Since Boeing decided to modify it with additional exit doors, offering MORE seating capacity, for up to 205 pax. I really never understood the reason for the 737-900 as initially designed, anyway. It has slightly LESS range than the -800, and aside from additional cargo capacity below, it could only carry a maximum of 189 passengers, same as the -800. So why would a potential airline customer opt for the -900, as Alaska did, for example? I wonder if current 739 operators will retrofit their fleets with the added exits? Continental and KLM operate both the -800 and -900, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Maybe someone here, can shed some light on the subject.

John,

You can only get 189 pax in a -800 with all Y at 31". Airlines like AS and CO chose the -900 so they could have 189 pax in two class layouts, and for most of their runs, they don't need the full range of the -900 (i.e., IAH is less than 2000 miles from most anywhere in the United States).

Steve

I believe CO's version carries 172 total, if I'm not mistaken.

>>You can only get 189 pax in a -800 with all Y at 31". Airlines like AS and CO chose the -900 so they could have 189 pax in two class layouts, and for most of their runs, they don't need the full range of the -900 (i.e., IAH is less than 2000 miles from most anywhere in the United States).<<

Correction: 189 at 29" in a -800.

The 739's have done great for CO on short/medium, high capacity routes from IAH such as MCO, MSY, SAT, AUS, DEN, LAS, etc.

Very few airlines operate the 737-800 at its maximum seating capacity of 189. Continental has their -800s at 156 seats and American has it with 138 total! Most airlines that have the -900 have both first and coach seating so even they wont use the full 189 seat capacity of the -900. Alaska's are configured to carry 172 total pax (F16/Y156). I would think only charter companies would operate the -900 with the extra exit doors and configure it with 205 seats.

All I know is that the 739 is killing off the 757  

I don't think the 737-900 is killing of the 757 because the 757 has ETOPS certification that the 737-900 doesn't have. I think that the BBJ is the only 737 variant that ever had ETOPS certification. Both have a capacity of over 200 pax in one class config, that's true. The 737-900 is meant to be a short to medium haul aircraft like Cba says, while the 757 is meant to be a medium to long haul aircraft. I don't think a 737-900 could fly nonstop from coast to coast, maybe it could with maximum fuel and no passengers but not with a pax load factor of over 70% (I know the 800 can, American and Continental do it with the 800), a 757 can do the job of hauling passengers nonstop from coast to coast.
A few major airlines and charter operators have operated the 757 transatlantic, Continental, Canada3000,...the 757 doesn't have the range that the 767 ER variants have but it does carry passengers across the pond which a passenger 737 doesn't do nonstop, not even NG variants.

Ben Soriano
Brussels Belgium

Air Pacific and Aloha both have ETOPS 737's, flying from Canada and the West Coast of the U.S. to Hawaii and Fiji.

Ben-

The 737-800 is capable of reaching most points of the British Isles nonstop from EWR with a full load, and the 737-700 can reach the western half of continental Europe at or near full capacity. In 2000/2001, when we toyed with the idea of pursuing a summer-seasonal EWR-KEF nonstop, we identified both the 737-800 and 757-200 as potential candidates for the service.

Several of our 737-700s and -800s (IIRC, I don't fly them anymore) are ETOPS-certified for overwater ops. In the Micronesia division, where many flights qualify for ETOPS restrictions, we mostly operate -800s with the necessary inspections and modifications for ETOPS certification.

For the record, CO's 739s are configured 18/149 = 167. The 738's come in 14/141 and 18/132 configurations .. (the 4th lav in the 18 newest planes accounts for the difference)

The new 205 seating for the 739 is significant in Boeings competition with airbus. It strengthens its hold on the low fare market in that all the 737 operators Ryanair / easyjet / probably even Southwest can raise loads to 205 without any relevent fleet change or training.

Don't see Continental getting all that excited about it, but the low fares should love it.... 'Packed like lemmings into shiny metal boxes'

Jeremy

Its highly unlikely any airline will ever operate the 737-900 with 205 seats. For the 5 extra seats over 200 you would have to have a fifth flight attendant, versus four if it was configured with 199 seats.

For the record Alaska's 737-900 operated this summer SEA-BOS with full passenger loads.

Don't look for Southwest to fly anything larger than what they have now, at least for the foreseeable future. Anything that is "certified" over 150 seats will require 4 flight attendants, that would create havoc with their crew scheduling model and raise their costs.

Mike-BOS

Is there a media release for the "new" 737-900? Can you point me to it?  

D

like this?

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2001/q2/news_release_010417a.html

Sorry - I was meaning these new/additional doors? Or am I just totally getting the wrong end of the stick? :P

To me John is saying there is a design revision that changes the all Y to 205pax?

D

American 767

I don't think the 737-900 is killing of the 757 because the 757 has ETOPS certification that the 737-900 doesn't have.

You sure about that!?

There is a difference betwwen not being certified for ETOPS and not being flown ETOPS.

739 is flown CLE-LAS at least once a day... That's the replacement for the previously used 757-200.   Just one less 757 at CLE each day...

redngold

How is the 739 killing the 757? There aren't that many 739s out there flying around like there are 757s. I bet there are still more 757s on the order books than 739s

In theory, WN could get the 737-900 since with roomier Economy seating WN uses the 739 could probably seat about 175-180 passegers, which could make the need for the extra cabin crew member worthwhile. They could use such a plane for their busier routes, especially in and out of MDW and MCO.

However, I doubt WN will get the 739 because of one important issue: the need to turn the plane around in around 20 minutes. WN will have to relax that rule and increase the turnaround time for the 739 to 25-27 minutes because of the many more extra seats over the 737-700.

I just read an interview in Aviation Week in which a Sr WN Exec discounted interest in the 738, as being too much of a capacity jump over the 73G....hence the 739 would seem even more unlikely for WN.

How long will it take until the first 737-900 with additional exits will be flying? Will Boeing wait until they get orders before building a prototype for certification?

737-990
-----
Its highly unlikely any airline will ever operate the 737-900 with 205 seats. For the 5 extra seats over 200 you would have to have a fifth flight attendant, versus four if it was configured with 199 seats.
-----

While that's true for most US and low-fare airlines, charter carriers which the B737-900X is aimed at normally carry more than the minimum crews in order to allow them to provide full inflight service.

Most UK charter airlines operate the 180 seat A320 with 5 cabin crew against the minimum of 4, and operate the 218/220 seat A321 with 6 or 7 cabin crew agains the 5 required.

Regards
CROSSWIND