User avatar
STT757
Topic Author
Posts: 13176
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

717 Vs 737-500 Comparison

Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:01 pm

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.

Thanks.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: 717 Vs 737-500 Comparison

Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:03 pm

The 717 certainly burns less fuel, giving it a lower CASM. But the 735 is cheaper to acquire, which makes it attractive for airlines that can't spend much money on an aircraft.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

RE: 717 Vs 737-500 Comparison

Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:08 pm

The 737-500 also has a longer range especially with the new Aviation Partners blended winglets.
 
CFMitch56
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 10:29 pm

RE: 717 Vs 737-500 Comparison

Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:45 pm



Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 2):
The 737-500 also has a longer range especially with the new Aviation Partners blended winglets.

And they aren't encumbered by the additional weight of 737NG wings and other equipment geared for longer range and larger payloads of the higher end versions.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joe G. Walker


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.
 
User avatar
vhqpa
Posts: 1193
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: 717 Vs 737-500 Comparison

Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:36 am



Quoting A342 (Reply 1):
But the 735 is cheaper to acquire

Make that Possible to acquire. It's not like there's several 717's floating around awaiting a owner.




vhq
"There you go ladies and gentleman we're through Mach 1 the speed of sound no bumps no bangs... CONCORDE"
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: 717 Vs 737-500 Comparison

Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:11 pm



Quoting Vhqpa (Reply 4):
Quoting A342 (Reply 1):
But the 735 is cheaper to acquire

Make that Possible to acquire. It's not like there's several 717's floating around awaiting a owner.

Give the owner the right amount of money and you'll be able to buy a 717, too.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: 717 Vs 737-500 Comparison

Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:47 pm

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
Posts: 4888
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 11:10 am

RE: 717 Vs 737-500 Comparison

Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:53 pm

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
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:47 am

RE: 717 Vs 737-500 Comparison

Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:28 pm



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)...
"Sonny, did we land? or were we shot down?"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests