DL717 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

It's a shame it had an "oddball" engine. I think that really hampered sales. Personally, I've always been very impressed with the airplane, MD seems to have addressed almost all the shortcomings of the earlier models of the series.

The range hampered sales and the LR was too late to market. Hence Midwest Airlines Kansas City hub. It needed about 300 more miles range. It was out there on paper, but alas it was too late.

Need a 717 today? Pick up some A220's.

I think the last few went out the door for like $25 million a piece which is about what the CRJ-700 was selling for at the time.

I had a Delta pilot claim to me one time that Delta was paying more for CRJ's than what Boeing offered them 717s for. I asked him why they wouldn't jump all over that deal. "Because they don't want US to fly them," he said with a sneer. Of course, he didn't mention that they probably wanted double the compensation that was reasonable for a 110 seat jet.

Ah, range. The topic that never goes away on a-net. IIRC, the 717 could easily do DTW-IAH on a thunderstorm day with a full load and a decent alternate, compared to the DC9 which was on fumes and probably passenger constrained. The 717 had plenty enough range to serve the dense markets east of the Mississippi, feeding the hubs (ATL, DTW).

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

I think that Boeing at the time was really banking on NW and US placing an order for to replace a large portion of their DC-9 fleets in the 90s.

NW in the mid-90s was emerging from a financial mess and had numerous near-term fleet replacement needs following the NW-RC merger, the deferral of orders during the near-bankruptcy of the early 2000s, and the need to rapidly build-up their TATL capable aircraft with the newly formed NW-KL alliance. Focusing their fleet needs on new-build A320-series & 757s, additional 744s, new ARJ & SF3s for Airlink, they then ended-up going through the acquisition used DC-10-30s (instead of A330/340s) for TATL and the DC-9-2000 program (likely instead of 717s)

The DC-9-2000 refurbishment program to husk-kit, replace interiors, upgrade avionics, and other systems that started in ~1995 basically used their existing DC-9 fleet to "replace" the current DC-9 fleet and extend their operating life out another 15+ years into the 2010s. Effectively shutting out the 717 in the near-term for serious consideration. The mods cost $1-3M per airframe, a fraction of the cost of new ownership.

If I recall correctly, some people went to jail at NWA for falsifying records from those mods.

SteelChair wrote:

DL717 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

It's a shame it had an "oddball" engine. I think that really hampered sales. Personally, I've always been very impressed with the airplane, MD seems to have addressed almost all the shortcomings of the earlier models of the series.

The range hampered sales and the LR was too late to market. Hence Midwest Airlines Kansas City hub. It needed about 300 more miles range. It was out there on paper, but alas it was too late.

Need a 717 today? Pick up some A220's.

I think the last few went out the door for like $25 million a piece which is about what the CRJ-700 was selling for at the time.

I had a Delta pilot claim to me one time that Delta was paying more for CRJ's than what Boeing offered them 717s for. I asked him why they wouldn't jump all over that deal. "Because they don't want US to fly them," he said with a sneer. Of course, he didn't mention that they probably wanted double the compensation that was reasonable for a 110 seat jet.

Ah, range. The topic that never goes away on a-net. IIRC, the 717 could easily do DTW-IAH on a thunderstorm day with a full load and a decent alternate, compared to the DC9 which was on fumes and probably passenger constrained. The 717 had plenty enough range to serve the dense markets east of the Mississippi, feeding the hubs (ATL, DTW).

DL wasn't even in the market for 717's while in production. Ever. YX and FL got them for $25m a copy, and no, it didn't have the range needed which hampered sales.

jrfspa320 wrote:

QF probably need to replace the F100s before the 717s, so i wouldnt be surprised if they were looking for more, the alternative is they replace both at the same time.

Other F70/100 operators in Australia have been purchasing E190 for RPT flying (and some charter), and Alliance has commenced contract flying for QF using these aircraft. The 717 is a useful subfleet, but I'd expect the E-Jet trend to continue while they are available at low lease rates.

The FIFO charter market to remote mining sites is huge in Australia, and that has long been a focus of the various Fokker fleets, with RPT as a sidebar. They are unlikely to be swapped out for the niche 717 if the cost of maintaining the 717 will increase as the fleet size reduces.

SteelChair wrote:

DL717 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

It's a shame it had an "oddball" engine. I think that really hampered sales. Personally, I've always been very impressed with the airplane, MD seems to have addressed almost all the shortcomings of the earlier models of the series.

