11 replies to this topic

[raraoul]

Hi,

 

Currently I have almost 100 717-200 in operation, however, to expand my narrow body activities I doubt ordering new 717's or I start buying the Embraer 195LR (unless it has 12 seats less).

According to AE the lowest fuel flow per passenger for the 717 is 13690/134 = 102,16

Embraer 195: 13690/122 = 112,2

 

So the embraer burns more fuel and has less seats, thus the choice would be easy; the 717 is a better aircraft.

However, according to the following link  http://planes.axlege...-Boeing-717-200

the embraer has a better fuelflow (3,77$ per NM less than the 717)

Why states AE something different?

 

Besides, if the 717 is a better aircraft (more economical) than the embraer, why did Boeing stop with the production of it and why is the embraer a more populair aircraft?

 

I did not take the maintenance costs into consideration as I don't know how to calculate them for the embraer. Someone knows how to calculate the maintenance costs (not the base costs but the costs per aircraft) as you do not have the aircraft in operation?

 

Thanking you in advance

 

 

[dieseltu]

Lets not mix game and reality.   But Fuel burn is not the  deciding factor of what a better aircraft is. Amongst many things.     Boeing stopped production of the 717, because Mc Donald Douglas created it. And they eliminated the competition.      It wasn't a Boeing airplane. just because they put new engines on it.  BUT THEY ARE DUE CREDIT FOR REENGINING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.  Furthermore, I believe the 717 needed new engines again. Due to fuel economy. Or noise. And that wasn't happening.   And they saw the writing on the wall. Or created the writing on the wall.   Back then Boeing thought everyone wanted bigger aircraft.  757, 767, 777.   And they had the 737 to protect.  And MD 80s and 90s didn't go away like they hoped.  Embraer  had plans  and Embraer was doing very well.  In some ways Boeing appeared to be  supporting Embraer.  Back in the 80s We at Continental Express were told that Boeing desig

ned the  EMB 120 and sold it to Embraer because they didn't want to get into turboprop  regional market.  Embraer did not have the ability to design that aircraft. it was way ahead of its time. And Embraer spent a decade or more trying to figure out how to make a jet.  out of the EMB 120.  That they susposedly designed in the first place.  Right.       I would imagine the  maintenance cost of the 717 are less then the Embraer.    Well I know they are.   Embraers are maintenance hogs when they get old.

 

Embraers fill a market in demand now . A market where you need planes flying more then 70 people but not more then 100.     Outside those limits you lose cash.     Less seats   less fuel use.   less then 90 seats. more then 70   Neither the 717, or MD or 737 or Airbus 319 can do that.  flying 60 -90 people.   Soon the market will be   90 -100 seats to make cash.  And that's Embraers new planes.     In this game more seats is better. because its nor real life. And they will fill.    Or nobody could or would play.

 

I don't agree it should be this way. But people hate turboprops. And  excessive city and airport fees , and anti airport sentiment, make smaller planes  with less seats cost prohibitive.    And the Airlines wont own their own small planes.        So Embraer filled the gap  with small jets. 

[konj1]

Hi,

 

Currently I have almost 100 717-200 in operation, however, to expand my narrow body activities I doubt ordering new 717's or I start buying the Embraer 195LR (unless it has 12 seats less).

According to AE the lowest fuel flow per passenger for the 717 is 13690/134 = 102,16

Embraer 195: 13690/122 = 112,2

 

So the embraer burns more fuel and has less seats, thus the choice would be easy; the 717 is a better aircraft.

However, according to the following link  http://planes.axlege...-Boeing-717-200

the embraer has a better fuelflow (3,77$ per NM less than the 717)

Why states AE something different?

 

 It's simple. You compared apples and oranges so of course it doesn't add up.

 

 

 

You didn't calculate speed, E195 is faster.   I didn't calculate exactly, but that could make fuel per passenger/mile (not only fuel per passenger that you divided) very similar.

 

And that page calculates cost fuel per mile and not per passengers. So you were comparing a completely different calculus, and I wouldn't trust that page all that much anyway (not detailed enough, no engine options, weight options, LR versions etc.).

 

That is, if you really want to know how profitable it is, calculate fuel per passengers mile.

 

 

I don't feel like doing it now, but as far as I can remember, I'd say that in AE I didn't notice significant differences in DOP with those two.

