User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:26 pm

It looks like Airbus has sold 4 A-318s so far this year. But, I don't believe Boeing has sold any B-737-600s this year, or for the last few years, for that fact.

Why is that?
 
D L X
Posts: 11701
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:52 pm

E190, CRJ-700.

A318 and 736 are simply too fat for their roles.
 
vfw614
Posts: 3194
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:05 am

It is interesting, however, that the A318 is a two times shrink of the original A320 design (so a less than ideal result should be expected), while the mother of all B737, the -100, was shorter than today's -600 (although the -600 sized model has become fatter and fatter over the decades when it matured from the -200 to the -500 and finally the -600).
 
yow
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 2:47 pm

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:08 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
But, I don't believe Boeing has sold any B-737-600s this year, or for the last few years, for that fact.

WestJet is taking delivery of a bunch of 736s this year. The options were firmed up late last year if I remember correctly.
 
avconsultant
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 1:18 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:14 am

The 737-600 is an expensive airplane for its size.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:21 am

Despite being smaller than the -700, the 737-600 is that much cheaper to operate. So most operators go for the additional revenue that the -700 can earn.
 
Aviator27
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:09 pm

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:47 am

Length of the Guppy (B737):

B737-100: 27.61 meters
B737-200: 29.54 meters
B737-300: 32.18 meters
B737-400: 35.23 meters
B737-500: 29.79 meters
B737-600: 29.79 meters
B737-700: 32.18 meters
B737-800: 38.02 meters
B737-900: 40.67 meters

All from Boeing Technical Documents.

B737 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning
 
Aviator27
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:09 pm

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:51 am

Just for kicks, the length of the 'Bus (A32x):

A318: 31.45 meters
A319: 33.83 meters
A320: 37.57 meters
A321: 44.51 meters

All from Airbus Product Viewer.
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7071
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:52 am

I would love to see Canjet get 736's. I think instead we will see the 73G. But as Aviator27 said the 500 and 600 are the same length, so you never know.

MCOflyer
Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
 
avconsultant
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 1:18 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:29 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 5):
Despite being smaller than the -700, the 737-600 is that much cheaper to operate. So most operators go for the additional revenue that the -700 can earn.

The 737-6 operating cost are almost identical to the 737-7. With the exception of WestJet, SAS has to use these aircraft on high yielding routes with limited demand.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:13 am

Since AirTran was a big B-717 customer, why didn't they opt for the B-737-600, instead of the B-737-700, when the B-717 went out of production?
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5380
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:57 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Why is that?

Weren't those sold A318 Elites? That might explain the gap, as Boeing had publicly stated last January that they were no longer actively promoting the 736 as a business jet. Another factor could be the imminent certification of the A318 by Spring 2007 for operation into LCY. The only jet competition here are the smaller E170 due to be certified this year, and the 146 but with BAE Systems just shrugging off the threat. The 190 is about to begin its campaign.
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...nies+plan+for+larger+Airbuses.html

The A318 could have more range than the single ACT provides, if a large, built-in aft storage tank is feasible in the sloping area starting at the cargo door and as far backwards as it could go, if there are no structures, equipment or hydraulic lines that are in the way. This change could add significant fuel volume but can only happen if more operators would be interested.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Since AirTran was a big B-717 customer, why didn't they opt for the B-737-600, instead of the B-737-700, when the B-717 went out of production?

The last went off the line just recently, and theirs are still fairly new. Besides, the 736 (as the A318) is reputed to have worse economics than the 717. And for a small increase in operating costs, they gain a substantial number of seats with the -700.

[Edited 2006-07-24 22:04:49]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:03 am

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 2):
while the mother of all B737, the -100, was shorter than today's -600 (although the -600 sized model has become fatter and fatter over the decades when it matured from the -200 to the -500 and finally the -600).

The fuselage cross section has not gotten any wider over the course of the 737 production line, from -100 to -900.

Quoting AvConsultant (Reply 4):
The 737-600 is an expensive airplane for its size.

