How a Boeing Sales Flop Became the World's Hottest Secondhand Jetliner

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-04/how-boeing-sales-flop-became-world-s-hottest-secondhand-jetliner

by jwegan • 11 years ago

88 69 11 years ago

kunai• 11 years ago

The 717 is actually not an original Boeing or McDonnell Douglas design; it's a refinement of a very old DC-9 airframe from the 60s massively upgraded with modern avionics and modern systems. The DC-9s (and later, the MD-80/90s) were very well-engineered aircraft, and the fact that their core airframe designs are still in operation some five decades later is a testament to how sound Douglas' original engineering and design methodology was.

redthrowaway• 11 years ago

You'd have to think though that a frame built long before CAD and long before you could stress test member components digitally would be much heavier for the same strength (or weaker for the same weight) than a modern airframe which could be min-maxed to high hell before a single sheet of aluminum was stamped.

jimmcslim• 11 years ago

Is there an opportunity to revisit this design with Dreamliner-style composite materials perhaps?

meatysnapper2• 11 years ago

The Mig-25 was mostly build from steel. Steel!

Good engineering can be done without the aid of a computer.

WalterBright4• 11 years ago

The DC-3 was famously overbuilt because Douglas had no experience with large aircraft and played it safe. The result was the DC-3 was a very robust aircraft, and this contributed to its many decades of service (and still doing so today).

sjm-lbm• 11 years ago

I'm not an airplane engineer, but I think a fair amount of it is technical debt, not the quality of the DC-9 design. For example, the 737 - a competing design that came out around the same time - is not only still being made, it's is getting prepped for another minor revision (the 737 Max), and the newest narrowbody airliner design in common worldwide usage (the A320 series) is going on 30 years old. The 717 was launched as the MD-95, a project at McDonnell Douglas to update the DC-9 series for the 90s, and Boeing (after merging with McDonnell Douglas) mostly just built out the already-sold MD order book and then shut the line down.

It would likely be very good for a manufacturer to make a new, clean-sheet design with updates like a carbon fiber fuselage, but the time needed to bring such a product to market would cause major problems for any company attempting such a project.

cstross• 11 years ago

Several such craft exist at the bigger end of the regional jet market. There's the Sukhoi Superjet 100, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Superjet_100 or the Embraer 190/195. These are both post-2000 airliners that have sold or been ordered in the hundreds (in the case of the Embraer E-jet family, total orders exceed a thousand), which carry around 100-110 passengers in 2+2 or 2+3 seating, and which are designed for much the same market niche.

The reason the 717 is popular is because the airframes are fully depreciated; the cost more to run than the newer jets, but are much cheaper to buy or lease. (Source: a guy I know who used to work in Finance for Allegiant, back before they began to diversity from MD-80 family planes.)

scholia• 11 years ago

The rear-engine design was pioneered in the 1950s by Sud Aviation with the SE 210 Caravelle. It was very successful for its time....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sud_Aviation_Caravelle

hga6• 11 years ago

Indeed, not mentioning it's the last version of the venerable DC-9 is a major omission. When I started flying from home for educational reasons in late high school in the late '70s Ozark Airlines was all DC-9s, and they sure seemed to be excellent.

In reference to other comments on the DC-3, Wikipedia says "the last [Ozark] DC-3 flight was October 1968" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozark_Air_Lines#Jets).

sandworm1017• 11 years ago

The 717 is also one of the few large jets readily converted for gravel runways, giving it a long future in northern operations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravelkit

Turing_Machine• 11 years ago

The upside is that the engines are up higher, making them less prone to ingest gravel.

The downside (for northern operations) is that they're perfectly positioned to ingest ice coming off the wings. I think there was at least one MD-80 crash caused by that.

iso8859-1• 11 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_7...

mc32• 11 years ago

From perhaps false memory, I have the impression some Antonov jets were made with improved/gravel airstrips in mind?

sandworm1017• 11 years ago

Everything russian, from Antonov to the Bear bombers, are designed for rough strips. The classic russian design criteria are high-wings and oversized landing gear. The classic american design is tiny gear and low wings placing the engines within feet of the ground.

WalterBright4• 11 years ago

The 737 is also specifically designed for gravel and short runways.

exidy• 11 years ago

Short runways yes, but gravel kits were only offered on the 737-200 series with its low-bypass turbofans. The enlarged nacelles required to retrofit high-bypass turbofans to the already low 737 design ended that possibility.

biggio2• 11 years ago

"The only one that’s sitting idle and not earmarked for another carrier is a Turkmenistan Airlines plane in temporary storage" I don't get it. Why would you park an airplane idle?

sandworm1017• 11 years ago

Because you don't have the money on hand to return it to flight (ie a part needs replacement). Or it is being held by some creditor and its storage should be called a seizure.

There are lots of very expensive parked planes. Ever watch the mythbusters? All the stunts they do with jet engines are with a group of parked 747s. The engines have to be runup every so often to maintain flight readiness.

lnanek2• 11 years ago

Idle just means it isn't being used for anything at the moment in this case. They aren't referring to keeping the engine running while not moving.

smackfu• 11 years ago

It might make sense for a small airline to order a spare plane, just in case it's needed at some point. Especially if that plane model matches their flight profile really well, but also had a small production run so it would be difficult to lease a replacement. And if Boing really wants to get sales of the plane to make it look like a success, there might be a sweet price for that extra plane.

And since plane age is measured in takeoff/landing cycles, a plane that is sitting in storage isn't really aging.

notahacker4• 11 years ago

It's not strictly true that aircraft age is measured in takeoff and landing cycles and YoY depreciation is pretty huge for new aircraft even holding condition constant, but I'd agree that it might make commercial sense to keep a >10 year old 717 on standby. More likely to be short term fluctuations in demand or a short term airworthiness issue than any intent to have a "spare" aircraft though.

phillc73• 11 years ago

Aeroplane age is generally measured in total hours flown.

Turbine engine life is measure in a combination of cycles and operating hours.

A piston engine aeroplane has nothing measured in takeoff/landing cycles, although it is good practice to record this information on the Maintenance Release.

notahacker4• 11 years ago

Generally because aircraft are extremely expensive to operate and it makes no commercial sense to run them if none of the routes available to your airline can be operated at a profit during a particular time period. (There is a charter and short term lease market, if someone else has a route they can run that aircraft on over that period, but it's probably not much of one for a 717 in Turkmenistan Airlines livery)

Aircraft also have periodic maintenance checks, some of which require the aircraft to be on the ground for an extended period of time. Same applies if the aircraft is having damage repaired. These may also show up as in temporary storage in Ascend's database (source: I used to sell it)

guard-of-terra2• 11 years ago

No wonder turkmenian airlines failed to respond. Those are the sort of guys who have a form screenshot in place of ticket reservation form. An image.

robszumski• 11 years ago

I had to check this to see if it was true...and it is!? Why are they doing this? You can't even click on it to get taken to an email address or some other way to collect money from you.

guard-of-terra2• 11 years ago

Turkmenistan is a very closed country so only realistic scenario is buying tickets in their local ticket office.

And the site was probably made for a checklist.

But you know what, now their site at least provides some kind of working form! http://www.turkmenairlines.org/index.php/ru/2011-06-10-09-40...

adevine• 11 years ago

I clicked a bunch of links in the menu bar and they 404ed. My guess is this is a page in a semi-mockup state that isn't "really" live. The page is also in a weird mix of English and Russian, and thus it looks like this English site isn't really done.

biggio2• 11 years ago

I can't get into http://turkmenairlines.com/, but this http://www.turkmenairlines.org/ LOL their logo rotates! I don't have to mention it's .org

jen729w2• 11 years ago

One of the few two-star airlines in the world!

http://www.airlinequality.com/ratings/2-star-airline-ratings...

The only one-star is, unsurprisingly, North Korea's airline.

hga6• 11 years ago

Well, it's got plenty of company, including First World ... Ryanair, about which I've heard little good, except of course the price (no at fault accidents, but they're cutting it fine with fuel).

afterburner• 11 years ago

"global demand has outstripped supply since Delta started assembling a large and growing fleet in 2012, taking advantage of favorable rental terms and a drop in jet-kerosene prices that makes older planes attractive.

“They’re kind of the market-maker,” said Robert Agnew, president and chief executive officer of aviation consultant Morten Beyer & Agnew Inc. “If Delta weren’t there, the airplane might be struggling.”"

That's the core of the story. It could have been some other model instead. It'd be interesting to know what the circumstances were behind Delta picking the 717.

raverbashing• 11 years ago

It might have been a different model, but it is not obvious which one would it be That one segment has some contenders: fokker 100, MD80 (big with AA), even older 737 models in that seat range

But I guess Delta made that model work for them

ubernostrum2• 11 years ago

AA is in the process of retiring its MD-80s. Between their fleet of 737s, the A320-family craft they got in the US Airways merger, and the A319s and A321s they have on order, the Mad Dog's days are (thankfully) numbered.

russell• 11 years ago

Back when I flew regularly the MD-80 and derivatives where my favorite planes to fly because of 5 across rows with wider seats than the 6 abreast 737 which is like flying in a cattle car. My least favorite for long haul trips was the 777. Twelve hours where the seat armrest would go up only part way was too much. It made it very difficult to take advantage of adjacent vacant seats or just cuddle with my wife.

Xixi• 11 years ago

The seat armrest is a property of the seats (which are chosen by the airline) rather than a property of the aircraft, so you should blame your choice of airline rather than the perfectly fine 777. I often fly on Air France's 777s between Osaka and Paris and the armrests go up fully.

In terms of comfort my best flight in coach was on a Korean Airline A380: spacious and quiet; my worst on a JetStar A330 in cattle-like configuration. But I won't blame/praise Airbus: even though quietness is certainly a quality of the aircraft, the seat layout is absolutely a choice of the airline, so I now avoid JetStar like the plague.

sshanky2• 11 years ago

Not to mention how amazingly QUIET they can be! In the front of the cabin the engines were a barely discernable whisper. Also, I was always intrigued at how far back the wings are mounted, probably due to the rear engines bringing the center of gravity further back.

thrownaway2424• 11 years ago

Man, I HATE the MD-80 and the 717 and every other plane with body-mounted engines. There's always a beat frequency between the two engines and that's ok for the first couple hours but eventually it drives me crazy. Would be nice if they could somehow lock the engine speed perfectly.

sshanky2• 11 years ago

This is also something I remember well. I thought they had some way of locking them to the same speed.

hackuser2• 11 years ago

... and a drop in jet-kerosene prices that makes older planes attractive

Based on that one comment, said in passing, the cost of jet fuel has dropped enough that airlines now are looking for less-efficient designs.

That seems dangerous. Is airline fuel subsidized like automotive fuel is? At least, I doubt the airlines pay for the massive externality of climate change.

S_A_P• 11 years ago

Most Jet Fuel is bought in long term contracts, and swap deals are usually put in place as a hedge.

barney54• 11 years ago

True, but Delta owns a refinery. http://articles.philly.com/2015-04-17/business/61222460_1_mo...

hollerith• 11 years ago

I know gasoline is extremely cheap in some Middle-Eastern countries, but is gasoline subsidized in the U.S.?

hga6• 11 years ago

No, it's taxed pretty heavily (well, not by European standards): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_State...

hackuser2• 11 years ago

is gasoline subsidized in the U.S.?

That's a good question. My understanding always has been that it is, especially in many indirect ways. For example, tax breaks and other government benefits for the oil and gas industry, as well as for the automotive industry. But I can't cite any off the top of my head.

One way it's indirectly subsidized, at extremely high cost, is the use of the U.S. military to protect industry assets, especially in the Mideast where we maintain a large, active military presence. As just part of the cost, the Iraq war cost the U.S. over $1 trillion. I very much doubt we would have been involved if there wasn't so much oil in and around Iraq. On the other hand, every import or export business relies on the peace, stability, and secure sea lanes provided by the U.S.'s foreign operations (military and diplomatic).

notahacker4• 11 years ago

Fuel costs for an airline operating a regular schedule are much higher than their aircraft's capital cost, so changes to airlines' fleet plans induced by unexpected breaks in rising fuel price trends only really happen at the margin.

Where an airline chooses less-efficient designs it's usually because it's realising [partially] compensating efficiency savings by sharing pilots/engineers/equipment with similar aircraft it's already operating rather than simply because they cost less to buy.

Given the variety of specific notionally pro-environment levies on airlines and their passengers as well as on the fuel, figuring out how much per seat mile airlines actually pay is nearly as complex as guesstimating how much that aircraft's externality might be....

How a Boeing Sales Flop Became the World's Hottest Secondhand Jetliner

Related Stories