Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
CactusOne
Topic Author
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:57 am

Was the B717 A Bust?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:37 pm

How come the 717 was a bust? Why didn't NW, DL or UA order the 717's and make them mainline, instead of having their affiliate carriers order the CRJ-900. They wouldda been the same size, roughly. They would've easily migrated into the types of eqp each carrier offers. If AA was smart, they wouldda kept the TW B717's, added about 50 more to them, not ordered the CRJ-700 and gotten rid of the Fokker 100. Just a personal opinion. I'm sure it's got something to do with range of the 717.
 
jetjeanes
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:42 am

Was the B717 A Bust?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:14 pm

They were too busy trying to bust the unions and lower the crews salary. If they could take a flight away from mainline flying they would. Now salaries are down, i would expect to see more rj,s in Mohave soon. It was an excellant aircraft just the wrong time.
i can see for 80 miles
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

Was the B717 A Bust?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:24 pm

I wouldn't blame Boeing on the lack of sales of the 717. The plane didn't have a market. The 717 has a greater percentage of planes financed in house at Boeing than any other type of plane, which shows how much the company put on the line to sell the plane.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

Was the B717 A Bust?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 2:57 pm

i would second that it was a case of right plane, wrong time.

all the 717 operators i can think of are very happy with the aircraft, it seems to perform very well, it just came during a time where mainline was switching to RJ traffic. I was surprised and disappointed NW didn't take the opportunity to replace their DC-9 fleet with 717s.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

Was the B717 A Bust?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:44 pm

Quoting CactusOne (Thread starter):
Why didn't NW, DL or UA order the 717's and make them mainline, instead of having their affiliate carriers order the CRJ-900.

You do understand the difference between the legacy carriers and their regional associates, dont you? And that CRJs, for example, are usually operated by a regional airline on behalf of the legacy carrier, and that the crews on the regional carrier are paid very different salaries than the mainline employees. And, that all of this is controlled by strict agreements between the airlines and the employee unions. And there is a reason that the mainline carriers are really not very interested in operating airplanes with less than 150 seats. Do you have any idea as to how any of this works?Guess not, otherwise you would not have asked the question.

Quoting CactusOne (Thread starter):
If AA was smart, they wouldda kept the TW B717's, added about 50 more to them, not ordered the CRJ-700 and gotten rid of the Fokker 100. Just a personal opinion. I'm sure it's got something to do with range of the 717.

I guess that you also dont know that TW was paying very high leasing rates for their 717 fleet.........rates that AA was unwilling to pay. The lessors were unwilling to cut the rates and AA determined that the best business decision for it, at the time (and this was just after 9/11 when the industry was in serious trouble), was to return the 717s to their respective lessors. As for the F100s, AA was reducing its fleet (also part of the post 9/11 turn-down), determined that the F100 was not the most effective of airplanes and AA was concerned about the maintenance needs of the F100 fleet and decided to park and then dispose of those airplanes as well. Much of the flying was picked up by regional jets, but note that AA is extremely limited in the number of "Large"regional jets it can fly, so AA does have a difficult issue with routes that require something larger than a CRJ/ERJ but smaller than an MD80. Oh, and it had nothing to do with the range of the F100.


I agree with the comment above: the 717 is a good airplane - but it was the wrong airplane at the wrong time.
 
toltommy
Posts: 2763
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:04 am

Was the B717 A Bust?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:51 pm

Quoting CactusOne (Thread starter):
They wouldda been the same size, roughly.

Uh, not exactly.... At the time, the CRJ was a 50 seater, the stretches had yet to begin. FL seats 117 in a 2 class config. The 717 was a much bigger airplane than the majors were looking for at the time.

I don't know that I'd call it a bust. They didn't sell as many as they'd have liked, but I doubt they lost money on it.
A300/A310/A319/A320/A321/A332/A333 / 707/712/727/732/733/734/735/738/739/752/753
/762/763/764/772/788/789/DC8/DC9-10/30/40/50/MD81/83/87/88/90/L1011-/250/500/CRJ200/440 /700/900/EMB135/140/145/170/175/190/328Jet/F70/SF3/BE1/J31
 
swatpamike
Posts: 469
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 12:14 pm

Was the B717 A Bust?

Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:56 pm

Hello All

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 4):
Do you have any idea as to how any of this works?Guess not, otherwise you would not have asked the question.

You get up on the wrong side of the windmill this morning???? RELAX.

Cheers

swatpamike
 
SkyyMaster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:34 am

RE: B717 A Bust!

Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:58 pm

Had McDD survived, I think the MD-95 (717) would have been a success. When Boeing bought out McDD, they inherited the 717 which was in direct competition with it's 737-600 model. For many reasons, Boeing decided the 600 was the more viable aircraft and they chose to market it instead of the 717. Airtran practically begged Boeing to stretch the 717. Had they done so, I think it would have been attractive to legacies such as NW and AA. IMO, Boeing never really gave the 717 a fair shake. It's a fine airplane and could have been a good seller. We all know how successful the 736 has been.
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: B717 A Bust!

Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:17 am

I too agree about it being the "right plane at the wrong time". If MDD would have been able to deliver it when they had originally proposed (1995, which is why they called it the MD-95), they would have been able to get some of the orders that Airbus and Boeing got. Originally, the MD-95 was supposed to have been launched by NW and SK, but due to delays in finalizing the design, both airlines went elsewhere to get replacement a/c. At this time, the RJ Revolution was just beginning take off (The CRJ had been in service a few years with a small number of airlines, and the ERJ hadn't even entered service yet.) so nobody really could have predicted that these feeder airlines that at the time were running turboprops would be replacing them with RJs. Had NW and SK been the launch customers and the a/c not entered service four years later than originally proposed, the a/c could have been a lot more successful than it was. Could it have staved off the merger with Boeing? Probably not, as Boeing really just wanted the military side of MDD, and probably would have just filled the remaining orders left and shut everything down.

MDD had a nice family planned for the MD-95, essentially designs to replace pretty much everything from the DC-9-10 series to the MD-80 family.

The rise of Bombardier and Embraer in the late 90s essentially doomed the 717. The CRJ-700 and 900 and the E-Jets perform basically the same role as the 717 and is lighter and cheaper to operate (And I don't mean because of pay scales).
 
frontierflyer
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 4:35 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:17 am

FL should've gone with Airbus for their long hual fleet when Boeing decided not to stretch the 717. The 737's are not as comfy as the 717 or A319s.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:19 am

Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 5):
They didn't sell as many as they'd have liked, but I doubt they lost money on it.

I suspect they didn't make a profit on the 717 by itself. Profit margins on airplanes in that size range are very tight and the 717 redesign was fairly extensive (i.e. expensive) so I doubt they had enough sales to cover the development.

The whole DC-9 + derivatives family was certainly profitable.

Tom.
 
CitrusCritter
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 10:36 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:26 am

Does anyone know how the FL, HA, and YX fleets are broken down between the 712 BGW and the 712 HGW?

Quoting Frontierflyer (Reply 9):
The 737's are not as comfy as the 717 or A319s.

Ain't that the truth! I try to avoid 737s on any airline including my beloved FL. I will take an earlier/later flight on FL to fly a 717 over a 737. I had a bad habit of taking the last ATL-MCO flight because it was always a 717. I drew the line at flying to IAD over DCA to get on a 717 though.  

[Edited 2007-08-12 17:31:21]
- CitrusCritter
Long Live the 717!
XNA
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:57 am

Quoting CitrusCritter (Reply 11):
Does anyone know how the FL, HA, and YX fleets are broken down between the 712 BGW and the 712 HGW?

IIRC, not a single 717 that was delivered was the HGW version. The HGW version was offered in the hopes that some major airlines would order the a/c. I believe the engine uprate option was implemented by some of the operators though.

Quoting Frontierflyer (Reply 9):
FL should've gone with Airbus for their long hual fleet when Boeing decided not to stretch the 717. The 737's are not as comfy as the 717 or A319s.

