Boeing 717

Old Mar 17, 2018, 9:19 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Seattle
Programs: AS MVP100K, Hilton Diamond, IHG Gold
Posts: 3,212
Boeing 717

Not sure this is the right place to put this, but with Delta being the biggest receiver of the CS100 and operating the most 717’s I thought this would be a good place for it. Anyway I was reading this article I thought was interesting: How the unwanted Boeing 717-200 became popular - Business Insider

So if airlines are now looking for an aircraft like the 717, and Boeing is going to have to compete with the CS100, why can’t Boeing just restart production of the 717 which seems like it would be a good move now?
NWplatinum is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2018, 9:43 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Programs: DL DM, UA Gold, Alaska MVP, Bonvoy (lol) Ambassador
Posts: 2,991
Originally Posted by NWplatinum
So if airlines are now looking for an aircraft like the 717, and Boeing is going to have to compete with the CS100, why can’t Boeing just restart production of the 717 which seems like it would be a good move now?
Two things - firstly, you can't just "restart a production line". The tooling for it is gone. The supply chains that enabled it are gone (no one manufactures the parts required). The 717 doesn't share much in common with existing product lines given its MD heritage. To restart a production line 12 years after the fact is a multi-year and multi-billion dollar investment.

Secondly, the 717 is not competitive with the CS-100. Even ignoring the passenger comfort points, the CASM for the CS-100 is going to be far lower. Boeing would never invest billions to restart a production line to produce an inferior product that would not be purchased.
jinglish likes this.
ethernal is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2018, 10:12 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: DCA
Programs: AA EXP, DL FO, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 6,709
The 717s work for DL because they've allowed ATL to become even larger and more profitable by replacing RJs. They wouldn't work for UA or AA IMO. The 717s are about increasing capacity and overall volume.
KDCAflyer is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2018, 11:08 am
  #4  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Seattle
Programs: AS MVP100K, Hilton Diamond, IHG Gold
Posts: 3,212
Originally Posted by ethernal
....product that would not be purchased.
Well not according to the article. Sounds like they’d sell em like hot cakes.
NWplatinum is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2018, 11:57 am
  #5  
pvn
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: MEM
Programs: Starbucks Green Card
Posts: 5,431
nearly 20-year old 717s are popular at used prices but that's different than saying brand new ones would be popular
CPMaverick and hi55us like this.
pvn is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2018, 11:59 am
  #6  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Programs: Formaldehyde Medallion DL DieMiles
Posts: 12,645
Originally Posted by WWads
The 717s work for DL because they've allowed ATL to become even larger and more profitable by replacing RJs. They wouldn't work for UA or AA IMO. The 717s are about increasing capacity and overall volume.
Is DL using then to replace planes other than the RJs?
StayingHomeIsBetter is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2018, 12:17 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 2,245
If Boeing were to do it they would need to make it more comfortable and fuel efficient in order to compete with the CS100. The reason the 717 is currently popular is because it fits the right amount of passengers on a mainline aircraft, at an acceptable price (used) when there is no comparable option.As the article says, the 717 is really a mad dog with the Boeing name, so none of the components would be consistent with the remainder of the Boeing brand, meaning a reboot would require essentially be developing an entire new product. If you are going to do that much work, might as well develop an entirely new plane, at which point the CS100 will already be well established and filling the currently existing gap in the market that such a new development would be targeted toward...
Lux Flyer is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2018, 12:30 pm
  #8  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Seattle
Programs: AS MVP100K, Hilton Diamond, IHG Gold
Posts: 3,212
Originally Posted by Lux Flyer
If Boeing were to do it they would need to make it more comfortable and fuel efficient in order to compete with the CS100. The reason the 717 is currently popular is because it fits the right amount of passengers on a mainline aircraft, at an acceptable price (used) when there is no comparable option.As the article says, the 717 is really a mad dog with the Boeing name, so none of the components would be consistent with the remainder of the Boeing brand, meaning a reboot would require essentially be developing an entire new product. If you are going to do that much work, might as well develop an entirely new plane, at which point the CS100 will already be well established and filling the currently existing gap in the market that such a new development would be targeted toward...
Why make a whole new plane, is it really that hard for them to get assembly back up and running? Sure they inherited it from McDonnell-Douglas, but they manufactured and made them for years. Why would it be like starting from scratch? Just get everything you had before up and running when you were manufacturing them.
NWplatinum is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2018, 12:42 pm
  #9  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: LAX
Programs: DL PM etc
Posts: 74
Another point is they completely closed the plant in Long Beach that put them together.

Why make a whole new plane, is it really that hard for them to get assembly back up and running? Sure they inherited it from McDonnell-Douglas, but they manufactured and made them for years. Why would it be like starting from scratch? Just get everything you had before up and running when you were manufacturing them.
mrcool1122 is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2018, 1:22 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: DCA
Programs: AA EXP, DL FO, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 6,709
Originally Posted by StayingHomeIsBetter
Is DL using then to replace planes other than the RJs?
No, because there wasn't really an equivalent sized plane in modern DL's fleet before the 717. Sure you had the DC-9s from NWA, but those were quickly retired holdovers.
KDCAflyer is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2018, 4:43 pm
  #11  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: SEA
Programs: Hilton/Marriott Gold, Accor Silver
Posts: 2,036
Originally Posted by mrcool1122
[left]Another point is they completely closed the plant in Long Beach that put them together.
And, as has already been stated, even if they did have the spare floor space somewhere for a production line, the supply chain and tooling are completely gone. The expense of recreating those would be enormous.
jinglish is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2018, 7:38 pm
  #12  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: PDX
Programs: AS DL
Posts: 9,038
It's a big deal for Boeing to even consider restarting the Boeing 767 passenger line even though 767-300F are still being built. Boeing was considering recently to restart the line and build about 50-60 planes fo United and American.
Toshbaf is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2018, 1:50 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: GA
Programs: VA-PLT, QF-GLD, DL-GM, UA-ex1K, AA-exPLT, HH-DM, IHG-PLT, MR-GLD
Posts: 8,240
Originally Posted by pvn
nearly 20-year old 717s are popular at used prices but that's different than saying brand new ones would be popular
This. It's very simple. If they brought back the 717, it would be uncompetitive with the CS100. What airlines want are 717s at used market prices.
lixiaojuventus likes this.
CPMaverick is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2018, 12:33 pm
  #14  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Programs: DL Gold, SPG/Marriott Gold
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by jinglish
And, as has already been stated, even if they did have the spare floor space somewhere for a production line, the supply chain and tooling are completely gone. The expense of recreating those would be enormous.
What do you mean by saying the tooling completely gone?
jonathanbak is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2018, 2:05 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Programs: DL DM, UA Gold, Alaska MVP, Bonvoy (lol) Ambassador
Posts: 2,991
Originally Posted by jonathanbak
What do you mean by saying the tooling completely gone?
Tooling means all of the things that are used to actually build the plane. For example, jigs, sheet presses, millers, etc. While obviously a lot of tooling is general purpose, every time you're building something as complex as a plane, you build a lot of custom tools or build a specially designed line/process to aid the assembly process. All of that is gone.

And that is just for final assembly. All of the tooling from upstream supply partners to make the stuff that is put together in final assembly is also gone. And for the upstream supplier's suppliers... it's also gone. If plane development takes about 12 years on average, the last 6 years is primarily focused on getting the supply chain up and running - getting the sub-component builders selected, having them spin up their supply chains, testing the prototypes and so on... and all of that would have to be redone to restart the production.
jinglish likes this.
ethernal is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.