Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:50 pm

With airlines getting ride there A318s and 717s, in some cases strapping them, I wonder why these two a/c, are getting killed so early in life?
 
deltamartin
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 5:48 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Well, the A318 had the same problem as the 737-600. Both were shortened versions of larger aircrafts. This reduced the seatcount, but only had a very slight reduce in fuel consumption compared to the larger versions, making the CASM much higher. This, ofcourse, made the airlines prefer larger versions in their respective families (A320 and 737NG).

As for the 717, it was most likely due to Boeing prefering sales of their own 737-series rather than the McDonnell Douglas developed MD-95, later renamed into 717.

Why airlines now retire the 717 is probably due to commonality etc.

[Edited 2011-11-28 07:03:04]
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:44 pm

What airlines are scrapping either jet?

NS
 
scouseflyer
Posts: 2193
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:51 pm

Quoting gigneil (Reply 2):
What airlines are scrapping either jet?

NS

Not sure about the 717 but it has been well documented that Frontier failed to find buyers for its A318s and they're going to the boneyard when they're very young  
 
Sancho99504
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:44 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:31 pm

One doesn't have to look any further than CRJ-900 or E190 to see what killed the A318/B717/B736. Similar capacity, lower fuel burn, lower cost of ownership, etc.....
kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out-USMC
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 6007
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:35 pm

Quoting sancho99504 (Reply 4):
CRJ-900

Actually, the CRJ-900 is somewhat smaller, more comparable in size to the Embraer 175. The CRJ-1000 however is about the same size as the E-190.
 
Eagleboy
Posts: 1874
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:29 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:38 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
With airlines getting ride there A318s and 717s, in some cases strapping them,

Strapping them to what exactly?
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 10410
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:43 pm

Quoting deltamartin (Reply 1):

Well, the A318 had the same problem as the 737-600. Both were shortened versions of larger aircrafts.

EXACTLY

Quoting deltamartin (Reply 1):
As for the 717, it was most likely due to Boeing prefering sales of their own 737-series rather than the McDonnell Douglas developed MD-95, later renamed into 717.

EXACTLY
The 717 was never really a Boeing product, it was just rebranded.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 2):
What airlines are scrapping either jet?

I thought WN said that they intend to retire the 717s. Kelly said recently that it would be an expensive fleet for them going forward.

The A318s are becoming Coke cans to be served on A320NEOs.  

BTW, with all the composites going into aircraft now, what will that do to scrapping? Does that make scrapping more or less economic? My guess is that aluminum is fairly easy to reclaim, but I bet composites make it a lot harder or impossible.
 
Sancho99504
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:44 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:49 pm

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 5):

even if its smaller, its still a good fit for replacement for the B717
kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out-USMC
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 6007
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:06 pm

Quoting sancho99504 (Reply 8):
even if its smaller, its still a good fit for replacement for the B717

But the CRJ-1000 would be an even better fit since it is more comparable in size. Why would the CRJ-900 be a good fit to replace the 717 but the E-175 would not? The E-175 is the CRJ-900's main competitor, plus the E-175 has more range.

The model numbers make it seem like the CRJ-900 is designed to compete against the E-190, but in truth it competes with the E-175.

[Edited 2011-11-28 09:10:32]
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:10 pm

Quoting enilria (Reply 7):
I thought WN said that they intend to retire the 717s. Kelly said recently that it would be an expensive fleet for them going forward.

Its unlikely they'll be scrapped. They can find many a good home for what is basically a 15 year old DC-9.

Quoting enilria (Reply 7):
My guess is that aluminum is fairly easy to reclaim, but I bet composites make it a lot harder or impossible.

Aluminum and steel are almost 100% recyclable. The composites less so - but Boeing said one of their major goals in the 787 program was to make the plane highly recyclable.

NS
 
Sancho99504
Posts: 752
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:44 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:14 pm

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 9):

Not knowing much about the CR10, I did a bit of research. The E90, E95, CR10, CR9, and E75 are all good fits for the B717. However, as far as the A318 and B736, your right, the CR10 is a better fit than the CR9.
kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out-USMC
 
SCL767
Posts: 2812
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:25 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:14 pm

Quoting enilria (Reply 7):
The A318s are becoming Coke cans to be served on A320NEOs.