I disagree, having flown on one of the Ryan Int'l A320s (ATL-LAS) back when they were flying for FL, the 73Gs are much more comfortable to me. I felt cooped up on that A320. It may have just been where I was sitting, but as a result I ended up taking an FL 717 flight LAS-DFW-ATL instead of the nonstop on the A320. Well over half of the passengers on the flight were flying to ATL. Even the gate agent told me that a number of customers switched to that flight because they disliked the A320s, saying they weren't comfortable.
 
eraugrad02
Posts: 699
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 6:12 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:40 am

I think if the 717 was still around today, NW would have ordered these instead of E-175/CRJ-900. I think NW is kicking themselves in the foot for not ordering the plane.
Desmond MacRae in ILM
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:40 am

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 7):

I disagree. From what I read, Boeing actually believed in the 717, and tried hard to get other airlines to order it. Its major flaw was a lack of commonality, which cancelled out its savings due to efficiency. The 737-600, while similar in size, actually has differences in its operational design to the 717.

The only reason why Boeing never stretched the 717 was that it would have been a direct assault on the 737-700. Apparently, it worked. As mentioned above, FL wanted a larger 717, but never got one: now they fly 737-700s, in addition to the 717.

I agree with the above though good airplane, wrong time.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:25 am

Quoting ERAUgrad02 (Reply 13):
I think if the 717 was still around today, NW would have ordered these instead of E-175/CRJ-900. I think NW is kicking themselves in the foot for not ordering the plane

Mainline pilots operate the DC9, and thus the 717, and therefore NW had no interest in ordering the 717, so simple is it. The A319 will be the smallest mainline airliner for NW, with the E jets and CRJs being operated by NW's regional subsidiaries.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 14):
Boeing actually believed in the 717, and tried hard to get other airlines to order it. Its major flaw was a lack of commonality, which cancelled out its savings due to efficiency.

Boeing did believe in the 717, when Boeing took over McD they had every intention of making the MD95/717 program a part of their airliner family, but, due to the reasons discussed above, the 717 could not find a market due to the growth of regional jets and the different cost structure that regional jets operate under. There were plans for the 717-300, a stretched version of the type which AirTran would have liked, but Boeing shelved the idea, cancelled the 717 program, and AirTran placed a large 737NG order instead.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 14):
The 737-600, while similar in size, actually has differences in its operational design to the 717.

The 736 is optimized for thin longer haul routes (which most airlines are not flying explaining why 736 sales have been lackluster) while the 717 was optimized for high frequency operations and short haul routes.
 
toltommy
Posts: 2763
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:04 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:39 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 15):
The A319 will be the smallest mainline airliner for NW, with the E jets and CRJs being operated by NW's regional subsidiaries.

Time will tell.... I won't be surprise to see the 190/195 operated by mainline (like US), or see NWA become the launch customer for the Bombardier C-Series.... I think mainline will operate something smaller than the 319....
A300/A310/A319/A320/A321/A332/A333 / 707/712/727/732/733/734/735/738/739/752/753
/762/763/764/772/788/789/DC8/DC9-10/30/40/50/MD81/83/87/88/90/L1011-/250/500/CRJ200/440 /700/900/EMB135/140/145/170/175/190/328Jet/F70/SF3/BE1/J31
 
Super98
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:51 pm

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:41 am

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 8):

Almost correct -

Indeed it was the right airplane for the RJ market - just a little early. Notwithstanding famous stories about sport fishing and not answering SK's phone call and orders going to the 737 instead, there were still sufficient orders eventually to seriously compete with RJs. Indeed, even in Boeing's post merger, there were 717-100s, 717-300s planned as well as the -200 in service today, though the -100 had some W/B issues being worked. I know for a fact that FL and YX wanted a minimum of 75 -300's had they gone ahead with that. I suspect that NW would have come around on those as well. After buyout of TW, AA never really learned what the 717 would do in revenue service as the planners quickly flipped them, having divested of F-100s per their new business model. In a world of AA MD-80s, and 717 in place of those F-100s and RJs at American Eagle, the 717 would be in production today and the Mad Dog would have been re-engined by now. Oh well....

But back to what we do know. After examining the delivery schedule and order books for both the 737 and 717, there were in excess of 35 717 orders cancelled by Boeing and converted to 737 variants, at the most critical time for the 717. In house financing notwithstanding, I have also seen the pricing of the 717 didn't yield sufficient profit margins at RJ pricing levels of the time. We now know that they are competitive only during the last year of production for the 717.