 

 

 

Lets not mix game and reality.   But Fuel burn is not the  deciding factor of what a better aircraft is. Amongst many things.     Boeing stopped production of the 717, because Mc Donald Douglas created it. And they eliminated the competition.      It wasn't a Boeing airplane. just because they put new engines on it.  BUT THEY ARE DUE CREDIT FOR REENGINING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.  Furthermore, I believe the 717 needed new engines again. Due to fuel economy. Or noise. And that wasn't happening.   And they saw the writing on the wall. Or created the writing on the wall.   Back then Boeing thought everyone wanted bigger aircraft.  757, 767, 777.   And they had the 737 to protect.  And MD 80s and 90s didn't go away like they hoped.  Embraer  had plans  and Embraer was doing very well.  In some ways Boeing appeared to be  supporting Embraer.  Back in the 80s We at Continental Express were told that Boeing desig

ned the  EMB 120 and sold it to Embraer because they didn't want to get into turboprop  regional market.  Embraer did not have the ability to design that aircraft. it was way ahead of its time. And Embraer spent a decade or more trying to figure out how to make a jet.  out of the EMB 120.  That they susposedly designed in the first place.  Right.       I would imagine the  maintenance cost of the 717 are less then the Embraer.    Well I know they are.   Embraers are maintenance hogs when they get old.

 

Embraers fill a market in demand now . A market where you need planes flying more then 70 people but not more then 100.     Outside those limits you lose cash.     Less seats   less fuel use.   less then 90 seats. more then 70   Neither the 717, or MD or 737 or Airbus 319 can do that.  flying 60 -90 people.   Soon the market will be   90 -100 seats to make cash.  And that's Embraers new planes.     In this game more seats is better. because its nor real life. And they will fill.    Or nobody could or would play.

 

I don't agree it should be this way. But people hate turboprops. And  excessive city and airport fees , and anti airport sentiment, make smaller planes  with less seats cost prohibitive.    And the Airlines wont own their own small planes.        So Embraer filled the gap  with small jets. 

 

I wouldn't interpret Boeing's decision to shut down 717 as simply because "McDD created it", regional jet sector was new for McDD as well and Boeing tried it because it had no other RJ to compete when the market was developing with Bombardier and Embraer, and as the name suggests, Boeing already had complete control of McDD when they started with 717 so it wasn't someone else's thing.

I would say that shutting down 717 was just because of big players not being sure what to expect from RJ sector when big planes were more popular, so Boeing's decision to go out of the RJ market was just similar to what Airbus did when they took over BAe and 146 / Avro RJ program was shut down, although both 717 and AvroRJ had solid sales. They retreated from that market when they were unsure, with Bombardier and Embraer competing and developing fast, while they had old DC-9 and 146 platforms and invested a lot in developing bigger stuff.

 

 

I don't get what you mean by more than 90-100 seats would be losing cash, both in AE and IRW, E195 110+ pax config is OK.

[DusanGB]

Embraer is real win for Inter-Europe flight but for USA 717 is better

[bAnderson]

I'm contemplating this right now. I have an airline that I will be replacing the 732adv with MD-87, but then replace those with 717-200s. However, I wan't sure if I should wait and keep the MDs until the E190s come in. I believe I will use the 717, but it is a close call. 

[Tesla]

Embraer is real win for Inter-Europe flight but for USA 717 is better

Why?

[Stevphfeniey]

717 because of the cool factor

[bAnderson]

717 because of the cool factor

I do love the eyebrows.

 

Why?

I believe that the way Delta used the MD-80/717 was the best way to use them. It really was a great idea, putting direct flights to smaller airports to get huge passenger numbers. By using slightly smaller looking jets, they could avoid having to use regional jets, and the MDs had enough range to get to ATL from anywhere. Even now, the 717/MD mix is getting large amounts of profit for Delta.

 

However, the strategy in Europe is completely different. In the US a cityhopper is inconceivable because we are such a large country with too many big cities. Also, especially on the East Coast, some cities are so close it makes no logical sense to go from one to another by plane (BOS-IAD, for example). In Europe, there are passport things that the US doesn't have between their cities that the EU does have. Also, the cities are large and kind of far between. MUC-CDG is a great example of this, large amounts of people from both countries need to fly this route for business reasons. So airlines like BA, Lufthansa, Swiss, KLM, and Air France realized this and made a cityhopping subsidiary for routes like these where higher frequencies are required. In the US, a feasible route that would be like that is New York-Chicago. We achieve this through regional jets, but in Europe you might see A320s or E-190s on this route. The jungle jet is a very good cityhopper because it is a new design with a high speed and low fuel consumption, with enough passengers to make a decent profit. So the difference is:

 

US: Point to point with a lower frequency and lower demand, more to connect than anything else.