Some carriers still find them useful. The A-318 a/c recently joined Avianca's fleet. AV now operates several A-318s that were previously in service with Mexicana. LAN decided to phase out its entire fleet of 15 A-318s for obvious reasons and luckily Avianca decided to acquire all 15 A-318s from LAN. AV Brasil currently operates five ex-LAN A-318s and will receive five more A-318s from LAN next year. AV will receive LAN's last five A-318s during 2013; thus LAN will have phased out its entire fleet of A-318 a/c.
 
777STL
Posts: 2770
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:22 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:47 pm

Quoting enilria (Reply 7):
The 717 was never really a Boeing product, it was just rebranded.

The 717 suffered from the same thing the MD11 did - the unwillingness of Boeing to market an aircraft that was a competitor to a previously existing, native Boeing aircraft.
PHX based
 
cargolex
Posts: 1245
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:20 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:29 pm

Quoting deltamartin (Reply 1):
This reduced the seatcount, but only had a very slight reduce in fuel consumption compared to the larger versions, making the CASM much higher. This, ofcourse, made the airlines prefer larger versions in their respective families (A320 and 737NG).

Exactly.

You can cut down the basic A320/737 structure to make a physically shorter airplane that might gain some range and maybe a little economy, but you're still hauling around the same basic pieces that make a 737-900 and an A321. That's a lot of weight that you can't really design out. So these reduced seat counts really hurt.

Think of it like this: Back in the 1960's, they used to make stripped-down version of big American cars. They'd have really basic interiors, six-cylinder engines, three-speed manual transmissions, painted bumpers instead of chrome, and sometimes no carpets and such. They were lighter and more economical than their V8-powered, power-everything'd siblings, but they were still big, heavy cars. The benefit gained from stripping stuff off and making the basic design do fewer things was minimal, because you were still hauling around alot of metal.

Those things are basic issues with these smallest of the conventional narrow-bodies.

The other part of the equation lies with the larger RJs - the E-jets and the CRJ7/9/10. These better and larger RJ's pushed out the mainline jets from many routes that would, in the past, have been flown by things like the DC-9-10/30, F70/F100, or the 737-200/500. They're just more economical to operate, and once they could handle loads not so far off what a 736 or an A318 can, they were just a better bet. There's also less capital cost to get them, and less waiting.
 
ckfred
Posts: 5200
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:24 pm

I think the fact that AA cancelled the balance of the TWA order for 717s and returned the 717s that had been delivered to TWA/AA sealed the fate of the 717.

The fact that Boeing wouldn't negotiate down from the lease rates, based on TWA's poor credit, says that Boeing was more interested in getting AA to buy more 737-800s and possibly 737-700s in the future.

The 717 was a better airplane for AA, compared to the F100 that was similar in size. AA had always felt that the F100s were maintenance headaches, and the 717 had some commonality with the MD-80. And Fokker was bankrupt, meaning that it wasn't providing any customer service.

The fact that the F100s were owned outright and wound up being the small jet for AA (for only 3 more years) in the post 9/11 era basically sent potential 717 buyers to the 737-700, the A319, and the larger products from Canadair and Embrear.
 
1stfl94
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:33 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:35 pm

The problem is that their a niche aircraft sitting in between large regional jets and short haul jets. For lot of airlines there isn't the need to plug a capacity gap. Plus the fact that the cost savings between an A318 and A319 are pretty slim, so why not take the larger plane for roughly the same cost.

The 717 entered a crowded marketplace with the 737-600, Boeing inherited orders but did they really want to be building a plane that was comprising another product?
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:46 pm

The 717 failed long before Boeing got involved. The early seeds of what became the 717 were first laid in the early 1980s as a design study known as the DC-9-90, which would have been a next generation DC-9-30 series. It was quietly shelved and the closest MDD came to it was the MD-87. Eventually MDD looked at a shrink of the MD-87 (MD-87-105) that morphed into the MD-95/717. MDD had a lot of trouble getting anyone interested in the MD-95, especially since the delays in the program (MDD originally intended to have the MD-95 in service in 1995, but for time considered axing it in favor of a re-engine program for existing DC-9s using the BR-715 which would later power the 717.) led to their presumed launch customers (NW and SAS) ordering Airbus and Boeing a/c to replace the DC-9s in their fleets. MDD was so desperate for a launch customer that they did something unprecedented when they got Valujet to be the launch customer for the a/c.