Sure customers would prefer to travel in a 100 seat cabin design for 5Y abreast than one designed for 3Y abreast.

But the writing had been on the wall for years for the MD-95 and it seemed certain to fail unless an operator "rescued" it by placing an unexpected order. Of course, winning orders takes a lot of work, and the half-hearted marketing effort after the takeover made it clear that Boeing was not really interested in the airplane, for a variety of reasons.

I do know that all the suppliers would have liked to make the investments back on the new systems designed and adapted for the 717.

I find this a very sad chapter in US airline history. Maybe we will see the Mad Dogs re-engined with these and all enjoy the benefits after all.

Cheers,

R

[Edited 2007-08-12 19:43:06]
 
bravogolf
Posts: 360
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:18 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:41 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 15):

Boeing did believe in the 717, when Boeing took over McD they had every intention of making the MD95/717 program a part of their airliner family, but, due to the reasons discussed above, the 717 could not find a market due to the growth of regional jets and the different cost structure that regional jets operate under. There were plans for the 717-300, a stretched version of the type which AirTran would have liked, but Boeing shelved the idea, cancelled the 717 program, and AirTran placed a large 737NG order instead.

Someone at Boeing forgot to tell the sales department this bit of information. I know two gentlemen that were on a 717 sales flight from Seattle to Long Beach. There were two airlines represented on this flight one domestic (US) and one foreign. I was told the salesmen spent all flight complaining about the other salesmen rather then trying sell the plane. Although Boeing did do some redesign of the wing I think they had a " Not Invented Here" attitude
 
FlagshipAZ
Posts: 3192
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 12:40 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:50 am

Agreeing with several of you here...the 717 was the right plane at the wrong time. Affordable, but it came along when nearly every airline in the world was financially strapped. I know now that AA would have kept the 30 ex-TWA 717s plus the options if September 11th had not happened, and to replace the F-100 fleet. Leases can always be renegotiated, but in the AA's 717s case, the owners called AA's bluff, and lost.
Northwest was offered the use of a few 717s on a trial basis, but NW was just entering bankruptcy processing at the time, and turned the offer down. Had NW been financially healthy, no doubt in my mind they would had ordered the 717, to replace the DC-9 fleet one for one.
155 717s plus 1 prototype were assembled, originally delivered to 9 customers. A breakdown by customer code...

-2BD = 61
-231 = 30
-2BL = 25
-22A = 13
-23S = 8
-22K = 7
-2K9 = 5
-2CM = 4
-21S = 2
-200 = 1 (prototype)

Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:09 am

Quoting JetJeanes (Reply 1):
They were too busy trying to bust the unions and lower the crews salary.

Or the unions killed the 717 with the pay demands. I don't see the difference in responsibility between flying mainline and commuter.....and the unions seeking greater pay in a market with diminishing returns killed the likelihood of airlines ordering the 717 over Embraers or Bombardiers.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 2):
I wouldn't blame Boeing on the lack of sales of the 717. The plane didn't have a market.

The market was impacted more by internal pay economies than they were by anything else. The airplane clearly shows it merits at Air Tran and Midway. It's reliable, comfortable and is quickly turned around......

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 7):
When Boeing bought out McDD, they inherited the 717 which was in direct competition with it's 737-600

Well, that didn't sell either.

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 7):
Airtran practically begged Boeing to stretch the 717

And that would have put the thing in direct competition with the very hot selling 73G which Boeing did not want.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:14 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 4):
You do understand the difference between the legacy carriers and their regional associates, dont you? And that CRJs, for example, are usually operated by a regional airline on behalf of the legacy carrier, and that the crews on the regional carrier are paid very different salaries than the mainline employees. And, that all of this is controlled by strict agreements between the airlines and the employee unions. And there is a reason that the mainline carriers are really not very interested in operating airplanes with less than 150 seats. Do you have any idea as to how any of this works?Guess not, otherwise you would not have asked the question.

While many of the people who frequent this forum are very knowledgeable of matters pertaining not only to airliners but to airline operations, many are not that familiar but have a fascination with the planes.

