 am

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 toasted and broke in the cargo hold fire. If that plane had been FBW, some redundant control lines could be routed through sections of the plane that were far away from the cargo fire, and thus control could be maintained.

Or am I missing something completely?
 
Guest

RE: FBC Vs. FBW

Mon Jan 24, 2000 9:26 am

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 possible damage from a collapsed cabin floor (Happened in THY DC-10 crash)

Maybe this would defeat an object of FBW, it saves weight, but it would increase flight safety. I don't know if any FBW aircraft do this.

Maybe you could post it as a topic on it's own, you'd stand a better chance of getting some good responses. It's an interesting topic - please do!
 
LH423
Posts: 5869
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 1999 6:27 am

D L X

Mon Jan 24, 2000 9:28 am

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, but thats another issue all together. Air France is also holding off on the A340-600 because Airbus has exlusivity with RR for the Trent, and they want a high powered CFM56. So in my opinon it is better to add another engine, because in the end, one big order will eventually outweigh any intial costs of adding another engine.

LH423
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: FBC Vs. FBW

Mon Jan 24, 2000 9:32 am

Okay, I'll do it, but you'd better be the first response with your comment.  
 
Guest

RE: D L X

Mon Jan 24, 2000 9:39 am

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 sales prospects. In fact they wanted 2 engines and the only reason that there are not two is that Pratt and Whitney could not get their act together with their proposed PW4500 engine. Airbus has said that if/or as soon as another viable powerplant was launched and made available, they would give it the opportuinity to power the plane. In fact PW is looking at using some of their PW8000 fan gearing technology to make a 60,000lbs thrust version for the A340. However the first priority is to get the engine on the narrow body jets, but there is significant work being done to provide RR competition on the 340.

Evidence of this policy was made appearent last year when people began to dub the PW6000 as the exclusive engine for the A318. Airbus was quick to point out that this was not the case and that they were always interested in engine choices whenever possible. At that time they said the CFM was not yet chosen due to them at that point not providing a reasonable offer.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: A318 Vs. B717

Mon Jan 24, 2000 10:53 am

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 bigger version and they developed it right away. I believe that as soon as demand appears for a 120 seat 717 Boeing will get right to work on it.
 
Sonic
Posts: 1505
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2000 3:10 am

B717 Vs. B737

Mon Jan 24, 2000 8:49 pm

I think, that B717-200 will make some competition to another Boeing plane: 737. Passenger capacity difference is very small, and airlines, used B737 planes for domestic flights, will change it into B717. I think, that Boeing will suspend 737 planes manufactoring in nearest future. B737 series numbers reached 900, and Boeing not make B737-1000.
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: B717 Vs. B737

Mon Jan 24, 2000 11:55 pm

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 heavy, which lends itself to success in the long haul market. Its small capacity makes it an excellent long-thin plane. Its range is > 3000 mi, twice as long as the 717. THe 736 is a 318 competitor. (or vice versa since the 318 isn't even out yet.)

Again, just because they have the same capacity, doesn't mean they are in the same market.
 
HyperMike
Posts: 968
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 1999 7:03 am

RE: Why BR715 Exclusivity Is Right For The 717

Tue Jan 25, 2000 1:11 am

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 would have sold better. True?
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Why BR715 Exclusivity Is Right For The 717

Tue Jan 25, 2000 2:33 am

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 some variant of CFM56. I think its safe to say that those have sold quite nicely dispite the lack of engine choice.


However, I had also heard that the L1011 was done in by RR. I think it was a combination of things. The DC10 beat it to the market, and was cheaper. The RR engines had more than their fair share of problems at the beginning. Of course now, they are amongst the most reliable engines you can sling under your wing, but that came too late to save the L1011. I also feel that Lockheed jumped out of the market a little too soon.
 
Guest

RE: A318 Vs. B717

Tue Jan 25, 2000 2:36 am

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 customers and kept the plane in production longer.
 
Guest

Should Be A318 V B737-600

Tue Jan 25, 2000 5:50 am

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 you would be selling yourslelf short:

You'd have headpain if you wanted to use the A318 on short hops against the 717, or if you wanted to fly 200 people accross the Atlantic because the 757 can do it and the A321 can't. Maybe you'd like to cruise at 41000ft to avioid ATC delays, the 737NG can the A320 can't - all those things can cause airlines headaches! (I know Airbus planes can do things some Boeings can't - but I was answering to your point)

The A318 can't compete with the 717 on ownership and operating costs for short haul operations. It's too heavy. It is not a true competitor to the 717 like the BAE RJ100 is.