One can say that the only reason why Boeing went forward with it is due to the two launch customers having placed an order for 100 a/c plus 100 options (Valujet/AirTran and TWA ordered 50+50 options.) and neither airline was interested in a 737NG a/c at the time since Boeing would not give them a deal on them. Both airlines had gotten a sweetheart deal as launch customers, and if I recall, AirTran's price on them was lower than what a CRJ-200 listed at. TWA actually had orders for the 717 and the A318. Boeing figured that they might be able to sell some more, but it never really panned out that way (Midwest's order was the last major order for the 717 plus AA returned the 30 717s delivered to TWA because Boeing Capital was unwilling to work on the leases to make them more tolerable, as TWA was paying some pretty high lease rates.) Had they delivered all 200 a/c FL and TW ordered and had options on, that would have been a decent program for them. Their unwillingness to give the 717-300 the range needed to do transcontinental runs (since it would compete directly with the 736) potentially cost them some customers as well, as some airlines were interested in it.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2258
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:10 pm

What killed both aircraft?

Fuel costs.
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:13 pm

Quoting ckfred (Reply 15):
The 717 was a better airplane for AA

It was to heavy and therefor burned to much fuel.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 15):
The 717 was a better airplane for AA, compared to the F100 that was similar in size.

If that were the case AA would have ordered 717's.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 15):
AA had always felt that the F100s were maintenance headaches

Yup and because of that those ex AA frames are still flying around with an average TDR between 98 and 99%.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 15):
And Fokker was bankrupt, meaning that it wasn't providing any customer service.

Guess this is why only the US has a mythbuster program on the tele  
Fokker did not stop providing customer service for a single day and still is doing so today.
Why do you think most of those F70/100 are still flying ? without service ?  
Quoting srbmod (Reply 17):
The 717 failed long before Boeing got involved.

It is quite simple, if the 717 had enough favorable figures to show Boeing would have been happy to keep it alive.



  
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:15 pm

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 18):
What killed both aircraft?

Fuel costs.

Not entirely so. The 717 is a pretty fuel efficient a/c and AirTran has been quite happy with the fuel savings they've had with it, as it has turned out to have better fuel burn than projected. AirTran credits the 717 for saving the airline, as the better than expected fuel burn as well as a very high dispatch rate saved them enough money to help them weather the post-9/11 downturn in travel. Had FL still been an all-DC-9 and 732 airline, they may have ended up out of business after 9/11.
 
User avatar
gunsontheroof
Posts: 3717
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:30 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:26 pm

Quoting gigneil (Reply 10):
Aluminum and steel are almost 100% recyclable. The composites less so - but Boeing said one of their major goals in the 787 program was to make the plane highly recyclable.

There was talk early in the program that the composites could potentially be broken down to be used as road-fill. Not sure if anything has come of that...

Quoting 777STL (Reply 13):
The 717 suffered from the same thing the MD11 did - the unwillingness of Boeing to market an aircraft that was a competitor to a previously existing, native Boeing aircraft.

Calling the MD-11 a "competitor" to the 777 is pretty generous. The MD-11 was dead in the water by the time the Boeing-MDD merger went through and Boeing would have been out of their minds to waste money pushing it when the clearly superior 777 was starting to fly off the shelves. Great looking aircraft to be sure, but Boeing made the right call.
Picked a hell of a week to quit sniffing glue.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:09 pm

Quoting srbmod (Reply 17):
The 717 failed long before Boeing got involved.



With respect, I think this is an oversimplified statement. Too much is read into the in-decision of MDC's Mgmt during the early 80s. Keep in mind this was during the immediate aftermath of AA 191 and before the MD-80 series had become a hit.

Lest we forget, EPO for MDC's civilian sector in 1991 was the highest in the manufacturer's history. Preceded by strong numbers during the late '80s.