Patience, please. The more we frequent this forum, the more we can learn ... and the more those in the know can share what they've learned.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:31 am

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 21):
While many of the people who frequent this forum are very knowledgeable of matters pertaining not only to airliners but to airline operations, many are not that familiar but have a fascination with the planes.

Patience, please. The more we frequent this forum, the more we can learn ... and the more those in the know can share what they've learned.

Cool, make me the bad guy here........but please go back and read the opening post. If the original poster had done some reading or some research, here on a.net or on other sites, he or she would not have opened a topic that has been discussed many, many times here at a.net and would not have stated less than accurate conclusions in this post.

Maybe, before posting, one should check the a.net rules? Patience please.
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:38 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 20):
And that would have put the thing in direct competition with the very hot selling 73G which Boeing did not want.

The 717-300 Boeing was offering wasn't the 717-300 AirTran and Midwest (and even some potential new customers) wanted. What Boeing was trying to offer was a stretch with the same range as the 717-200. What the customers (and potential customers) wanted was a stretch with the legs to do transcons. Since that definitely put the 713 as a competitor to their own 73G, Boeing refused to budge so FL ended up ordering the 73G, and Midwest is considering the 73G to replace their Mad Dog fleet (Of course this all depends on the outcome of the takeover/investment offers they have gotten.).



Quoting Super98 (Reply 17):
But back to what we do know. After examining the delivery schedule and order books for both the 737 and 717, there were in excess of 35 717 orders cancelled by Boeing and converted to 737 variants, at the most critical time for the 717. In house financing notwithstanding, I have also seen the pricing of the 717 didn't yield sufficient profit margins at RJ pricing levels of the time.

Most of the options FL had went away as a result of the pickup of the bulk of the former TWA fleet and some of the other ones picked up from other airlines and leasing companies. The original order from FL (when it was still Valujet) was for 50+50 options. Between their own deliveries and what they picked up on the open market (a/c from TWA, HA, and Pembroke Capital), they have a fleet of 85 717s (based on numbers from Airlinerslist).

AirTran and TWA got very favorable pricing on their 717s. In fact, it was cheaper than what the CRJs and ERJs were selling at. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $20-$25 million an a/c is what I heard when FL first got them. Everyone else got them at list, but there wasn't enough buyers to make up for the deals FL and TW got.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:43 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 22):
Cool, make me the bad guy here........but please go back and read the opening post. If the original poster had done some reading or some research, here on a.net or on other sites, he or she would not have opened a topic that has been discussed many, many times here at a.net and would not have stated less than accurate conclusions in this post.

Maybe, before posting, one should check the a.net rules? Patience please.

He based his conclusions on what little he knew, which is why he posted the question. I've seen several times where people have posted an item that's been hashed and re-hashed several times by frequent visitors and full time members, and we all know it happens and will happen again. My point is please be patient. Not everyone does the research but it seems that many folks have a great respect for those who frequent this site and thus feel comfortable asking what ever question they will. We have a large number of very well informed people here and many are kind enough to just go ahead and answer the question and/or refer the person to a specific previous post. That's the better way to handle such things and it opens the door for even more genuine subscribers. Those who feel welcome are more apt to remain.

On the flip side, I commend you for your knowledge and wish I had even a small amount of that. I've been an airliner enthusiast for some years, but know little of actual airline operations. So, I can learn a lot from you.  Smile
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
thering
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:44 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:43 am

Wouldn't the 717-200 been the perfect replacer for AA's F100s???
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
 
OB1504
Posts: 3895
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:10 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:57 am

Quoting CactusOne (Thread starter):
If AA was smart, they wouldda kept the TW B717's, added about 50 more to them, not ordered the CRJ-700 and gotten rid of the Fokker 100. Just a personal opinion. I'm sure it's got something to do with range of the 717.

While AA later noticed that the 717 might have been a great addition to the long-term fleet, the extremely high leasing costs stopped that from happening.

Quoting Frontierflyer (Reply 9):
FL should've gone with Airbus for their long hual fleet when Boeing decided not to stretch the 717. The 737's are not as comfy as the 717 or A319s.