The range hampered sales and the LR was too late to market. Hence Midwest Airlines Kansas City hub. It needed about 300 more miles range. It was out there on paper, but alas it was too late.

Need a 717 today? Pick up some A220's.

I think the last few went out the door for like $25 million a piece which is about what the CRJ-700 was selling for at the time.

I had a Delta pilot claim to me one time that Delta was paying more for CRJ's than what Boeing offered them 717s for. I asked him why they wouldn't jump all over that deal. "Because they don't want US to fly them," he said with a sneer. Of course, he didn't mention that they probably wanted double the compensation that was reasonable for a 110 seat jet.

Ah, range. The topic that never goes away on a-net. IIRC, the 717 could easily do DTW-IAH on a thunderstorm day with a full load and a decent alternate, compared to the DC9 which was on fumes and probably passenger constrained. The 717 had plenty enough range to serve the dense markets east of the Mississippi, feeding the hubs (ATL, DTW).

No, it was a time when every major airline was trying to use up all of their current scope and expand it to outsource flying to the regionals where FOs where barely making 25/hr...... Regional Jets and the regionals filled with cheap labor killed the 717 at mainline carriers. It was until Delta was maxed out on scope and the pilot shortage forcing the increase of wages at the regional level and dirt cheap cost the 717 made its way into the Delta fleet later on.

DL717 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

DL717 wrote:

The range hampered sales and the LR was too late to market. Hence Midwest Airlines Kansas City hub. It needed about 300 more miles range. It was out there on paper, but alas it was too late.

Need a 717 today? Pick up some A220's.

I think the last few went out the door for like $25 million a piece which is about what the CRJ-700 was selling for at the time.

I had a Delta pilot claim to me one time that Delta was paying more for CRJ's than what Boeing offered them 717s for. I asked him why they wouldn't jump all over that deal. "Because they don't want US to fly them," he said with a sneer. Of course, he didn't mention that they probably wanted double the compensation that was reasonable for a 110 seat jet.

Ah, range. The topic that never goes away on a-net. IIRC, the 717 could easily do DTW-IAH on a thunderstorm day with a full load and a decent alternate, compared to the DC9 which was on fumes and probably passenger constrained. The 717 had plenty enough range to serve the dense markets east of the Mississippi, feeding the hubs (ATL, DTW).

DL wasn't even in the market for 717's while in production. Ever. YX and FL got them for $25m a copy, and no, it didn't have the range needed which hampered sales.

You seem very certain....you must have been party to aircraft purchase negotiations.

VSMUT wrote:

Jetport wrote:

and had much better reliability than the E195 hanger queen.

Really an old A-net myth. Air Canada had problems with them, but I see no indication that it is a troublesome type anywhere else. The type is really popular in Europe, with many airlines still adding second-hand examples. KLM, British Airways, Lufthansa, Austrian, LOT, Air Dolomiti, Finnair and Air France/HOP! just to name the big ones.

From memory, JetBlue had a lot of problems with the E190 as well.

NW and the decision to overhaul DC-9s and considering 717s....(1998)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB897534181799497500

WayexTDI wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Jetport wrote:

and had much better reliability than the E195 hanger queen.

Really an old A-net myth. Air Canada had problems with them, but I see no indication that it is a troublesome type anywhere else. The type is really popular in Europe, with many airlines still adding second-hand examples. KLM, British Airways, Lufthansa, Austrian, LOT, Air Dolomiti, Finnair and Air France/HOP! just to name the big ones.

From memory, JetBlue had a lot of problems with the E190 as well.

We used to call them E180s because they would do an 180 back to the gate, they were a PAIN to load but great from a passenger perspective. After awhile the teething problems went away and AC was happy with them until it was decided to retire them during the pandemic, they were on the way out anyways

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

The days of rear mounted engines are coming. Sad for us aviation enthusiasts! So many planes in the future will all look the same. Two wing mounted engines, we had so much variety not that long ago and even now.

Oh how I wish Boeing would change their mind and start producing the 717 MAX.

SteelChair wrote:

You seem very certain....you must have been party to aircraft purchase negotiations.

Or know people who were.

ILNFlyer wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

777luver wrote:

Is it correct to say the 717 is basically an MD with slightly different engines and cockpit design? And with a different name?

Sadly, it was just a DC-9-30 with a higher bypass ratio engine. Same wing as the DC-9, all in all, same plane except the engines and some cockpit-wise improvements.

I believe it had the MD-87 tail.

