Asqx From United States, joined Jun 1999, 484 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3420 times:
"okay...something reeks! why would the ingreased gross weight 717 burn significantly less fuel per hour vs the regular 717?"
Probably because the calculations are based on the aircraft flying to its maximum range. Fuel burn during takeoff and climbout can be substantially higher than during cruise. Because of longer cruise times, it is possible to lower average hourly fuel consumption. Take for example operating data reported by United and Frontier for the 737-300 during the 4th Quarter of 2002. United reported an hourly fuel consumption of 777 gph, where as frontier reported only 556 gph. The difference comes in part because Frontier's average flight duration was 2.45 hours, where as United reported only 1.42 hours per flight.
Theoretically, if an HGW version and a standard version took off at the same weight and flew the same flight, fuel burn would be much more close. However, I think that reported data was based on a maximum range flight, which skews the data.
CX747 From United States, joined May 1999, 4209 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3405 times:
Interesting information. It seems that Boeing is trying to show the Star Alliance exactly what the 717 "Family" is capable of doing. Seeing as this order is for 100+ aircraft I am happy to see that they are willing to expand their minds. Interesting fuel burn information.
When is the Star Alliance set to make their decision?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
L1011Fan From United States, joined May 2003, 271 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3331 times:
I thought I read that Star Alliance is set to announce their decision late this year or very early next year. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the 713!
Elwood64151 From United States, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 8 Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3183 times:
Greg:
I remember a lot of people saying that about the A380...
A lot more said it about the A300...
More than that said it about the 747...
Few believed the 707 would ever make a sale...
The DC-3 was projected to be a dismal failure by many analysts...
I'm going to wait and see what the Star Alliance order turns out to be, and what NW, DL, and other airlines decide to replace their DC-9/MD-80/90s with. If 717 production ends before that, then I'll say that it's dead. But as long as 712s are in production, I'm going to hold out hope that the 713 will be built.
And if I ever win the lottery (like the big $200M jackpots), you can bet I'm starting an airline!!!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
Cloudy From United States, joined Apr 2002, 1794 posts, RR: 15 Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3003 times:
remember a lot of people saying that about the A380...
A lot more said it about the A300...
More than that said it about the 747...
Few believed the 707 would ever make a sale...
------
Those things were also said about the Convair jets, the Briston Brabason, The Northrop Tigershark, etc. People remember when the conventional wisdom is wrong. And it makes ya feel smart to outguess it. Yet MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, the conventional wisdom is right. If you had to bet a large sum of money you couldn't afford to lose would you bet on the 717 being a long term success or a failure? My guess is that almost everybody in the know would bet on it being a failure. And that does mean something.
The conventional wisdom was right about the 747. If the airlines had known how hard it would be to actually fill the bird, there would be no Boeing today. The 747 came to soon....it is just that the airlines took the hit rather than Boeing. Also, as many predicted, the 767 did better than the A300 series. It was the founding of Airbus that was the runaway sucess, not the A300. Airbus really took off with the A320.
And remember, I said "MORE OFTEN THAN NOT", not "ALWAYS". Just for those who have trouble reading.....
IN SHORT....It is fascinating when the conventional wisdom is wrong. But more often than not, it is right. "The race doesn't always go to the swift, nor that battle to the strong. But thats the way to bet." - forgot the source
Asqx From United States, joined Jun 1999, 484 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 2954 times:
"I was hoping for a bit longer range on the 300. Oh well..."
-Tekelberry
If you want more range, go for the 737-700 or A319.
The 717, and indeed the DC-9, was never intended to be a transcontinetnal airplane. From the start, it was designed to be an airplane that is efficient on short hauls, flying multiple segment days on short routes. A simple comparison of hours flown and cycles performed will show that, for a vastly overwhelming majority, cycles exceed hours on DC-9s. In fact, there are more than a few DC-9s where cycles number several thousand, and in some cases, in the tens of thousands, greater than hours flown.
The 717 is, afterall, a modern DC-9. While the avionics, engines, and cabin interior may have changed, it remains an aircraft with a primary mission of flying multiple short-segment flights per day on routes averaging between 100 and 500 miles. This is what it designed to do. And, I might add, it is a job it does well.
Johnnybgoode From Germany, joined Jan 2001, 2184 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 2921 times:
this week´s edition of Flight International has articles on the 717-300 and the Do 729. it mainly says that Boeing is really pushing the 713 now and they´re hoping for the Star order but they don´t need to rely on it for finally offering the 713.
cheers
daniel
If only pure sweetness was offered, why's this bitter taste left in my mouth.
B4real From United States, joined Aug 2003, 2432 posts, RR: 6 Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2849 times:
I agree with both Greg and Elwood64151
I think too many airlines will look at Canadair and Embraer products for the 95-110 pax range a/c. (Greg side of my brain)
I think it will be a popular product, maybe slow @ first. I think it will suit many airlines nicely in this seat range where they want to offer 2-class service (Elwood64151 side of my brain).
BoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2778 times:
You can't outsource everything to the regionals. Mainline pilots would have a fit. Yes, there are multiple 70 seat orders, but with the exception of JetBlue, you don't see anyone scrambling to buy 90-100 seaters from anyone just yet. I think the CRJ-900 is a bust. It's price is too high, it's comfort stinks for anything over an hour and it's fuel burn is pathetic. As for the ERJ-190 it's a new aircraft and it's a crap shoot until it's in the market and tested. The 717 is already proven. People are taking notice, I think it's just early in the market right now. I would not be surprised to see the following numbers of orders as the airlines recover and begin to shift gears:
DAL - 100-140 - Mix of 712/713 - Replace 737-200/300 for shuttle ops/DFW/SLC Hubs (High density markets inside 750 Miles).
NWA - 100-150 - Mix of 712/713 and may ask for the 711. Replaces part of the DC-9 fleet, some will go to RJ's, but not all (High and Medium Density Markets inside 700 miles of DTW and MSP, perhaps the primary aircraft at MEM).
CAL - 25-50 - Cleveland Hub to Large Markets.
ACA - 25-50 - 717-200 - Low acquisition/Good for markets they intend to serve.
MEH - 25-50 to expand at OMA and either MCI or IND.
ALK - 20-40 West coast short-haul service
Other Upstarts - 25-50 Copies
Various international carriers: 100-200 Units.
Star??? I don't think it will matter. It would be nice to see such an order though. A good shot in the arm for the 717.
Low end 300 - High End 500 copies.
If Star Jumps in, add +/- 200
If AA Jumps in, add another 50-60 of them
For everyone else I'm not sure where it would fit in.
DAL12 From United States, joined Jun 2003, 89 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2754 times:
It's pretty clear that while publicly the 713 is being dangled, in the background Boeing is discussing the very survival of the program. The Star Order (which btw, has been delayed for 2004), will be a huge factor in its survival. Article below mentions that they will decide in the middle of next year whether or not to kill the 717.
BoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2740 times:
In addition, the smaller airliner faces competition not only from the Airbus A318 but also from "less expensive" regional jets made by Embraer and Bombardier.
Errr... Ummm... Not true....
News Papers....
They got this part right though....
Phillips cited interest from Northwest Airlines, which is seeking to replace eight older DC-9 planes. Delta is also reportedly interested in the 717.
DAL12 From United States, joined Jun 2003, 89 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2716 times:
Erm... The only reason why the 717 is cheaper right now is because it is discounted to highly unprofitable levels in the hopes of attracting orders. The 717's list price is definitely a great deal higher -- List prices give you a good idea of a manufacturer's desired margin, and yes, if the 717 is ever to become a healthy, viable program, it will have to be more expensive than the competition's 86 seaters.
There are multiple other factors... In Fuel Burn the 717 has them all beat on a per pax basis. It's said the 190/195 will burn 800-850 GPH. Nearly 200 GPH more than the 717. You also have to consider design life. The 717 is 100,000 cycles, while the ERJs are 60K and the BBD's are 80K. The heavy discounting only means that you have room to play in striking a deal. The 717 can be had for $22.5M today in a block order. The closest one to that is the ERJ-90 at $24.5M with the CRJ-900 at $25.5M. Competitively, Boeing could raise the discount to about $30M and the 717 would still be more economically sound than both RJs.
Elwood64151 From United States, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 8 Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2657 times:
B4real:
Wow. I never realized I was telepathic.
Cloudy:
I wasn't saying that conventional wisdom is always wrong. I was simply saying that we've heard doom-sayers before and they have been wrong. I'm certainly hoping they are wrong about the 717.
BoingGoingGone:
I disagree with your specific numbers, but I can see up to 400-600 copies ordered in the next five to seven years, especially if Star, NW, DL, or AA decides they want to start replacing aircraft.
I actually see NW as the key to this program. If they order A318 to replace the DC-9, then the 717, IMHO, is dead. If they choose to replace their 120+ DC-9 with the 717, then the A318 faces stiff competition from Boeing, with products aimed at short-medium and long range, low to medium density markets.
I could see:
FL: 25-50 aircraft for relief of high-density markets out of ATL.
AA: Anywhere from 50-400 copies to replace the F.100 and maybe some (or all) MD-80s
DL: 50-150 to replace MD-80s/MD-90s
YX: 15-30 copies to expand MKE and MCI (OMA doesn't have the room)
NW: 100-150 copies to replace its aging DC-9 fleet
Star: 75-150 copies, depending on their mix of mainline and RJ
SAS: 25-50 copies for short-medium Scandinavian routes
Other international and LCCs: 100-200
Low end: 340
High end: 780
That's just over the next seven years. Of course, SOMEONE has to make a big order for any of this to happen.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States, joined May 1999, 6068 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, 
From India, joined May 1999, 1635 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2001, 2184 posts,