How "comfy" an airplane is has nothing to do with the aircraft manufacturer. It has to do with how the airline chooses to configure their aircraft. FL chose to configure their 737s in a less "comfy" way than the 717, and I bet they would've done the same had they gone with the A319.
 
thering
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:44 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:02 am

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 26):
How "comfy" an airplane is has nothing to do with the aircraft manufacturer. It has to do with how the airline chooses to configure their aircraft. FL chose to configure their 737s in a less "comfy" way than the 717, and I bet they would've done the same had they gone with the A319.

Ok, but A320 family is wider then 737 though...
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
 
CitrusCritter
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 10:36 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:07 am

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 26):
FL chose to configure their 737s in a less "comfy" way than the 717, and I bet they would've done the same had they gone with the A319.

Of course, but those of us that are passengers rather than airline employees have our views. Seat pitch is slightly better, supposedly, on the FL 737s, but the overall arrangement is similar other than the 3x2 versus 3x3 seating. What I notice as a passenger is that the windows are placed lower in the cabin in the 737 than the 717, which is not an FL configuration issue as much as a design issue -- unless FL is putting seats at different heights off the ground in the 737, which doesn't seem to be the case to me.

As to the Ryan Intl A320s FL was wet-leasing, were they reconfigured for FL or were they in the standard Ryan Intl charter configuration?
- CitrusCritter
Long Live the 717!
XNA
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:18 am

Along with bad timing, and union agreements, the 717's worst enemy was Boeing. Boeing marked the aircraft initially to see if they could add more orders to those already booked by MDC. But after that it was quietly ignored and put aside, as it was a bastard stepchild so to speak.

In this day in age of fleet commonality, anytime you do not offer a family of variants, you are committing suicide on the whole program. At the time of the merger, 717-100 and 717-300 designs were being "researched." Of course it was all BS, and the rest is history.

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 8):
I too agree about it being the "right plane at the wrong time". If MDD would have been able to deliver it when they had originally proposed (1995, which is why they called it the MD-95),

I think the initial announcement for launch was in 1991. But MDC put it on the back burner until 1995 because the MD-90 roll out and MD-11 PIPs were the focus. As it turned out it would be eight years until progress was made in 1998 with Boeing.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:30 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 29):
Along with bad timing, and union agreements, the 717's worst enemy was Boeing. Boeing marked the aircraft initially to see if they could add more orders to those already booked by MDC. But after that it was quietly ignored and put aside, as it was a bastard stepchild so to speak.

I don't think the 717 was quietly ignored and put aside. Quite the contrary, Boeing made a big effort to find customers for the plane - offering all sorts of enticements to the customers that did sign up. Boeing would never have produced a 717-300 as they already had a product in that space. However, if it had been practical, from both a technical and a marketing standpoint, it seems that a 717-100 could have been produced to compete more effectively in the RJ market. But the 717 was just too large, fundamentally too old, and blurred the line between the RJ and the mainline markets too much for that to ever happen. If MDD had instead started with a clean sheet and produced a smaller RJ airliner with the potential to grow to the size of the 717-200, then that "717" would still be in production today and thriving.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3076
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:50 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 22):
Maybe, before posting, one should check the a.net rules? Patience please.

I am having trouble with people who think that other people do not look for other threads and topics. You are not the only one with a dissenting opinion but you are insulting people by insinuating they are ignorant of the rules if this or that topic has been deemed by yourself as have been "discussed to death".  twocents  I am glad to get that off my chest.
Rush forever Closer To My Heart
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:12 am

Quoting Brilondon (Reply 31):
I am having trouble with people who think that other people do not look for other threads and topics

Well, maybe you should do a search and see how many times the termination of the 717 program has been discussed.......after you do the search, please let us know the answer. Thanks a bunch.
 
lostturttle
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:17 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:35 am

Quoting Frontierflyer (Reply 9):



Quoting Srbmod (Reply 23):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 20):
And that would have put the thing in direct competition with the very hot selling 73G which Boeing did not want.

The 717-300 Boeing was offering wasn't the 717-300 AirTran and Midwest (and even some potential new customers) wanted. What Boeing was trying to offer was a stretch with the same range as the 717-200. What the customers (and potential customers) wanted was a stretch with the legs to do transcons. Since that definitely put the 713 as a competitor to their own 73G, Boeing refused to budge so FL ended up ordering the 73G, and Midwest is considering the 73G to replace their Mad Dog fleet (Of course this all depends on the outcome of the takeover/investment offers they have gotten.).