True, the MD-95 program was lagging pre Boeing merger. But that had more to do with the years 1994-96, and resources that were pulled to fix the MD-11.

Quoting srbmod (Reply 17):
Had they delivered all 200 a/c FL and TW ordered and had options on, that would have been a decent program for them. Their unwillingness to give the 717-300 the range needed to do transcontinental runs (since it would compete directly with the 736) potentially cost them some customers as well, as some airlines were interested in it.



   Which are factors into why the "717 failing long before Boeing" does not entirely hold true.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 21):
Calling the MD-11 a "competitor" to the 777 is pretty generous. The MD-11 was dead in the water by the time the Boeing-MDD merger went through and Boeing would have been out of their minds to waste money pushing it when the clearly superior 777 was starting to fly off the shelves.

Actually, the fact is that between 1996-98, the MD-11 garnered more sales (31) than it had since EIS. The program had begun to turn the corner (mostly due to the MD-11F) when Boeing pulled the plug.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
User avatar
gunsontheroof
Posts: 3717
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:30 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:21 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 22):
Actually, the fact is that between 1996-98, the MD-11 garnered more sales (31) than it had since EIS. The program had begun to turn the corner (mostly due to the MD-11F) when Boeing pulled the plug.

We must be looking at different numbers then...that, or I misunderstand what you're talking about. The MD-11 easily had that many orders during the first few years of the program. I agree with your point about the MD-11F being viable, but I'd be surprised if Boeing didn't already have the 777F somewhere up their sleeves at that point...I can see arguing that Boeing nixed a potentially viable MDD program in favor of their own with the 717, but it really doesn't add up to me with the MD-11.
Picked a hell of a week to quit sniffing glue.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:04 am

The B-717 did sell some 155 airplanes in the end, more than either the B-737-600 or the A-318. If Boeing would have cut a good deal with AA, after they took over TW, the B-717 could have been much more successful.

AA had a lot of F-100s at DFW, and during the hot summer the F-100s could not leave with full pax and baggage loads, it just didn't have enough power. The B-717s could fly from DFW with full pax and baggage loads year round. But, AA owned the F-100s and the B-717s were on high lease rates, so AA sent them back.

I remember a few B-717s in the AA/TW hybrid livery, but most were in the 'new' TW (pre-merger) livery. They looked really good wearing the TW paint.
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:32 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 22):


With respect, I think this is an oversimplified statement. Too much is read into the in-decision of MDC's Mgmt during the early 80s. Keep in mind this was during the immediate aftermath of AA 191 and before the MD-80 series had become a hit.

Lest we forget, EPO for MDC's civilian sector in 1991 was the highest in the manufacturer's history. Preceded by strong numbers during the late '80s.

True, the MD-95 program was lagging pre Boeing merger. But that had more to do with the years 1994-96, and resources that were pulled to fix the MD-11.

MDD dragged their feet in regards to this a/c since the early 80s. Had they brought the DC-9-90 to market in the mid-1980s, we probably wouldn't be talking about Airbus too much on the site as they may have become a minor player in the history of commercial aviation. MDD lost some major customers to Airbus and Boeing sue to the inability to bring a DC-9-30 series replacement a/c to market in a timely manner (in addition to the issues with the MD-11 and MD-90 in the 90s). By the time the design finally got launched, it was viewed as a warmed over DC-9 even though similar could be claimed about the 737NGs since their basic design was nearly as old as the DC-9.
 
irshava
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:11 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:47 am

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 19):
Fokker did not stop providing customer service for a single day and still is doing so today.
Why do you think most of those F70/100 are still flying ? without service ?  

Or probably because Austrian Airlines Maintenance (in Bratislava, Slovakia) provides MRO and other types of services for both the F70 and F100?
“If you were born without wings, do nothing to prevent them from growing.”
 