The 717 is a mix of new design and things borrowed from the DC-9 family. The wing is an improved DC-9 wing. The vertical tail is from the MD-80 with an MD-90 top. The nose and forward fuselage are MD-90, mid fuselage is new, and the aft fuselage is MD-87.

Not a bad design for essentially borrowing a bunch of parts from other aircraft.

FlyMKG

DC-9 and all successors don't fit well into todays carry-on-itis with the LCCs, there is just not enough overhead storage for all this oversized carry on luggage. So comfort wise, DC-9 variants are lacking comfort on mainline services. Passengers were happy when SAS and IB got rid of their uncomfortable MD-80s here in Europe.

SteelChair wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

I think that Boeing at the time was really banking on NW and US placing an order for to replace a large portion of their DC-9 fleets in the 90s.

NW in the mid-90s was emerging from a financial mess and had numerous near-term fleet replacement needs following the NW-RC merger, the deferral of orders during the near-bankruptcy of the early 2000s, and the need to rapidly build-up their TATL capable aircraft with the newly formed NW-KL alliance. Focusing their fleet needs on new-build A320-series & 757s, additional 744s, new ARJ & SF3s for Airlink, they then ended-up going through the acquisition used DC-10-30s (instead of A330/340s) for TATL and the DC-9-2000 program (likely instead of 717s)

The DC-9-2000 refurbishment program to husk-kit, replace interiors, upgrade avionics, and other systems that started in ~1995 basically used their existing DC-9 fleet to "replace" the current DC-9 fleet and extend their operating life out another 15+ years into the 2010s. Effectively shutting out the 717 in the near-term for serious consideration. The mods cost $1-3M per airframe, a fraction of the cost of new ownership.

If I recall correctly, some people went to jail at NWA for falsifying records from those mods.

Really? Got a link? Would love to read more about this.

Kent350787 wrote:

The FIFO charter market to remote mining sites is huge in Australia, and that has long been a focus of the various Fokker fleets, with RPT as a sidebar. They are unlikely to be swapped out for the niche 717 if the cost of maintaining the 717 will increase as the fleet size reduces.

Plus the fact that QF recently closed the 717 base at PER, where most of Australia's FIFO flying is focused, to allow Network to take over those services using F100s and A320s. They won't reverse course, the 717 is done when it comes to FIFO flights.

Boeing757100 wrote:

So, if all of the airlines mentioned in this thread (US, Cebu Pacific, Germanwings) actually received 717s, then would it have performed better?

I don´t think so. However, a big USAir-order could have probably helped the MD-95 to gain more "market-penetration". IIRC, USAir wanted to have "the same discounts" for up to 100 MD-95 like ValuJet received and this was refused.

Regards

bigb wrote:

Delta only took them on because they were cheap to acquire and it allowed them to onboard more large RJs.

Well, they also saw the writing on the wall with respect to the "shortage" of pilots willing to fly at low wages at the regionals. The 717s and A220s allowed DL to replace 70-/76-seat flying, and the freed-up large RJs replaced 50-seat aircraft which were parked. Hub consolidation by way of closing MEM & CVG also facilitated this shift.

hawaiian717 wrote:

Boeing had a bit of a "not invented here" syndrome with the 717 vs the 737, and weren't interested in pursuing a 717 sale if it meant the loss of a 737 sale.

Well, duh, but I doubt this was due to "not invented here" syndrome. There's no logic in pursuing a 717 sale if it won't ultimately yield more profit (including parts/service and future performance of the program) than a 737 sale -- this is akin to Airbus's dilemma with the A220 at present. In the 717's best year, Boeing delivered one-sixth as many 717s as 737s, so they didn't have economy of scale in manufacturing, and the 717 was being manufactured in a high-cost geography.

vhtje wrote:

Are the comments in this thread about cost structure of operating the 717 US-centric? QF (Operated by National Jet) seem happy with their 20 aircraft. Is QF the exception?

The vast majority of the remaining 717s in operation are with U.S. carriers and similarly ~80% were ordered by U.S. carriers -- so it's not entirely surprising this would be U.S.-centric.

ILNFlyer wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

777luver wrote:

Is it correct to say the 717 is basically an MD with slightly different engines and cockpit design? And with a different name?

Sadly, it was just a DC-9-30 with a higher bypass ratio engine. Same wing as the DC-9, all in all, same plane except the engines and some cockpit-wise improvements.

I believe it had the MD-87 tail.

Whole new electrical architecture and changed hydraulic systems as well.