EU: Point to point with a huge frequency for convenience to the passenger, they never have to wait for a flight because there's one an hour. Business meetings can easily take place.

 

That explains it well, I hope.

[Go Fly ATL]

The 717 is always always the back bone of my airlines ...great replacement for the f100. I Usually only order EMB195Ars for thin long range routes and run the 717s until games end, by that point Ill have at least 500 in my fleet

[Airplane09]

Boeing stopped the 717 program BECAUSE they were selling nicely, thus damaging the 737 program. That's the reason, not because MD did it.

[berubium]

While they are both pretty close to equal, I'd pick the Embraer because then you can use other Embraer E-Jets (EMB 175 for instance) for different types of missions without having to add another aircraft family.  717s are all alone in their aircraft family.

[konj1]

I do love the eyebrows.

 

I believe that the way Delta used the MD-80/717 was the best way to use them. It really was a great idea, putting direct flights to smaller airports to get huge passenger numbers. By using slightly smaller looking jets, they could avoid having to use regional jets, and the MDs had enough range to get to ATL from anywhere. Even now, the 717/MD mix is getting large amounts of profit for Delta.

 

However, the strategy in Europe is completely different. In the US a cityhopper is inconceivable because we are such a large country with too many big cities. Also, especially on the East Coast, some cities are so close it makes no logical sense to go from one to another by plane (BOS-IAD, for example). In Europe, there are passport things that the US doesn't have between their cities that the EU does have. Also, the cities are large and kind of far between. MUC-CDG is a great example of this, large amounts of people from both countries need to fly this route for business reasons. So airlines like BA, Lufthansa, Swiss, KLM, and Air France realized this and made a cityhopping subsidiary for routes like these where higher frequencies are required. In the US, a feasible route that would be like that is New York-Chicago. We achieve this through regional jets, but in Europe you might see A320s or E-190s on this route. The jungle jet is a very good cityhopper because it is a new design with a high speed and low fuel consumption, with enough passengers to make a decent profit. So the difference is:

 

US: Point to point with a lower frequency and lower demand, more to connect than anything else.

EU: Point to point with a huge frequency for convenience to the passenger, they never have to wait for a flight because there's one an hour. Business meetings can easily take place.

 

That explains it well, I hope.

 

You're wrong about so many things.

 

There are no passport requirements inside EU+EFTA, you can cross literally all borders without a passport. Schengen area is in principle without border checks but they are not serious even for countries outside Schengen. In most cases in Schengen area you only have to present a valid ID card to airline staff to check your ticket, sometimes to security if they ask but that happens rarely (a little bit more maybe in the last few months). There are border checks in EU areas outside Schengen but you only have to take it seriously if you're non-EU national, otherwise they just take a quick glance at you ID card if they bother, and they almost never don't after they see it's a card from member states, no question asked (it's a 1-2 second OK-thanks-bye, unless you're very suspicious). But generally there's no big passport fuss in any part of inner EU borders.

 

There are not "too many big cities" in US, only NYC area jumps out from the size of biggest cities in Europe.

Distances are further in US, but there are also some serious distances inside EU and generally, if you don't see RJs flying LAX-JFK in US, you also won't see them flying ATH-LHR or MAD-HEL, that's very similar.

 

You're also wrong about frequency. To smaller cities you can see less planes in EU just like in US, no 1 h frequency if we're not talking about top 10 city combinations. And planes to big ones are usually bigger, RJs on MUC-CDG are not the main material, most of the job on such a route is done by A320 family.

I don't know what's the difference and US carriers also sometimes use smaller planes to connect even the biggest airports like JFK-ORD when schedules are good for that and they're not too distant, a quick look at FR24 and you'll see even a bunch of CRJ9s on those routes, and that's smaller than E190 we were talking about.

I don't understand what's the fascination with European "cityhoppers" because American big 3 and also smaller airlines employ dozens of their subsidiaries and also contractors to do a similar regional job... 

 

 

And in the end, you didn't say one thing about what makes 717 different and better for US and E190/195 better for EU (and for the argument's sake, also no big difference with F100 or other larger RJs, or even downsized standard narrowbodies - A318 and 736). Technically they have similar performance, capacity, speed, turn time and fuel consumption (newer ones are more economical), I don't see any important difference apart from newer ones being more efficient.