Thrust
Posts: 2587
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:47 am

I would think that the A318, like the 737-600, was just too small for the mainline routes, and too large for some of the feeder routes. Express jets on top of being too small for mainline routes I think was mainly responsible the failure of the A318. The 717 I'm really not sure of...I know that TWA's being bought out by American was a huge blow. In fact, it was a blow to the A318 too, as TWA was an important customer for both of these...the A318s had not entered service yet. The nitch that these jets could have filled in the markets of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s seems to have disappeared due to either growing or shrinking demand on the routes they served which could be filled with larger mainline jets and regional jets.
Fly one thing; Fly it well
 
User avatar
gegtim
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:37 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:49 am

Odd....the 737-600 never made it out of the starting gates, yet it's older brother, the 737-500, did quite well. I agree with the fuel cost issue. Back when I worked at GEG, Nathan Gerlach who is the fuels person for SWA, told me that 40% of an airlines costs go to fuel. At the time he was explaining to me how they hedged fuel and SWA is the best in the business at it.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 10658
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 am

The MD11 was running around at a time when not everyone was persuaded that 2 engines for long-haul-overwater travel was a good idea. It's accepted wisdom now, but wasn't then.
 
User avatar
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1398
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:13 am

Quoting srbmod (Reply 17):
MDD had a lot of trouble getting anyone interested in the MD-95, especially since the delays in the program (MDD originally intended to have the MD-95 in service in 1995, but for time considered axing it in favor of a re-engine program for existing DC-9s using the BR-715 which would later power the 717.) led to their presumed launch customers (NW and SAS) ordering Airbus and Boeing a/c to replace the DC-9s in their fleets.

By the time MDD got there act together Northwest Airlines had started getting Airbus A320s delivered. NWA eventually added the A319 to their fleet. Part of the A320 and A319 acquisitions was due to Northwest's cancellation of the A340s ordered in the 1990s. Northwest had expressed an interest in acquiring 737s, but Boeing showed little interest in building any for Northwest. Thus Northwest turned to Airbus and Airbus jumped at selling Northwest aircraft.
Yes, MDD tried to interest NWA in the MD-95, but Northwest was already acquiring A320s. MDDs offer was just too late. The MD-95 is a good aircraft, but was finally manufactured too late and just did not sell like it could have.
Northwest's pilots were afraid that Northwest would acquire the Fokker F-100 as it has no leading edge slats. This would mean the aircraft would have a higher take off and landing speed.   
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2387
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:16 am

Quoting gegtim (Reply 28):
Odd....the 737-600 never made it out of the starting gates, yet it's older brother, the 737-500, did quite well.

IIRC, the 737-500 offered a bit of a range advantage over the 737-300/400.

However, the 737-700 really offered plenty more range than any of the "classic" 737s, which was more than enough for virtually any mission an airline would reasonably want to give to a 737 (at least, at the time). This meant that the 737-600 didn't really offer enough extra to make up for the fact that it costs, more or less, the same as a 737-700 to fly, but with fewer seats.
I was raised by a cup of coffee.
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 6007
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:20 am

Quoting gegtim (Reply 28):
yet it's older brother, the 737-500, did quite well.

Of course, most of the 735's sales were by U.S. carriers; globally the 735 had the lowest sales of the three 737 Classics (less than the 734 and much less than the 733).

[Edited 2011-11-28 17:21:15]
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:15 am

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 23):
We must be looking at different numbers then...that, or I misunderstand what you're talking about. The MD-11 easily had that many orders during the first few years of the program.



The large majority of MD-11s ordered were between 1986-1990, during the program development and launch phase. The first full year of EIS (Entry into Service) was 1991. My statement was a comparison for the orders during 1991, which IIRC was 10. During the PIP program, MD-11 orders suffered, reaching as low as 4 in 1995.

Hence my comment:

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 22):
between 1996-98, the MD-11 garnered more sales (31) than it had since EIS.
Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 23):
I agree with your point about the MD-11F being viable, but I'd be surprised if Boeing didn't already have the 777F somewhere up their sleeves at that point...I can see arguing that Boeing nixed a potentially viable MDD program in favor of their own with the 717, but it really doesn't add up to me with the MD-11.



Remember, how long did it take for the 777F to become airborne? If you factor in Boeing's desire to sell more 744F, (which they did) than the correlation with the 717s fate is pretty clear.

Quoting srbmod (Reply 25):
MDD dragged their feet in regards to this a/c since the early 80s. Had they brought the DC-9-90 to market in the mid-1980s, we probably wouldn't be talking about Airbus too much on the site as they may have become a minor player in the history of commercial aviation.