When the engines shutdown, they smelled like car antifreeze. Also, oil always dripped down onto the head of the guy pulling up the beltloader to the aft bin. Yes, we had girls too, but they were just to make quota.

The one thing I can say is ValueJet’s new AirTran paint scheme looked way more polished and sophisticated than Critter’s did for the reverse merger. The 717 was a fitting vehicle for this.

Breeze’s livery is nice enough
Avelo’s livery okay
ExpressJet’s do they even have a livery?

Sun Country’s has the historical orange and tons of wisdom and experience dating back to the days of Braniff. However I just for some reason do not see any yellow paint jobs being painted over or decals slapped on any time soon, with an

adopted name. Plus why would anyone want to repaint and take on baggage, unless there was a truly unique new shape in the sky available today like the 717 was back then!

Okcflyer wrote:

ILNFlyer wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

Sadly, it was just a DC-9-30 with a higher bypass ratio engine. Same wing as the DC-9, all in all, same plane except the engines and some cockpit-wise improvements.

I believe it had the MD-87 tail.

Whole new electrical architecture and changed hydraulic systems as well.

New APU and ventilation system. FBW secondary flight controls, IIRC.

DeltaMD95 wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

ILNFlyer wrote:

I believe it had the MD-87 tail.

Whole new electrical architecture and changed hydraulic systems as well.

New APU and ventilation system. FBW secondary flight controls, IIRC.

Indeed. There were many improvements and upgrades over the DC-9.

Imho, it is a fabulous little airplane, optimized for short range markets, that undersold its true potential, and is being retired far too early

ScottB wrote:

vhtje wrote:

Are the comments in this thread about cost structure of operating the 717 US-centric? QF (Operated by National Jet) seem happy with their 20 aircraft. Is QF the exception?

The vast majority of the remaining 717s in operation are with U.S. carriers and similarly ~80% were ordered by U.S. carriers -- so it's not entirely surprising this would be U.S.-centric.

It surprises me that AC, which previously operated a sizeable fleet of DC9s, never ordered any of the MD series or the 717. I suppose they were Airbus-happy at the time the 717 entered the market. Sure, many of the routes previously operated by their mainline DC9s were downgraded to regional flying, but I can't help but wonder if the 717 may have been a better choice than the A319.

DL717 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

DL717 wrote:

The range hampered sales and the LR was too late to market. Hence Midwest Airlines Kansas City hub. It needed about 300 more miles range. It was out there on paper, but alas it was too late.

Need a 717 today? Pick up some A220's.

I think the last few went out the door for like $25 million a piece which is about what the CRJ-700 was selling for at the time.

I had a Delta pilot claim to me one time that Delta was paying more for CRJ's than what Boeing offered them 717s for. I asked him why they wouldn't jump all over that deal. "Because they don't want US to fly them," he said with a sneer. Of course, he didn't mention that they probably wanted double the compensation that was reasonable for a 110 seat jet.

Ah, range. The topic that never goes away on a-net. IIRC, the 717 could easily do DTW-IAH on a thunderstorm day with a full load and a decent alternate, compared to the DC9 which was on fumes and probably passenger constrained. The 717 had plenty enough range to serve the dense markets east of the Mississippi, feeding the hubs (ATL, DTW).

DL wasn't even in the market for 717's while in production. Ever. YX and FL got them for $25m a copy, and no, it didn't have the range needed which hampered sales.

No, ValuJet’s 10K filings indicate it paid $1B for 50 MD-95, or $20M per aircraft. However, the deal was contingent on ValuJet acquiring outside financing to cover the the cost - something they were unable to do after the crash of 592 destroyed its finances. Ultimately, Boeing was desperate enough that it agreed to a 20-year operating lease.

Boeing tried multiple times to pitch the aircraft to NW as a DC-9 replacement — including an alleged deal in which NW could receive new builds for $20M, and extremely favorable rates on the ex-TW aircraft. Reports indicate that Boeing was willing to stretch the 717 for NW, the lack of which was the primary reason - not the range - AirTran switched the to 73G. FL said they got an additional 20 seats with the 73G for the same trip price as a 717. Similar reasoning lead to NW acquiring the 319 as its primary DC-9 replacement, although during its bankruptcy NW dumped a fairly large number of 319 - some brand new, the rest just a few years old - and committed to the DC-9. A few years later, NW was expected to announce an order for the E90/E95 as its direct DC-9 replacement, but ultimately merged with DL before the order was placed.