Extremely expensive. It only appeals to airlines with large 737 fleets looking for a small jet and fleet commonality.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Since AirTran was a big B-717 customer, why didn't they opt for the B-737-600, instead of the B-737-700, when the B-717 went out of production?

They bought the two model concurrently. The 737 was meant for higher demand segments. Plus the 737-700 costs in essence the same to opperate as 737-600, and both cost well more to opperate than 717. They figured so long as they were moving to 737, the extra capacity of 737-7 over -6 is basically free.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
thering
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:44 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:07 am

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 6):
B737-600: 29.79 meters
B737-700: 32.18 meters



Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 6):
A318: 31.45 meters

So A318 has almost the same lenght that the 737-700!!

The lack of sales for the 736 is simple, the 737-700 has almost the same flying cost, operates on the same runways, and carries 20 more pax in avarege.
I think that the certification to operate in London City may help the A318 sales, to Air France, and maybe even BA.
146 319 320 321 332 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 742 743 744 762 763 772 773 CRJ ER4 100 F50 F27 M11 D10
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:55 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Since AirTran was a big B-717 customer, why didn't they opt for the B-737-600, instead of the B-737-700, when the B-717 went out of production?

The cost model only works on the low weight, low thrust, shorter range version. You start carrying people beyond 1,500 miles in a 100 seater of this weight, you're simply wasting money. You really have to command a premium at that point which drives the -700 beyond that distance.
 
thering
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:44 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:07 am

So I would say that the big question is... Why SAS got 737-600s istead of gettingh just -700s and -800s???
146 319 320 321 332 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 742 743 744 762 763 772 773 CRJ ER4 100 F50 F27 M11 D10
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:10 am

Quoting Thering (Reply 15):
So I would say that the big question is... Why SAS got 737-600s istead of gettingh just -700s and -800s???

Short haul use.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:20 am

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 2):
It is interesting, however, that the A318 is a two times shrink of the original A320 design (so a less than ideal result should be expected), while the mother of all B737, the -100, was shorter than today's -600 (although the -600 sized model has become fatter and fatter over the decades when it matured from the -200 to the -500 and finally the -600).

Well there is a big difference between the 737s and A320 series. The 737NGs have a totally new wing, which is much larger than the original wing. This is what gives the plane the additional range to be able to fly transcons. However with a larger wing comes more weight. The 737-500 is more economical to operate on the same route than a 737-600 is. This is why Continental cancelled its 737-600 order. The 737-500 was a lot more successful since it was a better combination for the wing. The 737-600 has a wing that is more ideal for the 737-700 or 800 and transcon routes. There is little in common with the 737-100 or 737-200 other than crossection. The 737 grew and no longer efficiently covers the 100 seat market that it was originally designed for.

The current generation of 737s occupy the same market that the 727 and 720 were filling when the 737 was first designed. Boeing took over the MD-95 and renamed it the 717 so it could have a plane in that market segment that the 737 initially pioneered. It is interesting that Boeing originally had the 720 and later 727 to fill the 140-150 seat market with a range of almost 2000 miles and the 737 to fill the 100-120 seat market with a range a little shorter. The 737 moved up to fill the 727 market, the 727 disappeared, and the 717 came, and then it disappeared. There is a trend of Boeing not being that committed or succesful with the 100 seat market.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5380
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:01 am

Quoting Thering (Reply 13):
Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 6):
B737-600: 29.79 meters
B737-700: 32.18 meters

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 6):
A318: 31.45 meters

So A318 has almost the same lenght that the 737-700!!

The 737-7 is 33.63 meters long. I doubt it would be that easy to fit 20 more seats on the -700 if it was only 2.39 meters longer than the -600. The difference in lenght between the A318 and B736 is a mere 8 inches! Source: A.net A/C Stats.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
FL370
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 2:25 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:08 am

im not a big airbus fan, but i think the a-318 is nicer and has more room. im not sure about the performance and all, but i like the look of the A-318 over the 737-600.
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1502
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:32 am

Maybe if Boeing hadn't inherited the MD95/717, they should have kept a modified 737 classic wing for the 736? Doesn't the MD95/717 have a modified DC9 wing rather than a MD80 or MD90 one, as it's a lot smaller and more appropriate for it's short haul role?
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
avconsultant
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 1:18 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:43 am

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 20):
Doesn't the MD95/717 have a modified DC9 wing rather than a MD80 or MD90 one, as it's a lot smaller and more appropriate for it's short haul role?