But see, there are too many variables here for the original generalized statement to hold up.

MDC did not move forward with a DC-9 replacement in the early '80s because:

A) Timing - The renewal cycle was not conducive for the market
B) Technology - A DC-9 replacement would have been a less efficient MD-87

The aircraft that became the 717 could not have been produced in 1984. MDC faltered by not having the aircraft available by 1995 - which speaks to my point earlier on the turmoil within MDC during the mid 1990s.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
The B-717 did sell some 155 airplanes in the end, more than either the B-737-600 or the A-318. If Boeing would have cut a good deal with AA, after they took over TW, the B-717 could have been much more successful.

  

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 30):
MDD tried to interest NWA in the MD-95, but Northwest was already acquiring A320s. MDDs offer was just too late. The MD-95 is a good aircraft, but was finally manufactured too late and just did not sell like it could have.

  
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
RiddlePilot215
Posts: 280
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 2:19 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:27 am

Quoting gigneil (Reply 10):
Its unlikely they'll be scrapped. They can find many a good home for what is basically a 15 year old DC-9.

Do you think they could have a place over at DL? Considering they're looking at retiring their old fleet of DC-9-50's, and replacing them with MD-90's. If I'm not mistaken the MD-90 and the MD-95/B717 share the same cockpit; same type certificate. Though I'm not sure how a 115 seat airplane would fit into DL's grand design...

One can dream though...
God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good.
 
ChazPilot
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:46 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:13 am

Re. the B717 - I thought I'd read previously that there were issues with cockpit familiarity (or lack thereof, rather) with it's comparible a/c which made higher costs on airlines for transitioning pilots?
 
ha763
Posts: 3201
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:36 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:26 am

Quoting ChazPilot (Reply 35):
Re. the B717 - I thought I'd read previously that there were issues with cockpit familiarity (or lack thereof, rather) with it's comparible a/c which made higher costs on airlines for transitioning pilots?

The 717 has the same type rating as the DC-9. There is a differences class that pilots have to go through.
 
liftsifter
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:25 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:32 am

Most airlines felt that the A319 or A320 were sufficient enough for those routes so they decided against the A318, which is a fine aircraft for VIP short haul, IMO.
A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A342 A343 A346 A380 B736 B737 B738 B744 B763 B77L B77E B77W B788 E190
 
User avatar
gegtim
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:37 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:27 am

Being the rookie here, I must ask if all of these reasons that the A318 wasn't a marketable aircraft are the same reason's that the A310 wasn't a marketable aircraft? I've only seen the 310 used by FedEx and there are few pictures of it on this website. To me it looks like it would have been a profitable airplane on US - Hawaii routes, or to Mexico and the Carribiean.
 
laca773
Posts: 2093
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:10 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:43 am

Quoting ckfred (Reply 15):

The 717 was a better airplane for AA, compared to the F100 that was similar in size. AA had always felt that the F100s were maintenance headaches, and the 717 had some commonality with the MD-80. And Fokker was bankrupt, meaning that it wasn't providing any customer service.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
The B-717 did sell some 155 airplanes in the end, more than either the B-737-600 or the A-318. If Boeing would have cut a good deal with AA, after they took over TW, the B-717 could have been much more successful.

AA had a lot of F-100s at DFW, and during the hot summer the F-100s could not leave with full pax and baggage loads, it just didn't have enough power. The B-717s could fly from DFW with full pax and baggage loads year round. But, AA owned the F-100s and the B-717s were on high lease rates, so AA sent them back.

I

The 717 program definitely could have become a successful one had AA been able to work out more favorable lease rates on those birds. It would have allowed them to use them a lot more and not have to worry about restrictions on the routes they served. This would have filled a big void AA has had for so many years since they retired the F100s and opted out of the TW 717 leases. It seems to me the only disadvantage with the 717 is the range.

MX seemed to have done very well with the 717 on their intra-Mexico flights. They served a definite purpose where the A319/A320s was way too much a/c for the routes they were flying and it allowd MX to up and down gauge all their flights according to demand.