One thing to add… during a NW melt down in the early 2000s, the WSJ ran an article claiming the DC-9 were maintenance nightmares, subject to frequent breaks downs, weight and balance issues, etc. The article claimed that the only reason they had a favorable dispatch rate (best in fleet) was because flying was largely concentrated around DTW and MSP, and NW had a lot of operational spares at any given time.

YQBexYHZBGM wrote:

ScottB wrote:

vhtje wrote:

Are the comments in this thread about cost structure of operating the 717 US-centric? QF (Operated by National Jet) seem happy with their 20 aircraft. Is QF the exception?

The vast majority of the remaining 717s in operation are with U.S. carriers and similarly ~80% were ordered by U.S. carriers -- so it's not entirely surprising this would be U.S.-centric.

It surprises me that AC, which previously operated a sizeable fleet of DC9s, never ordered any of the MD series or the 717. I suppose they were Airbus-happy at the time the 717 entered the market. Sure, many of the routes previously operated by their mainline DC9s were downgraded to regional flying, but I can't help but wonder if the 717 may have been a better choice than the A319.

Here is a quote from the B717 Wikipedia page:

"Increased competition from regional jets manufactured by Bombardier and Embraer took a heavy toll on sales during the airline slump after 2001. American Airlines acquired TWA and initially planned to continue the 717 order. American Airlines canceled TWA's order for Airbus A318s, but eventually also canceled the Boeing 717s that had not yet been delivered.[38] The beginning of the end came in December 2003 when Boeing failed to reach a US$2.7 billion contract from Air Canada, a long term DC-9 customer, who chose the Embraer E-Jets and Bombardier CRJ200 over the 717.[39] In January 2005, citing slow sales, Boeing announced that it planned to end production of the 717 after it had met all of its outstanding orders.[40]"

To think the 717s could have gone up to 2030 with Delta before! Then Covid changed all of that...

Such a small fleet manufactured is doomed to retire relatively early.

Boeing757100 wrote:

So, if all of the airlines mentioned in this thread (US, Cebu Pacific, Germanwings) actually received 717s, then would it have performed better?

Add TWA. They had ordered 50 of them.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

DL717 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

I had a Delta pilot claim to me one time that Delta was paying more for CRJ's than what Boeing offered them 717s for. I asked him why they wouldn't jump all over that deal. "Because they don't want US to fly them," he said with a sneer. Of course, he didn't mention that they probably wanted double the compensation that was reasonable for a 110 seat jet.

Ah, range. The topic that never goes away on a-net. IIRC, the 717 could easily do DTW-IAH on a thunderstorm day with a full load and a decent alternate, compared to the DC9 which was on fumes and probably passenger constrained. The 717 had plenty enough range to serve the dense markets east of the Mississippi, feeding the hubs (ATL, DTW).

DL wasn't even in the market for 717's while in production. Ever. YX and FL got them for $25m a copy, and no, it didn't have the range needed which hampered sales.

No, ValuJet’s 10K filings indicate it paid $1B for 50 MD-95, or $20M per aircraft. However, the deal was contingent on ValuJet acquiring outside financing to cover the the cost - something they were unable to do after the crash of 592 destroyed its finances. Ultimately, Boeing was desperate enough that it agreed to a 20-year operating lease.

Boeing tried multiple times to pitch the aircraft to NW as a DC-9 replacement — including an alleged deal in which NW could receive new builds for $20M, and extremely favorable rates on the ex-TW aircraft. Reports indicate that Boeing was willing to stretch the 717 for NW, the lack of which was the primary reason - not the range - AirTran switched the to 73G. FL said they got an additional 20 seats with the 73G for the same trip price as a 717. Similar reasoning lead to NW acquiring the 319 as its primary DC-9 replacement, although during its bankruptcy NW dumped a fairly large number of 319 - some brand new, the rest just a few years old - and committed to the DC-9. A few years later, NW was expected to announce an order for the E90/E95 as its direct DC-9 replacement, but ultimately merged with DL before the order was placed.

One thing to add… during a NW melt down in the early 2000s, the WSJ ran an article claiming the DC-9 were maintenance nightmares, subject to frequent breaks downs, weight and balance issues, etc. The article claimed that the only reason they had a favorable dispatch rate (best in fleet) was because flying was largely concentrated around DTW and MSP, and NW had a lot of operational spares at any given time.

What’s NW got to do with Midwest (YX) other than an end the the road codeshare? YX paid $25 million a copy and it was noted at the time AirTran got the same deal. Whether it fell through is their problem. The fact is Boeing was letting them go at prices less than an RJ.