The wing is not modified; old design; it's the DC-9-30 wing. Had the MD-95/717 had the MD-80/90 wing it would have been a competitor of the 737-600. There would have been more US operators ordering the aircraft. The increase in range would not have been the same as the 737-600, but a significant increase from it's current range.
 
Tangowhisky
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:59 am

When Airbus launched the A318, they initially were planning to offer this model only with the PW6000 engine. Airlines however still wantd the CFM-56, so Airbus offers both engines. Does anyone know if the PW6000 have been more successful, or will be now that they are certified?
Only the paranoid survive
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5380
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:28 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 22):
Does anyone know if the PW6000 have been more successful, or will be now that they are certified?

If I'm not mistaken, PW6000A will power LAN Chile's A318s. Pretty much all the other airlines (only a handful including premium carriers) which (will) operate the A318 have opted for CFM56s. This was discussed in Why No PW 6000 737NG? (by 747400sp Jun 24 2006 in Tech Ops)
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Aviator27
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:09 pm

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:34 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner

They bought the two model concurrently. The 737 was meant for higher demand segments. Plus the 737-700 costs in essence the same to operate as 737-600, and both cost well more to operate than 717. They figured so long as they were moving to 737, the extra capacity of 737-7 over -6 is basically free.


I beg to differ on this one. AirTran found that a B717 was cheaper to operate than a CRJ-200. That was why they ended their RJ experiment with Air Wisconsin quite fast. They also found the B737-700 was a lot cheaper to operate than the B717. That is why AirTran switched the to B737 and why the B717 died off.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18420
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:48 pm

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 24):
They also found the B737-700 was a lot cheaper to operate than the B717.

Do you have any figures on that?

Theoretically, the 717 should have a cost roughly similar to its family, the DC9 series aircraft, so it is tough to see how the 737 could be "a lot" cheaper.

The RJ - for sure. I don't think anyone has a CASM below about 12 or 13 cents, compared with a 737 CASM of 7 or 8 cents (or, in some cases, less).

But I am surprised about the 717.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Aviator27
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:09 pm

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:27 pm

Quoting DEVILFISH

The 737-7 is 33.63 meters long. I doubt it would be that easy to fit 20 more seats on the -700 if it was only 2.39 meters longer than the -600. The difference in length between the A318 and B736 is a mere 8 inches! Source: A.net A/C Stats.


If you look at the document in the link I provided you will notice I quoted fuselage length for the B737. The length you quoted was from nose to the end of the elevator.

I am not sure if Airbus numbers are fuselage length or overall length to the end of the elevator.

2.39 meters = 7.84 feet (94 inches). You can easily fit 3 rows of 31 inch pitch into that space. That would equal 18 seats. I hope that helps.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5380
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:02 pm

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 26):
The length you quoted was from nose to the end of the elevator.

A.net data was based on the same measuring system. The difference is 2.39 meters even if measured from nose to fuselage end, meaning we're still 2 short of 20 seats, which could be gained by giving up something somewhere - although I doubt any airline would bother.  Smile Anyway, I was trying to point out that the A318 is most nearly as long as the B736 and not the -700 as Thering posted.

Cheers,
DF
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
vfw614
Posts: 3194
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:04 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 12):
The fuselage cross section has not gotten any wider over the course of the 737 production line, from -100 to -900.

I know. I did not mean to imply that. I was referring to the weight (and the early nickname for the Boeing 737, "Fat Albert" - although in all honesty, with the -800 and -900 the nickname "Slim Albert" would be more appropriate).
 
Molykote
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:40 pm

Quoting Mariner (Reply 25):
Theoretically, the 717 should have a cost roughly similar to its family, the DC9 series aircraft,

Not necessarily - Using this logic we'd expect the 747-100 to have costs similar to the 747-400 (or even 747-8).
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18420
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:14 pm

Quoting Molykote (Reply 29):
Using this logic we'd expect the 747-100 to have costs similar to the 747-400 (or even 747-8).