Quoting RiddlePilot215 (Reply 34):

Do you think they could have a place over at DL? Considering they're looking at retiring their old fleet of DC-9-50's, and replacing them with MD-90's. If I'm not mistaken the MD-90 and the MD-95/B717 share the same cockpit; same type certificate. Though I'm not sure how a 115 seat airplane would fit into DL's grand design...

One can dream though...

I wouldn't say that. I think before all is said and done, we'll see DL order a 100 seat a/c for their longer and very thin routes where the A319/73W is too much a/c. I was hoping DL would have picked up these 717s, but I feel they probably want something with more range than what the 717 offers. It's a good replacement for their D9S/D94/D95s. I see DL ordering E90/95s sooner than later. They are going to have a void to fill, but want something more versatile and that's where the E90/95s come into play. You can argue the CRK is another option, but like the CR9, isn't the range just not there as well as, not near as popular with passengers and crew?

It seemed MX was happy with the A318s they had. It allowed them to fly MEX-JFK nonstop without penalty which was a problem with the A320. They used the A318s almost exclusively on their MEX-JFK routes, both daily nonstop flights. It also allowed them to up & down gauge according to demand on the light, light days where they needed just a 100 seats on flights between MEX/GDL-LAX/SFO/YVR/YYZ/ORD and etc...

I believe AF has been happy with their A318s as well. Like MX, having all the A32Xs models gives them all the versatility they need that other wise they wouldn't have.
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 2028
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:19 pm

A318: OEW + PW6000
717: Boeing + TWA
The chalice not my son
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:34 pm

Quoting laca773 (Reply 39):
It allowed them to fly MEX-JFK nonstop without penalty which was a problem with the A320. They used the A318s almost exclusively on their MEX-JFK routes, both daily nonstop flights.

I'd imagine they could have flown the A320 at a penalty with more passengers or cargo than an A318 with no penalty.

I have heard both the A320 and 737 have challenges out of MEX to way up this part of North America.

NS
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:43 pm

My opinions:

Boeing killed the 717. They weren't willing to market it in competition with the 737NG and it seriously impacted many sales. MCDD had trouble selling ANYTHING new in the 90s, the bad publicity from the MD-11s performance and multiple crashes, along with ongoing financial issues made many airlines weary of ordering new products from them. The MD-90, MD-95, MD-11ER, MD-XX, MD-11X, MD-12 and MD-100 programs all suffered as a result.

Had MCDD done better, or had Boeing properly marketed the 717, it would of sold. There were many potential sales that just came short of happening, like NorthWest, SAS and American, all of whom turned elsewhere (or no where at all).

SAS ended up buying the 737-600s which is got rid of.
American just dropped that size segment out of their fleet.
NWA kept the DC-9 around

The A318 (and 737-600) are very much niche aircraft... but neither one sells especially well on the used market. westJet was unable to dump it's fleet of -600s. Frontier's well documented A318s going to scrap. Mexicana's fleet going for far less than they cost to Avianca (great for Avianca), SAS's 736s getting sold just before the current glut of 73Gs and A319s (and 733s, 735s, MD80s, F100s, etc) hit the used market (thanks to the economic downturn)...
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
laca773
Posts: 2093
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:10 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:16 am

Quoting gigneil (Reply 41):
'd imagine they could have flown the A320 at a penalty with more passengers or cargo than an A318 with no penalty.

I have heard both the A320 and 737 have challenges out of MEX to way up this part of North America.



They flew the A319 on occasion and it did fly with significant penalties out of MEX. They flew MEX-JFK at capacity every flight.

They mainly have issues with the larger 73H and the A320. AM flies the majority of their routes to North America with the 73G as it has much better performance out of MEX than the 738, but did get some marked improvement when the blended winglets were added. The A319 also operates more optimally out MEX than the A320. Perhaps this will change when the A32X come out with the sharklets and the NEOs arrive.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 42):
SAS ended up buying the 737-600s which is got rid of.

SAS is still flying their 736s.
 