FLALEFTY wrote:

(Wikipedia) "The beginning of the end came in December 2003 when Boeing failed to reach a US$2.7 billion contract from Air Canada, a long term DC-9 customer, who chose the Embraer E-Jets and Bombardier CRJ200 over the 717."

Wow, I never heard that AC ever looked into the B717.

I have a clear recollection however that AC looked into refurbishing its DC-9s, which would have included replacing some problem prone parts/systems (to improve reliability and reduce the maintenance burden).

A vendor was selected and they were about to sign the contract when AC decided instead to just ditch the DC-9 and order the A319.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

FLALEFTY wrote:

(Wikipedia) "The beginning of the end came in December 2003 when Boeing failed to reach a US$2.7 billion contract from Air Canada, a long term DC-9 customer, who chose the Embraer E-Jets and Bombardier CRJ200 over the 717."

Wow, I never heard that AC ever looked into the B717.

I have a clear recollection however that AC looked into refurbishing its DC-9s, which would have included replacing some problem prone parts/systems (to improve reliability and reduce the maintenance burden).

A vendor was selected and they were about to sign the contract when AC decided instead to just ditch the DC-9 and order the A319.

Unfortunately this Globe & Mail article from 2003 is behind a paywall, but it describes Boeing's effort to win Air Canada's short-haul jet proposal with the B717.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report- ... e25577851/

By the time of this short-haul jet procurement in 2003, AC's DC-9 fleet had already been retired by 2002. Concurrently, A319's had been ordered to replace the DC-9's, with deliveries starting in December 1996 and running through January of 2003. So your recollection was correct.

https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Air-Canada

The 2003 AC procurement was for airliners in the 90~100 seat class for short-haul mainline and 50-seat regional jets to distribute to their partner airlines. Boeing was competing for the 90~100 seater portion with the B717, which Embraer ended up winning with the E190.

JBo wrote:

I believe the overall reason Boeing gave for discontinuing the 717 was so that they could focus their resources on the 737 line instead, and they didn't want two of their own products competing with each other.

It’s almost like there should be laws against acquiring a competitor and just discontinuing their stuff in order to raise the market price of the product. Oh wait, there are US laws against doing that.

LCDFlight wrote:

It’s almost like there should be laws against acquiring a competitor and just discontinuing their stuff in order to raise the market price of the product. Oh wait, there are US laws against doing that.

Boeing was more interested in acquiring McDonnell Douglas’ military programs, which was an area Boeing didn’t have much of.

hawaiian717 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

It’s almost like there should be laws against acquiring a competitor and just discontinuing their stuff in order to raise the market price of the product. Oh wait, there are US laws against doing that.

Boeing was more interested in acquiring McDonnell Douglas’ military programs, which was an area Boeing didn’t have much of.

There was no interest in McDonnell Douglas’ commercial line-up. There was never going to be another major MD-11 or MD-90 order, and there was virtually no interest in the MD-95 - hence the highly discounted order to ValuJet. And it was questionable whether ValuJet would ever take delivery of the aircraft - and that was before the crash. In those days, it was almost impossible for start-ups to get financing for factory new aircraft.

The MD-95/717 was largely a failure.

Boeing wanted MDD to be able to join the JSF competition and to learn from their better stock market appeal not for the 717. California was considered a high tax high cost environment even back then and not meant for any big future production line. They preferred the new strategic site at Charleston on the east coast.

hawaiian717 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

It’s almost like there should be laws against acquiring a competitor and just discontinuing their stuff in order to raise the market price of the product. Oh wait, there are US laws against doing that.

Boeing was more interested in acquiring McDonnell Douglas’ military programs, which was an area Boeing didn’t have much of.

I wonder if the commercial business of MDD could’ve been successful on its own if it was spun out as it’s own company…

USAirKid wrote:

I wonder if the commercial business of MDD could’ve been successful on its own if it was spun out as it’s own company…

Not without someone being willing to risk a ton of capital against a very uncertain return, especially in a marketplace where one competitor had access to government loans at below-market rates and without the requirement to repay those loans if a project were unsuccessful.

You can look at MDC's old SEC filings to see how the commercial business was doing. Their best year for the commercial segment in the lead-up to the Boeing merger was 1991, when they made $283 million on $6.75 billion in revenue -- a fairly poor operating margin of 4.2%. In 1995, they wrote off much of the investment in the MD-11 program, so the commercial segment lost $1.8 billion that year. From 1991 to 1996, even excluding the $1.8 billion write-off on the MD-11 program, commercial aircraft only made $612 million on about $28 billion in revenue.