This article from 2003 the SeattlePI

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/112231_bigger13.shtml

to me, shows Boeing's mindset towards the 717 (MD95) and confirms most of what has been said here.

Still an interesting read from back in time.
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:14 am

Quoting CitrusCritter (Reply 28):
As to the Ryan Intl A320s FL was wet-leasing, were they reconfigured for FL or were they in the standard Ryan Intl charter configuration?

They reconfigured the a/c for AirTran, as the typical Ryan Int'l charter setup is all-coach. No cabin pictures here or on Myaviation.net.
 
jetjeanes
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:42 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 pm

Airtrans tried and negotiated for the longest to get more 717,s they had een asked for a stretched version but boeing was hell bent on the 737. They did compensate Airtrans off the price of some of the first 737,s

But you know if they had stretched it, you would begin the whole dc-9 series over again Im just guessing next to the dc-8 the dc-9 was stretched more times than any other aircraft that i can think of off the top of my head.
i can see for 80 miles
 
dacman
Posts: 380
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2000 9:22 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:13 pm

I live here in Long Beach and covered the MD-95 (717) from its beginning for Airliners and Airways magazine. I spoke with pilots, Flt Attendants and ramp crews and all loved the MD-95 (717). I became good friends with several folks on the program and heard their frustrations regarding the aircraft and how Boeing was handling its promotion. What really hurt the program was when Boeing moved the sales team to Seattle. When customers came to discuss the aircraft it was basically "it's a good plane, but take a look over here at the 737NG" you can figure out the rest.

The other event that hurt the aircraft was when Boeing offered the -300 series but would not give it any more range which is what airlines like Airtran wanted. This one area was always a sore point between Boeing and the many Douglas folks remaining in Long Beach.

The MD-95 (717) is a great airplane and will fly on for many years to come just as all DAC aircraft still do. If Douglas would have survived I believe the aircraft would have become a legend.

Michael
(Dacman)
LAX / LGB Local
"Airliner Photography is not a crime"
 
jetjeanes
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:42 am

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:51 pm

If Douglas would have survived I believe the aircraft would have become a legend.

It already is....
i can see for 80 miles
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:25 pm

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 30):
I don't think the 717 was quietly ignored and put aside. Quite the contrary, Boeing made a big effort to find customers for the plane - offering all sorts of enticements to the customers that did sign up. Boeing would never have produced a 717-300 as they already had a product in that space.

Maybe at the beginning, but that didn't last long. There was minimal effort put into the 717 post 2001. Boeing spent a lot more time pushing the 753, which sold far less and ended in the same fate. We all know Boeing has the 73G but there is no doubt a 713 and other variants would have catapulted sales of the 717 family. And lets not forget, not everyone is going to buy the 737NG, hence the A320 series is outselling it still.

Quoting Dacman (Reply 36):
What really hurt the program was when Boeing moved the sales team to Seattle. When customers came to discuss the aircraft it was basically "it's a good plane, but take a look over here at the 737NG" you can figure out the rest.

 checkmark  And there you have it...

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 32):
Well, maybe you should do a search and see how many times the termination of the 717 program has been discussed.......

Remember, no one is forcing you to post in this thread. Discussions boards are for...  gasp  discussion. Let others enjoy.

Quoting JetJeanes (Reply 37):
If Douglas would have survived I believe the aircraft would have become a legend.

It already is....

A legend of what ifs...
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Was The B717 A Bust?

Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:23 pm

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 26):
How "comfy" an airplane is has nothing to do with the aircraft manufacturer. It has to do with how the airline chooses to configure their aircraft. FL chose to configure their 737s in a less "comfy" way than the 717, and I bet they would've done the same had they gone with the A319.

Sorry but that is incorrect. FL had no choice... the 737 is less comfy than the 717... period! The seats and aisle on the 717 are wider than on a 737... and it cannot be matched. Likewise, airlines have an option with the A319 with regards to installing wider seats or having a wider aisle... an option that cannot be matched on the 737. Finally, the E-jets have wider seats than the 737... that the 737 cannot match.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein

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