1stfl94
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:33 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:22 am

Quoting gegtim (Reply 38):
Being the rookie here, I must ask if all of these reasons that the A318 wasn't a marketable aircraft are the same reason's that the A310 wasn't a marketable aircraft? I've only seen the 310 used by FedEx and there are few pictures of it on this website. To me it looks like it would have been a profitable airplane on US - Hawaii routes, or to Mexico and the Carribiean

In its day the A310 was an extremely popular aircraft, especially as along with the 767 it was a pioneer of ETOPS. Pan Am used A300s to the Caribbean but might have also used the A310 at times, Air France and Lufthansa used it on similar length flights from Europe to the Middle East and Africa. It was retired fairly quickly during the 2000s because the A330-200 and the A321 more less filled its place in the Airbus line up offering much more commonality.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1210
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:08 am

The 737-600 is much heavier than the -500. Over 10,000 lb more based on the Aircraft data on this very website.

The NGs (-600,-700,-800) are much more capable than the Classics (-300,-400,-500) and truly transcontinental aircraft.

The problem with the -600 is who wants a small plane on a 5 hour flight - fuel costs are going to be big and only a smidge less than a -700. And it is too heavy to fly DAL-AMA affordably. Too much plane for too few seats. Even the -700 is falling out of favor now.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7159
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:46 am

The 318 suffered badly from lack of the single intended engine.

The PW6000 was years late in development and never met intended specs.

Consequently most of the 318 orders were either converted to 319, or to CFM56 equipped 318. And the CFM56 is too much engine for the babybus - too expensive and too heavy.

Remember that the Airbee CFM56 - the -5B - is significantly more engine than the Boeing counterpart, the -7B. It's not just a bigger fan, but also one more LPT stage, and hardly much more than screws and bolts as spare part commonality. The most powerful -5B version maxes out at 33klbs - 5-6klbs more than the smaller -7B.

The few PW6000 equipped 318s make engine maintenance a headache - and economically less viable than if a lot more engines had been produced. Today there are probably a hundred CFM56 certified MX people for every single man with a PW6000 license.

If only the 318 had got its engine on time and to specs, then it could have been a fine niche plane, and it could have sold a lot better - and based on very modest R&D costs. It wouldn't have become a world beater (like 320 and 738), but anyway a lot better than what we see today.

The 717 is a different story. Boeing had to streamline their product portfolio in the most economic way. And that included not paying cancellation fees for all 717 contracts. Boeing knew very well that this slightly warmed over and reengined DC-9-30 of 60'es vintage wouldn't have a chance when the larger E-jets came online.

Had it not been for the military part of MDD, then there would never have been a takeover, and MDD would have been allowed to die the same way as Fokker and Dornier.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Quoting laca773 (Reply 43):
SAS is still flying their 736s.

sorry, should of phrased it better... SAS dumping SOME of their 736s
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
User avatar
gunsontheroof
Posts: 3717
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:30 am

RE: What Killed The A318 And 717?

Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:50 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 33):
The large majority of MD-11s ordered were between 1986-1990, during the program development and launch phase. The first full year of EIS (Entry into Service) was 1991. My statement was a comparison for the orders during 1991, which IIRC was 10. During the PIP program, MD-11 orders suffered, reaching as low as 4 in 1995.

Understood and agreed. Somehow I didn't read it like that the first time around.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 33):
Remember, how long did it take for the 777F to become airborne? If you factor in Boeing's desire to sell more 744F, (which they did) than the correlation with the 717s fate is pretty clear.

I see your point, but I really don't think Boeing snuffed the MD-11 line because they wanted the B744 to dominate the freighter market. For one thing, they aren't even in the same class as freighters and I suspect that anyone who couldn't get their hands on an MD-11F ordered 767s or A300s instead. Even then, I think most cargo operators with an eye for the plane probably saw that its passenger days were numbered and lined up for the conversion models. I don't see your point with the 777F--the model is a derivative of the 777-200LR and insofar as I'm aware, was always planned to be so. That program went more or less as scheduled and hasn't exactly been a stunning seller...probably due to all the MD-11Fs flying around that still have some life left in 'em. The point is that Boeing would have kept the MD-11 in production if customers were interested in buying it. They weren't, so they didn't. It's not much different from the case of the A318/B736 save for the fact that the MD-11 is cost-effective and good-looking.  
Picked a hell of a week to quit sniffing glue.

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