asteriskceo
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:42 pm

717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:40 am

Okay. I have a question. All these airlines who have he MD80 series won't give them up, even though some are outdated and just old. This obviously shows that they like the MD80 series.

Sooner or later they will have to retire the MD80 fleet. So why would they NOT order 717's? I just dont understand, aren't they basically the same aircraft, does the 717 not perform as well? I'm sure it does, its more effecient, quiet, and comfortable.

Sooooo--should they maybe put a hold on the program until airlines start retiring there MD80 fleets?

I know that the MD80 can seat around more than 50 passengers than the 717. So are they planning to make a stretch 717? is that what the -300 project is planning to do?

Someone, correct me if I am wrong.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:43 am

Boeing expects airlines to replace their MD80s (which still have several years of life) with 737 products.

A 717-300 would only be the size of a DC-9-50. Not nearly big enough.

N
 
asteriskceo
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:42 pm

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:48 am

isn't there something about aft mounted engines that does a plane good? Why would they want to replace the performance of an MD80? The 717 could make a stretch, and that stretch could just be a modern replacement of the MD-80. I live right next to the B717 plant, and I know they are struggling, I don't know--just doesn't make sense to me.
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:49 am

A 717-300 would be too short on the range as well as not enough seats. The 737 series would be the replacement product Boeing would push.
One Nation Under God
 
asteriskceo
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:42 pm

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:53 am

Why don't they just quit with the 100 seat market? The 736, A318, and 717 have been proven unsuccessful. Save it for CRJ ad EMB.

They should produce a 717-400 which has enough seats and range....and market it as an "MD-80 replacement". With todays technology and more fuel effecient engines it would make a difference. Thus saving the airlines more energy.

As we all know the MD-80 can pull off things that a B737 would struggle at doing.
 
D950
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:17 am

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:55 am

The ideal replacement of the MD80 series would have been the MD90, but between some electronic problems, and Boeing deciding to kill it for the 737/8/9 series it died a horrible death. Now that some of the MD90's have been rescued from the desert, HELLO is raving about their new 90's, maybe a 717-300 would be timely. I do believe if the GermaWings thing pans out the 717 will have an epiphany of sorts, with LH waiting in the wings. Gosh the plane itself may force Boeing to admit it exists!!!
Resting on your laurels is a synonym for flirting with disaster
 
asteriskceo
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:42 pm

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:02 am

Hasd boeing taken over MD before the MD90? Maybe some Boeing engineers could fix the design and build a better MD90/stretch 717. Avoiding the electronic problems this time.  Big grin
 
asteriskceo
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:42 pm

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:10 am

Just try to imagine:

this cockpit
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui

in an MD80


 
D950
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:17 am

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 1:14 am

The MD90 was in production before the merger, but Delta, and Alaska had firm orders for the 90, which Boeing "suggested" they replace with the 738/9 series, and I believe destroyed the jigs, but I will leave that aspect to more knowledgeable members. By the way I believe, DL is getting better fuel efficiency from the 90's than the 738, anyone from DL can correct me as that came from a FO.
Resting on your laurels is a synonym for flirting with disaster
 
DeltaWings
Posts: 1234
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 4:06 am

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:35 am

As we all know the MD-80 can pull off things that a B737 would struggle at doing.

--------------

no, I dont know, like what ?
Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
 
737Captain
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:16 pm

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:41 am

"As we all know the MD-80 can pull off things that a B737 would struggle at doing"

Long field takeoffs?
"Why do you insist on man-pawing the glareshield everytime you climb up here?!"
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:52 am

The main problem with MD-80s (and all DC-9 based AC) is the narrow fuselage that PAX like so much (because of the 2-3 seating) is not suitable for cargo handling. Also, even the MD-83 does not have close to the range of any 737
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
D950
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:17 am

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:17 am

Can someone indentify the inherent problem that limits the range of the MDD series aircraft?? I love the "more aisle and window" aspect of the 2-3 seating.
Resting on your laurels is a synonym for flirting with disaster
 
FinnWings
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:03 am

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:53 am

Also, even the MD-83 does not have close to the range of any 737

I have to disagree... When we are comparing MD-80 series and classic B737s they have very similar range figures. The series 300 has the best range of all classic B737s and similar sized MD-87 the best range of MD-80 models:

B737-300
Range with 128 passengers and standard fuel 3362km (1815nm)
Range with 128 pax and max fuel 4973km (2685nm).
High gross weight version max range 6300km (3400nm) with 140 passengers.

MD-87
Range with 130 passengers and reserves 4393km (2372nm), or optionally 5248km (2833nm). Range with max fuel 5522km (2980nm), or optionally 6764km (3650nm).

As we can see, MD-87 has actually better range than any B737 classic. MD-82/83s have also very similar range as similar sized B737-400s.

