TheWatcher
Senior
- Aug 26, 2002
- 342
- 0
why didnt US go with the Boeing 717 instead of the EMB 170? was it due to the fact of lower crew cost by using the E 170 as an express carrier, or was it due to cost of the EMB vs Boeing 717?
Boeing 717
- Thread starter TheWatcher
- Start date
BuffaloJoe
Veteran
- Aug 17, 2005
- 2,873
- 18
1) Boeing is discontinuing the 717,
2) I don't think US and Boeing get along to well.
3) 717 was more and US didn't have that much cash and that Embraer most likely floated US planes.
Doesn't it seem odd that Boeing discontinues planes too early? 717 was OK, and the 757. They keep the 767 around and it competes against the 777. The 757 has its own niche. There is still need for the plane. Guess Boeing doesn't care in making a few bucks, whats the mega-deals.
OP
TheWatcher
Senior
- Aug 26, 2002
- 342
- 0
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #4
right and right! it is ending in production. if it were an Airbus plane, that would scare me. whether its in production or not, Boeing stands behind thier products, very good in customer support of both in production and out of production models. mainline, yes for the 717. was that a factor in the selection over choosing the EMB instead of the 717? (mainline vs express) status
FCYTravis
Senior
The 717 is not a 70-seater. Capacity-wise, the 717 would compete with the EMB-190, which *is* a mainline plane.
The 717 isn't selling well for the same reason that the A318 and 737-600 don't sell well. It's too much airframe and weight for the seating capacity.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #6
If memory serves (and often it doesn't), we were getting (or had) the F100's about the time the 717 came out, so we had an equivalent. Then Wolfe presumably wanted fleet simplification with the big Airbus order. By the time the Emb-170's came along, the 717 was also something of an orphan with the additional lure of lower crew cost on the 170.
Jim
Jim
OP
TheWatcher
Senior
- Aug 26, 2002
- 342
- 0
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #7
Flying Titan
Veteran
- Oct 14, 2003
- 773
- 0
Unfortunately, it seems Boeing shot itself in the foot with the 717 decision. It is an excellent plane. Well designed, well built for a long service life, good performance, quiet, comfortable, excellent fuel economy, etc. However, the airframe doesn't lend itself to being shrunk down to say a 70-80 seat size and Boeing refused to consider stretching it for fear of stepping on the 737 family. Thus, there was no 717 family of aicraft and it had to fit a specific niche all by itself.
Carriers that have the 717 seem to love it. As I understand it, AirTran begged for a longer range 717 so it could fly transcon and maintain fleet commonality. Apparently, they went so far as to threaten to transition out of the 717 and go all Airbus when Boeing said no to creating a 717 family. Ultimately, of course, Boeing was able to convince AirTran to add the 737 to their fleet at a significant discount.
It's a shame. If Boeing had addressed these issues for AirTran, there probably would have been a bigger market for this plane with other carriers and Boeing may have managed to keep a big slice of the market that Embraer now enjoys.
Carriers that have the 717 seem to love it. As I understand it, AirTran begged for a longer range 717 so it could fly transcon and maintain fleet commonality. Apparently, they went so far as to threaten to transition out of the 717 and go all Airbus when Boeing said no to creating a 717 family. Ultimately, of course, Boeing was able to convince AirTran to add the 737 to their fleet at a significant discount.
It's a shame. If Boeing had addressed these issues for AirTran, there probably would have been a bigger market for this plane with other carriers and Boeing may have managed to keep a big slice of the market that Embraer now enjoys.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #9
A good thought, but unfortunately McDonnel Douglas didn't design the 717 with transcon range in mind, but as a short-haul airplane. While the higher gross weight version has a range of over 2000 miles, that carries the penalty of significantly limiting the payload. With a full passenger load of 106, the max range is about 1200 miles according to Boeing data.
Jim
Jim
L
luvn737s
Guest
Heck, Gulfstream could have gotten into the RJ market if it had taken it seriously. It's a far superior platform to begin from than the Canadair Challenger or even Global Express. Chapparal Airlines in Texas used to use G-1's as commuters. A little more work and they could have come up with a winner.