I find it difficult to imagine that McDonnell Douglas developed an aircraft - a variant on a known, efficient aircraft family - that had very much higher costs than its predecessors. What would be the point?

And if the costs of the 717 are significantly lower than its family, I would have expected more airlines to have bought it.

So I say "similar" to its family.

I have always understood that the 717 has reasonably attractive economics, but the statement made was that the 737 is "a lot" cheaper.

If this is so, then I would be interested to see some figures.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:24 pm

Quoting Molykote (Reply 29):
Quoting Mariner (Reply 25):
Theoretically, the 717 should have a cost roughly similar to its family, the DC9 series aircraft,

Not necessarily - Using this logic we'd expect the 747-100 to have costs similar to the 747-400 (or even 747-8).

I agree, the B-717-200 is cheaper to operate than it's DC-9-30 cousin.

Yes, the same applies to the B-747 models. The -400 is cheaper to operate than the earlier -100s, -200s, or -300s. The -8I will be cheaper to operate than the current -400s are.
 
Aviator27
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:09 pm

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:05 pm

Mariner:

The following document is a presentation from Merril Lynch Global Transportation Conference 2006. If you look at slide 10, it says, B737-700 fuel burn is less than B717 per seat. I can't find exact numbers though.

Merril Lynch Global Transportation Conference 2006
 
Aviator27
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:09 pm

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:20 pm

I also forgot to add that one of the reasons the B737-700 CASM was "much better" than the B717 for AirTran was the fact that they opted to not install an aft galley in the B737. The AirTran B717 has 117 seats in a two class configuration. The B737-700 would only fit 125 seats in AirTran's configuration. With the aft galley not installed they were able to bring the seat count for the B737-700 up to 137. That made a huge difference when they calculated the CASM. Again, this is the case for only one particular airline in "their" seating configuration.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:47 pm

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 33):
The AirTran B717 has 117 seats in a two class configuration. The B737-700 would only fit 125 seats in AirTran's configuration. With the aft galley not installed they were able to bring the seat count for the B737-700 up to 137.

Since most of their flights are less than 3 hours, they could get away with this configueration. But, what will they do if they ever decide to fly the B-737-700s transcon (ALT-LAX, BOS-LAX, JFK-SFO, etc.)? The B-737-700 does have this kind of range, where the B-717-200 does not.
 
Aviator27
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:09 pm

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:55 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom

Since most of their flights are less than 3 hours, they could get away with this configuration. But, what will they do if they ever decide to fly the B-737-700s transcon (ATL-LAX, BOS-LAX, JFK-SFO, etc.)? The B-737-700 does have this kind of range, where the B-717-200 does not.


That is another reason they got the B737-700. ATL-SFO was one of the first routes the B737 flew, quickly followed by ATL-LAX and ATL-LAS. AirTran's product currently does not serve anything beyond pretzels and chips. There was no need for the aft galley on the B737. The smaller forward galley is still there.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18420
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: A-318 Vs. B-737-600

Wed Jul 26, 2006 4:42 pm

Aviator:

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 32):
If you look at slide 10, it says, B737-700 fuel burn is less than B717 per seat.

Thanks for that, it is a very interesting presentation. And yes, I would expect the 737 to be somewhat cheaper to operate if only because it carries more pax.

But I am still hung up on your claim of the 737 being "a lot" cheaper, because I think it is a teensy bit unfair to the 717.

The Airtran 737's began arriving in the fleet in 2004, I believe, so there were none in the fleet in 2003.

According to the Airtran Annual Report:

http://www.airtran.com/eannual/2005/index.html

In 2003, the system wide - non-fuel - CASM was 6.50 cents.

The latest figure I can find is for f/y 2005, when there were quite a lot of 737's in the fleet, as well as 717's.

So - in 2005, the system wide - non-fuel - CASM was 6.27 cents.

So, yes, the 737 represnets some saving. But it still makes the 717 a fairly economical plane.

mariner
aeternum nauta

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