Best Regards,
FinnWings
 
planespotting
Posts: 3026
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:54 am

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:19 am

MD-80's and DC-9's and 717's and the like all look a hell of a lot cooler then 737's too, in my opinion.
Do you like movies about gladiators?
 
moman
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 7:17 am

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:24 am

The MD80s and 717 are a hell of a lot quieter through more of the cabin than the 737 and more seats in front of the wings as well.

I'll take an MD80 anyday over any Boeing aircraft.

Moman
AA Platinum Member - American Airlines Forever
 
atcrick
Posts: 719
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:05 pm

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:12 pm

Interesting thread. I dont know if there is a more logical replacement for the MD-80s then 737NG's. However, those may still be too expensive when MD-80 operators have to start replacing them. Is there a chance that an Airbus product could turn out to be a logical replacement? What about older 757's sitting in the desert? I welcome your ideas.


Rgds,

ATC Rick
natch!!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 2:36 pm

Those optional numbers on the MD-80 are for extra fuel tanks, the 737 numbers are with the standard number of tanks. Even more of a cargo hit on the MD-80. The MD-80 is a bit more efficient, but slower
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
COAMiG29
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:30 am

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 3:51 pm

I agree that the MD-80 is old but apparently it still gets from point a to point b. it is efficient for what it is used for. there is no reason to update to somthing at the current time. The 717 is much nicer than the 80 but the airlines already own the md80 and with the finantual situation at the molment they might not want to spend money on a replacement for somthing that still works fine. I personally dont much care for the 80 but because it is already paid for the tickets are much cheaper and since it is only used for short flights im not going to complain about it. the 80 serves its purpose for the time being. i know it would not be efficient but it would be nice to have a widebody such as a 742 for short flights in the contigus states, though not practicle. well thats a mouthfull of my opinion which is most likely 90%bs and 10% true you may feel free to correct me if i am wrong about anything. this is my opinion on why airlines havent replaced the 80.

reguards
--COAMiG29--
If Continental had a hub at DFW with nonstop flights I would always fly them, unfortunantely good things take time.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 3:58 pm

One thing about the MD-80 is that it has major problems in ultra-cold snowy weather in Alaska. Probably why NW dropped their's (apparently other DC-9s don't have this problem =)). This is why AS ended up having to order 734s when they were building their MD-82/83 fleet.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
fuffla
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 8:41 pm

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:19 pm

MD-81 - Max speed 925km/h (500kt), long range cruising speed 813km/h (440kt). Range with 155 passengers and reserves 2897km (1564nm).

A319- Range at 64 tonne (141,095lb) takeoff weight 3391km. High density single class layout can seat 142 passengers.

A320-200 - Max cruising speed 903km/h (487kt) at 28,000ft, economical cruising speed 840km/h (454kt) at 37,000ft. Range with 150 passengers and reserves with CFM56s 4843km (2615nm)


The only other ideal equivalent for the MD-80 seems to be an Airbus aircraft, either the A320 or A319, depending on the load factors of the aircraft. However, as the A320 was created as a competitor for the 737, then wouldn't the 737 also be a competitor? Then, once again the question stands, why havn't the airlines operating the MD-80 chosen the 737 as the replacement aircraft? Maybe the airlines were going to but financial struggles after the terrorist attacks diverted their attention, from replacing old aircraft to trying to keep the airline afloat.
 
beeweel15
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 12:59 am

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:24 pm

The bottom line is that Boeing bought MDC to eliminate the competition. It is so sad cause Boeing is forced airlines that were MDC buyers to look at Airbus.
Until Boeing has a diverse offering as Airbus you know who is going to have the most orders.
 
jeb94
Posts: 583
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:19 pm

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:23 pm

Why don't MD80 operators order 717s? Simple, the 717 is intended as a DC-9 replacement and has the same exact wing as the DC-9s. That means smaller fuel tanks and less range. The stretched 717 would have the same problem. Now, if you really wanted a modern MD-80 replacement, you'd want the 717 cockpit and systems on the MD-90 airframe. You can't really compare the 737NG to the MD-80 because the 737NG is newer with a lot of design changes compared to the classics. Its better to compare them to the 737 advanced like the 300/400/500, which benefit from a more efficient engine. Gives you an idea of how efficient the MD-80 design is to put up similar ranges to the 737-300 with less efficient engines!
 
BR715-A1-30
Posts: 6525
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 9:30 am

RE: 717 As A MD80 Replacement

Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:25 am

no, I dont know, like what ?

Quick Turnarounds, Short-Thin hops, More Window and Aisle seats. Just to name a few.
Puhdiddle

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, BobbyPSP, cougar15, mat66, MTEMBLEQUE, N14AZ, Noshow, RRTrent, TK787, TurnaroudUK, Ugly51 and 239 guests