The commercial business was to some degree starved for capital -- that's why they kept trotting out rehashed versions of the DC-9 and DC-10. But they also couldn't generate enough in the way of returns to pay for a clean-sheet aircraft program, so there never was a business case for a real new program.

FLALEFTY wrote:

Unfortunately this Globe & Mail article from 2003 is behind a paywall, but it describes Boeing's effort to win Air Canada's short-haul jet proposal with the B717.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report- ... e25577851/
By the time of this short-haul jet procurement in 2003, AC's DC-9 fleet had already been retired by 2002.

Concurrently, A319's had been ordered to replace the DC-9's, with deliveries starting in December 1996 and running through January of 2003. So your recollection was correct.

Thanks FLALEFTY for this fascinating bit of info!!

From your article:

"Air Canada is planning to order 85 jets with between 70 and 110 seats after it emerges from bankruptcy protection. The airline is planning to submit a joint order with other Star Alliance partners for up to 200 jets"

The B717 was apparently one of four aircrafts being contemplated.

USAirKid wrote:

hawaiian717 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

It’s almost like there should be laws against acquiring a competitor and just discontinuing their stuff in order to raise the market price of the product. Oh wait, there are US laws against doing that.

Boeing was more interested in acquiring McDonnell Douglas’ military programs, which was an area Boeing didn’t have much of.

I wonder if the commercial business of MDD could’ve been successful on its own if it was spun out as it’s own company…

With what products? Revamped DC-9s and -10s were obviously not the right choice.

I wonder how much better it would have been if they would have stuck the larger MD-80 wing on the 717 like they did the MD-87.

I flew on the 717 many times via Air Tran. Loved the aircraft.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

DL717 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

I had a Delta pilot claim to me one time that Delta was paying more for CRJ's than what Boeing offered them 717s for. I asked him why they wouldn't jump all over that deal. "Because they don't want US to fly them," he said with a sneer. Of course, he didn't mention that they probably wanted double the compensation that was reasonable for a 110 seat jet.

Ah, range. The topic that never goes away on a-net. IIRC, the 717 could easily do DTW-IAH on a thunderstorm day with a full load and a decent alternate, compared to the DC9 which was on fumes and probably passenger constrained. The 717 had plenty enough range to serve the dense markets east of the Mississippi, feeding the hubs (ATL, DTW).

DL wasn't even in the market for 717's while in production. Ever. YX and FL got them for $25m a copy, and no, it didn't have the range needed which hampered sales.

No, ValuJet’s 10K filings indicate it paid $1B for 50 MD-95, or $20M per aircraft. However, the deal was contingent on ValuJet acquiring outside financing to cover the the cost - something they were unable to do after the crash of 592 destroyed its finances. Ultimately, Boeing was desperate enough that it agreed to a 20-year operating lease.

Boeing tried multiple times to pitch the aircraft to NW as a DC-9 replacement — including an alleged deal in which NW could receive new builds for $20M, and extremely favorable rates on the ex-TW aircraft. Reports indicate that Boeing was willing to stretch the 717 for NW, the lack of which was the primary reason - not the range - AirTran switched the to 73G. FL said they got an additional 20 seats with the 73G for the same trip price as a 717. Similar reasoning lead to NW acquiring the 319 as its primary DC-9 replacement, although during its bankruptcy NW dumped a fairly large number of 319 - some brand new, the rest just a few years old - and committed to the DC-9. A few years later, NW was expected to announce an order for the E90/E95 as its direct DC-9 replacement, but ultimately merged with DL before the order was placed.

One thing to add… during a NW melt down in the early 2000s, the WSJ ran an article claiming the DC-9 were maintenance nightmares, subject to frequent breaks downs, weight and balance issues, etc. The article claimed that the only reason they had a favorable dispatch rate (best in fleet) was because flying was largely concentrated around DTW and MSP, and NW had a lot of operational spares at any given time.

The cited 10-K filing is not the whole story in this argument and cannot be used as the checkmate, given that it only accounts for the first 50 717s ordered new. FL received delivery of greater than 50 new-build aircraft from Boeing, with top-off orders in the mid 2000s, (separate from the ex TWA aircraft acquired). It’s certainly plausible that the final 10 or 12 deliveries for FL were at the 25% price increase stated.

