First off, thanx to all that replied. It's this type of industry insight I'm always looking for.
On the costs of the 100 seat, 1000-1500 mile range ...
Originally Posted by
rickair7777
I think when the decisions were made, the 100 seat market was not very viable. Scope did not allow regionals to fly airplanes that large, and mainline pilots probably wanted too much money. By the time the majors were able to cut pay for 90+ seaters at mainline, the 717 was somewhat older technology. Also boeing wanted to cut overhead, and since the MD stuff had no commonality with boeing products, they didn't want to keep that division going just for one small airplane.
This sounds like the combination of timing that resulted in the 717 not having much of a chance.
Originally Posted by
Rama
Hawaiian Airlines flies the crap out of them-12-16 legs a day doing 30 minute turns.
More than likely the reason to retire it was financial, perhaps not enough orders or a higher margin on the 737 line.
There's not as much margin in the 100 passenger designs, I agree. But it did seem that Boeing could have had a solid seller. I'm starting to think it was just timing, especially with
rickair7777 pointing out the pay considerations. After all, labor costs are a major consideration, or you wouldn't have other entities chartered for Continental Express,American Eagle, etc...
Originally Posted by
stratoduck
the largest problem with the 717 was the size of the fuel tanks. jetblue was hot for this aircraft if it had more range, but boeing was fearful that a longer range version would eat into 737 sales. so boeing lost 100 units to embraer. i also bet there are many more operators that passed by the 717 for this same reason.
Yeah, this just looks like a repeat theme. Then again, didn't JetBlue buy the E-190 model that has only a little more reach than the 717? Or is that the E-195?
Originally Posted by
Rama
looks like boeing was just wanting the defense, and was happy to have the civilian wing of douglas die.
Oh, now I can definitely attest to that. I think when the US Navy cancelled the A-12 program and just went for the evolutionary F-18E/F Super Hornet, it was a no brainer for Boeing to scoup up MD. Little R&D costs for maximum, guaranteed return.
On the comment regarding Wx ...
Originally Posted by
rickair7777
Airliners are pretty much all capable of flying through the same Wx, if your flight got canceled it was probably for the airline's own operational reasons (airplane broken, late, or limited arrival slots). The type of aircraft would not matter in the 121 turbojet world.
Originally Posted by
johnso29
I'm not sure what your talking about in regards to B717s being able to fly through WX that the A320 cannot. I fly the A320, & any restrictions on what WX we can fly into the B717 would have as well. Perhaps it's more of a JetBlue company restriction.
Could be. Typically I'll see the sub-50 passenger jets grounded while largers will fly. Maybe it was a JetBlue E-190 that was grounded by weather while the 717, 737 and A320s still flew that day. Or, as you said, it could have been a company restriction beyond what the FAA limited.
Originally Posted by
Rama
The 717 is a solid, reliable airplane with a pretty nice flight deck, however I like the way Boeings fly better. It does not feel as solid as Boeing on the controls and is unstable at slow speeds in comparison.
Now the latter I utterly agree with. I've always noted how the Super 8s have to "land a little hot" compared to the 737 or A318/319/320 for the same level of flight control.
And miscellaneous ...
Originally Posted by
rickair7777
Did you know Terry Beezhold?
No, but the name sounds familiar. All of the work I ever did for Boeing was at the St. Louis location, although I did get to know a number of the majors there, but nothing of the commercial end.