The debate should be A318 v B737-600. They are both shrinks of larger aircraft and optimised for similar markets, that is the only way Boeing could justify keeping the 717 in the same product line as the 737-600.
 
Guest

RE: Should Be A318 V B737-600

Tue Jan 25, 2000 6:25 am

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 737-600. Alitalia has been looking at the 717 and the A318, Northwest has been doing the same, as did British Airways, and a few others. Though they are not true competitiors the airlines are evaluating one against the other.
 
TWA902fly
Posts: 2871
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 1999 5:47 am

A318

Tue Jan 25, 2000 7:44 am

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. Anyways, I will see how my trip on the MD-90 goes this summer, if I like it, I like the 717.

-mark
life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
 
D L X
Posts: 11699
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Should Be A318 V B737-600

Tue Jan 25, 2000 7:48 am

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. (And not necessarily what plane they want to fly.)

If they want to fly long point to point trips that perhaps overfly their hubs maybe to save costs or slots (BA perhaps?), then the 318 may be the obvious choice. (Or the 736.) If they want to fly shuttle service from close cities very frequently (like LGA-IAD on the US Shuttle which currently uses DC9s) or just have semi-frequent service between a hub and a smaller city, then the 717 may be an obvious choice.

There's a market for both, and while there is some overlap, the two planes definitely meet two different goals.
 
LH423
Posts: 5869
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 1999 6:27 am

Engine Exclusivity-Bad Idea

Tue Jan 25, 2000 11:43 am

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 conceeded to having GE engines on the L-1011 to United, The DC-10 may never have been built. Back then United Air Lines was a staunch user of GE engines (today their alleigence lies with Pratt & Whitney), and when Lockheed and MDC were making their sales pitches for the L-1011 and DC-10, respectively, United preferred the L-1011, but when Lockheed, in a brave display, refused to put any other type of engine on the L-1011, United reluctantly accepted the DC-10. And why shouldn't they have, why take an aircraft with engines totally incompatible with their fleet.

American Airlines was ready to sign on the dotted line for the L-1011, but when the new RB211 had troubles (troubles which later brought the financial collapse of Rolls Royce) and delayed the launch of the L-1011 by some time, they reluctantly accepted the DC-10. And why shouldn't they have, why wait for an engine that is having teething troubles before entering service, and having to wait for unproven engines while your competitors get the advantage.

I truly believe that the engine exclusivity killed the L-1011 programme, and Lockheed's forté in commercial aviation after building great aeroplanes, such as the Constellation or the Tristar. It also explains why twice as many DC-10's were built.

I think that while adding engines drives up programme costs, the overall customer (airlines) appeal is well worth the additional costs, plus it's usually made up in sales.

LH423
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
 
Guest

RE: Engine Exclusivity-Bad Idea

Tue Jan 25, 2000 12:32 pm

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 then, high bypass turbofan engines were in their infancy, and the RB211 was RR's first. It may have contributed to the L1011s failiure, but was definately the only thing. It isn't realstic to compare the need for engine choices on 400 seat jumbos with 100 seat regionals.

Engine choces are only offered when the market wants them. The regional airline market does not. The BR715 is performing well and has been paised. No airline has criticised the choice of exclusive engine on the 717, the way they have with the GE90 on the 777X.

The 737 has sold over 4000 with an exclusive engine type. The A340 has sold well. Airbus only offered CFM engines on the A318 because Air France demanded it. This hasn't occured with the 717. The regional airline sector wants engines that are quiet, reliable and easy to maintain. They don't want a choice, and they don't care if the engine is compatible with their A340 because they don't have any! Name another regional airliner with a choice of engine. I can't!!!!

The regional airline sector is very cost sensitive, and have smaller profit margins. I think a choice of engine will not add customer appeal and they will definately mind the increase in costs! You say the extra cost will be made up in sales. Well, yes maybe to the manufacturer, but how does the airline make up the extra costs. They may order the BAE RJX, CRJ-90 or ERJ-190 etc.

You may have noticed I feel strongly that the regional aircraft market does not want or need a choice of engines!

I hope I explained myself OK!

Regards
James 
 
User avatar
coronado
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 1999 9:42 am

RE: A318 Vs. B717

Tue Jan 25, 2000 2:41 pm

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 to 4 cycles per day. Des-Moines -LAX iand return is perfect for this beast.

The 717 is a low capacity short range 'light' narrow body ideal for 500-700 mile legs with 8 -10 cycles per day. Des-Moines-ORD-Indy-Cleveland and return is perfect for this beast.

End of story.
The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos