Talk:Boeing 717/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

I don't know how to put this link...

ACAC ARJ21 has shared heritage as the 717. But I should put it under "related development" or "related aircraft"?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 05:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The only subheading in the "Related content" section is "related development". However, according to the ACAC ARJ21 page, the tooling was for the MD-90, not the MD-95/717, and I put a link on that page last week. Give that the size will be similar (tho MD-90 was much longer than either one), and that they have a shared heritage, I don't have a problem adding the ARJ21 here. - BillCJ (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• The tooling was for the MD-80 trunkliner program. But same diameter fuselage and similar sections probably. If the ARJ21 is listed here, I'm not sure it should be on the MD-80/90 as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Questioning the "MD-80" background for the B-717

I believe that the MD-80 background section is misleading.

1. If we are discussing design lineage, starting with the MD-80 is arbitrary. It makes more sense to start with the DC-9.

2. The 717 has more in common with the DC-9-30 than with the MD-80. The MD-80 (originally DC-9 Super 80) was most notable for the substantial stretch over the previous DC-9 series. Contrary to the section's comment that the -80 added "small, highly efficient wings", the -80's wings were actually lengthened considerably compared to previous DC-9 series: The DC-9-20 through -50 shared a 93' 3" wingspan. The MD-80 added more than 14 feet to the DC-9's wingspan, increasing the span to 107' 10" (see Boeing DC-9 and MD-80 technical specifications websites for confirmation). The -80 did have JT-8D-200 series medium-bypass turbofans, an improvement on the earlier DC-9s' low-bypass JT-8D fans. The MD-87 and -88 further updated the MD-80 series with advanced cockpit instrumentation and EFIS. The MD-90 retained the MD-80 series wingspan, maintained the -87/-88's instrumentation, stretched the fuselage another four and a half feet, and added new IAE-V2500 engines, the first departure from Pratt & Whitney JT-8D series engines.

3. The author is correct that the original plan for the MD-95/B-717 was as a shortened MD-80 series. (The MD-87 was already a shortened MD-80, having a fuselage length very similar to the DC-9-50, but the longer wings and newer engines of the MD-80 series. The -87 did not sell well.)

4. MacDac had developed a number of cockpit design, aerodynamic and systems improvements as the result of the MD-11 and the C-17 Globemaster programs, and applied those to the MD-95. The MD-95's dimensions are almost identical to the DC-9-30: it has a wingspan identical to the DC-9-30 (93' 3", not 107' 10" like the MD-80s), and the fuselage length on the MD-95 was a shade longer: 124', compared with the DC-9-30's 119.3'. Again, see Boeing's website to confirm technical details.

In my opinion, it is no more appropriate to treat the MD-95 as an MD-80 follow-on than it would be to treat it as a follow-on to the MD-90. All are stages of DC-9 evolution, and each stage built upon the last. The fact that the MD-95 shares wing dimensions with the DC-9 and not the MD-80/90 series is significant. Mikepurves (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You are making comparisons/connections that are not stated in this article. The "small, highly efficient wings" phrase for the MD-80 is just a statement and is not comparing to the DC-9. The 2 background paragraphs are there to give an overview of the 2 previous versions of the DC-9 family. A paragraph on the DC-9 could be added as well. This sentence The MD-95 was initially announced in 1991, as the MD-87-105, a shortened, 105-seat version of the MD-80 series. in the MD-95 section explains the MD-80 connection. There are a couple sentences on the MD-95 being developed from the DC-9-30 as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Fnlayson for responding. I agree with much of what you said, but disagree completely that the "added small...wings" statement is "just a statement" without any context. When you replace a wing with something 15% larger, you can't say you are replacing it with something "small", without leaving a clear implication that it is actually smaller. If the -80's wing size is going to mentioned at all, it should be noted that the wing was expanded, not "small." Or the reference can be avoided altogether.

As I read it, it left the clear impression that the -80's wing had been shrunk from the earlier DC-9 standard, and that the 717 carried forward the MD-80 design geometry as a shortened, updated -80. Frankly, neither statement was explicitly made. But the statements that were made painted that picture to readers who don't know the background of the aircraft. Take my comments for what they're worth, but that is what I took away from the section. Mikepurves (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see that somewhat. The MD-80 wording could be confusing with the DC-9 mentioned in there. I added back some text on the DC-9 to set-up things better. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Mon plaisir. Thank you for your hard and good work! Mikepurves (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Image

Hi, I recently replaced the image in infobox as the AeBal one has been there too long, I put a QantasLink image to replace which is same quality and shows same structure as the other image, just different angle of shot, if anything this one is better as it also shows the landing gear. My edits keep getting reverted but I am only moving the AeBal image further down the page and putting the QantasLink one there instead, so really, Qantas image or AerBal image? Comments please. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Too long - this is an encyclopedia time is not important - no need to change perfectly good images, the AeBal one is a higher quality (1200 x 800) then the QantasLink (800 x 600). Cant see any reason to change. MilborneOne (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

External link proposal

I would like to propose the external link: http://www.myairlease.com/resources/orders_deliveries_prices. I appreciate that the link leads to a commercial website but I think it can be added because of the following:

1. Many aircraft pages have valid external links to commercial websites. The A380 page for example has a link entitled “Everything about the A380 at FlightGlobal.com”. Clearly, this page provides very useful data on the A380 and anyone following this link can either further explore flightglobal.com or return to Wikipedia. Similarly, the proposed link provides the list price, current orders, deliveries, market values and lease rates of the A380 and anyone following this link can either further explore myairlease.com or return to Wikipedia.

2. The information provided in this link is very useful, highly specialized, continuously monitored for currency and rather difficult to obtain (in such format and grouping) Free of Charge.

FYI, I have added this comment to a lot of pages in order to receive an as accurate and representative feedback as possible. I think the proposed link is a worthwhile addition so, at your discretion, pls add it to the article. Thanks Aegn3 (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering that you brought this up in November on WikiProject Aircraft (which is a more appropriate place than spamming this suggestion across a bunch of different aircraft articles) and didn't get any feedback that thought it was a good idea to add it then, I don't think it's appropriate to add it now. Also consider item 5 on WP:ELNO: Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services. MyAirLease appears to qualify as a site that primarily exists to sell products. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is WP:SPAM and fails to meet the requirements of WP:EL. - Ahunt (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Changing the main image

I would like to change the main image for the 717 to an AirTran photo. AirTran is the largest operator of the 717 and no one has even heard of Aerolíneas de Baleares. --Greggy123 (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like someone changed it without discussion. It should be an AirTran image per precedent since Airtran is the largest operator. I will be changing it back to the consensus version. N419BH 05:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you changed it back to Greggy123's image (or somebody that likes same one). There was no discussion here to change from the longtime Aerolíneas de Baleares image. The image that best shows the aircraft should be used in the Infobox, not necessarily the biggest user. See WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES for the relevant guidelines. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know being the biggest operator has nothing to do with main image but an image that best shows the aircraft in flight. The AerBal image is the current main image by consensus before the change without discussion. It should be restored unless we have agreement here to change it to the AirTran per Fnlayson's comments. MilborneOne (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it seems I have misread the page history. I have self-reverted and preserved Fnlayson's hidden comment, which makes the most sense. I've also reviewed the other modern airliners for the precedent, and it's not as clear as I thought it was. I think my issue stems from a recent main image dispute at Airbus A320 family, where the largest operator is used for the main image. Going down the line, B727 uses a smaller former passenger operator (largest operator is a freight carrier), B737 uses a prototype, B747 uses largest operator, B757 uses second largest operator, B767 uses largest operator, B777 uses launch customer and fourth largest operator, and B787 uses launch customer and largest/only operator. On the Airbus side A300 uses a smaller carrier, A310 uses a former large operator, A320 uses largest operator, and A330 and A340 are switched (A330 uses image of largest operator of A340 and vice versa). All of them however are excellent images. The image placed here from Airtran is very artsy but isn't the best depiction of the aircraft. I would have to say however that if we have a very good shot from Hawaiian or AirTran we should use one of those images since the precedent is pretty clear even if it isn't actually in the aircraft MOS. N419BH 17:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Out of the images we currently have File:AirtranJet.jpg and File:Hawaiian B712 N487HA 2009-02-01.jpg are decent candidates if we decide to go this route. I could also run over to the local airport and do some planespotting... N419BH 18:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Those two seem fine to me. There are a couple more flight images on Commons as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

AirTran Still Uses 717's

In the article it is stated that AirTran discontinued their 717's after the merger with Southwest Airlines. I have two flights coming up with AirTran and they are both using 717's. First flight nr is FL222, and the second is FL921.

129.21.248.211 (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of fluctuation with the AirTran/Southwest situation on this article recently. All flights are operated under the Southwest Airlines certificate, but AirTran flights are still branded and coded that way. The 717 fleet will apparently never be branded Southwest Airlines; if the deal with Delta is approved the 717s will be moving to Delta. I think the best way to describe this would be as Southwest Airlines dba AirTran Airways. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In a related note, Delta is not to be listed as a Primary User of the 717 yet. They haven't taken delivery of any. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Changed the infobox image (again)

I know, I should have discussed this first, but I forgot. Anyway, I changed the infobox picture because the one that was there previously completely sucked. It wasn't facing the article text, but more importantly, there were other aircraft and other things in the background that detracted focus from the main subject, the plane. I suppose this was just an uncontroversial change, but I thought I should let you know anyway. —Compdude¹²³ 23:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The old image was File:Boeing 717-2BL Volotea EC-LQI.jpg, and the new image is File:Boeing 717-23S - EC-KNE.jpg. Your image change seems just fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Good change for me too.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe time for another change. I think a Delta 717 is best. Other contenders include AirTran (largest number of deliveries), TWA (largest order, including options). The infobox picture should not be an obscure airline that ordered only a few. Usernamen1 (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Who used it has nothing to do with the quality of an image, which is usually the deciding factor in which image to feature in the infobox. If you can find another image with a better view and is as good or better in quality, than present it here for review. - BilCat (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This image is already in the article but making it the infobox picture instead of further down is better than the current, in my opinion.

Delta Air Lines is the largest operator of the Boeing 717

Usernamen1 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I tried it and it seems very reasonable. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox primary users

The primary users section in the infobox limits the maximum number of users to 4, but the users with the third and fourth most aircraft now have the same number of 717s in their fleet (Volotea now operates two ex-Blue1 aircraft, becoming the second largest user of the 717). However, AirTran Airways is more significant as a historical user (as the launch customer and previously largest operator of the 717). What airlines should we include as primary users? Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed AirTran from the infobox primary users as its significance has been noted in the Introduction part of the infobox, plus other parts of the article. sovereign°sentinel 04:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Former operators can be listed in the Infobox if they are a significant one as is the case here. Several aircraft articles do this, such as the F-4 Phantom. Try to give others a chance to discuss these things first. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

deliveries and orders

I propose a change in the table so that it reads in ascending year. That way it mirrors the graph below it. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft

At the end of the article, there are links to comparable aircraft. Some are interesting to read but hardly competitors. The current list reads...

   Airbus A318
   Antonov An-148/An-158
   Avro RJ/BAe 146
   Boeing 737-600
   Bombardier CRJ1000
   Bombardier CSeries
   Comac ARJ21-900
   Embraer 190/195
   Fokker 100
   Sukhoi Superjet 100-95
   Tupolev Tu-334
   Yakovlev Yak-42D

How about modifying this list?

Maybe

   Airbus A318/A319
   Avro RJ/BAe 146
   Boeing 737-600/737-700
   Bombardier CRJ1000
   Bombardier CSeries
   Comac ARJ21-900
   Embraer 190/195
   Fokker 100

The only planes that potential took away orders were the Airbus, Boeing, CRJ1000, and Embraer. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hawaiian Airlines ferry flights may be of interest

The readers may find it interesting to mention how 717's are flown to Hawaii for Hawaiian Airlines. Some seats are removed, extra fuel tanks added and flown to Hawaii. Open to suggestions on this idea and, if agreed upon, how to include it. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

What's your source for this? Even so, it probably isn't that unusual a practice. - BilCat (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

A source can be found if we look hard. I've seen an article where large tanks are in the passenger compartment. I don't think this is done even on 737's, not to mention 747 or 777. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hawaii is not all that far from the US west coast for an empty aircraft, but I could tanks might be needed for deliveries to Australia, where 717s were also operated. Either way, a verifiable, reliable source is needed. - BilCat (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

A source exists, including photos. I have read about it. Australia is not a more difficult mission because the longest stretch is still Long Beach-Hawaii. Any interest in including this after a source is found? Usernamen1 (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It depends on what th source says, and the significance it gives to it. The source's reliability also matters. - BilCat (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I have seen it in print in a trade journal but it is not on the first page of a Google search. This link shows how it looks. Do you think it is of any interest to readers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geVpPUFuOVg

Usernamen1 (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Not that unusual to fit auxilliary or bladder tanks for ferrying other types particularly to places like Hawaii so I dont see the 717 as being particularly notable enough to mention. MilborneOne (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Fine. I thought it was unusual that a commercial jetliner needs auxiliary tanks in the passenger compartment but for small private planes, it's somewhat common. Ok, not in the article for now. The questionable nature is why I discussed it. Usernamen1 (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

proposed main picture change

• inflight-left
• 
  current Delta: fine but sideways only
• 
  AirTran, a little bit more from front
• 
  QantasLink, frontside, level
• 
  Delta, similar
• 
  Volotea, similar
• 
  Hawaiian, gear up, showing the wing
• 
  QantasLink, similar
• 
  Delta from below, gear up

the last one "Delta from below, gear up" seems the most interesting to me--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Cant see a reason to change as I dont have a problem with the original image which shows the type OK. MilborneOne (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Reversion: "by" + past participle

User:BilCat, I don't understand your comment on this reversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_717&oldid=prev&diff=971419221. You say that the recession didn't postpone the development. But the recession most certainly was the cause of the postponement. This is a normal use of a past participle and "by" in English. I am guessing that you don't like or understand the idea of an inanimate object (the recession) performing the action of postponing, but this is a normal use of modern English. You can easily find examples in modern newspapers of things like "the game was postponed by rain" or "the event was postponed by weather." The construction with "by" provides a more specific relationship between the cause (the recession) and the effect (postponing the development) than the vague, catch-all "due to." Is it a major improvement? No, but a big theme of Wikipedia editing is to encourage small improvements. Holy (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Fine, I've reverted myself. BilCat (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Question about aircraft design

In some photos I've seen that some Boeing 717s have two large "eyebrow windows" as of DC-9, but some of them doesn't. Later I saw that Boeing eliminated such windows from the 737 cockpit design in 2004, does it influenced the 717 production as well? -- Great Brightstar (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)