ATA L1011 wrote:

I wonder how much better it would have been if they would have stuck the larger MD-80 wing on the 717 like they did the MD-87.

I would have liked to have seen a Super 98 style aerodynamic kit developed for retrofit by 2005. Perhaps with MD-11 style winglets, given that Bombardier proved them to be quite successful with the CRJ family.

YQBexYHZBGM wrote:

ScottB wrote:

vhtje wrote:

Are the comments in this thread about cost structure of operating the 717 US-centric? QF (Operated by National Jet) seem happy with their 20 aircraft. Is QF the exception?

The vast majority of the remaining 717s in operation are with U.S. carriers and similarly ~80% were ordered by U.S. carriers -- so it's not entirely surprising this would be U.S.-centric.

It surprises me that AC, which previously operated a sizeable fleet of DC9s, never ordered any of the MD series or the 717. I suppose they were Airbus-happy at the time the 717 entered the market. Sure, many of the routes previously operated by their mainline DC9s were downgraded to regional flying, but I can't help but wonder if the 717 may have been a better choice than the A319.

I recall reading some great classic a.net threads from 10-15 years ago, where retired industry vets described in detail how AC were ready to place an order (or LOI) for the MD-88 but Airbus undercut with A320s at steep discounts. This was ‘88-‘89 from my research, where the MD-80 backlog had ballooned to 2.5+ years with its sales pinnacle, and Airbus was looking for A320s to give away, PR reeling from the Air France crash. Unfortunately for McDD, they didn’t have the political clout that now Boeing benefits from, at the time, and thus were unsuccessful with an antitrust challenge.

VSMUT wrote:

It was fuel burn per seat. The issues you list are US specific. The aircraft lasted even shorter (and saw less success) in Europe where airlines weren't under such limitations. In the rest of the world it mostly lost out to the A319, 737-700, E190/195 and CRJ-900.

How about some source to back this very dubious assertion up? Everything I have read indicates fuel burn and CASM were quite good for the 717 vs the A319, 737-700 and E190/195. The original E190/195 from everything I have read was very disappointing on fuel burn and operating costs, especially when you consider it was a clean sheet design.

Jetport wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

It was fuel burn per seat. The issues you list are US specific. The aircraft lasted even shorter (and saw less success) in Europe where airlines weren't under such limitations. In the rest of the world it mostly lost out to the A319, 737-700, E190/195 and CRJ-900.

How about some source to back this very dubious assertion up? Everything I have read indicates fuel burn and CASM were quite good for the 717 vs the A319, 737-700 and E190/195. The original E190/195 from everything I have read was very disappointing on fuel burn and operating costs, especially when you consider it was a clean sheet design.

This. The BR710 is a more advanced and efficient engine than the CFM-56 or V2500. (or CF34, for that matter).

Even when DL is done with them it seems like Hawaiian will still be operating them for the foreseeable future and are quite happy with them.

johnconquest wrote:

Even when DL is done with them it seems like Hawaiian will still be operating them for the foreseeable future and are quite happy with them.

This will be an interesting watch. They’ve brought the 321Neo on property. A319Neo? A320Neo? A220? Embraer E2? E2 gives them some flexibility to bring in the 175 for some of the smaller destinations and 195 for larger. Maybe they go small altogether and just order the new Embraer prop and go high frequency. They have time, but it will definitely be interesting.

DL717 wrote:

johnconquest wrote:

Even when DL is done with them it seems like Hawaiian will still be operating them for the foreseeable future and are quite happy with them.

This will be an interesting watch. They’ve brought the 321Neo on property. A319Neo? A320Neo? A220? Embraer E2? E2 gives them some flexibility to bring in the 175 for some of the smaller destinations and 195 for larger. Maybe they go small altogether and just order the new Embraer prop and go high frequency. They have time, but it will definitely be interesting.

Agreed will be interesting to see what they are eventually replaced with.

Long-term viability of the engines might get a shot in the arm, reported here:
viewtopic.php?p=22968879#p22968885



With understanding that F130 is a BR700 type engine...

SteelChair wrote:

DeltaMD95 wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

Whole new electrical architecture and changed hydraulic systems as well.

New APU and ventilation system. FBW secondary flight controls, IIRC.

Indeed. There were many improvements and upgrades over the DC-9.

Imho, it is a fabulous little airplane, optimized for short range markets, that undersold its true potential, and is being retired far too early

Is there any future for weird jobs, or is the engine going to ground all B717?

Edit: the post above mine suggest maybe the 717 can have a long term future.