ScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3115 times:
Which airlines who will take chance orders on that B737-900X aircraft? If they said so about need additional more newest fleet on the B739X aircraft. Also, I do think this very good miles need more range 2,770 miles need nonstop. What is plans do next airlines had on the orders? Well, catch ya later!
FlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3086 times:
I see one mistake with the comparsion chart at the topic's opening thread. It says that the -900X can fly a longer distance than the -900 on the same amount of fuel. Nope, I don't think so...not with more passengers & at a higher gross weight. Sure it can probably be done with the optional tanks added, but I'm sure all these numbers are under ideal conditions. Anyway, to give my two cents on the original query, the basic 737-900 is the rival aircraft to the A321. The -900X was designed mainly for the charters/tours operators. But I can also see AS, ATA and perhaps even WN taking a hard look at this new version...probably to be called the -1000 series when approved for production. Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3623 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3031 times:
I think Boeing is studying it as a replacement of the 757 for next decade. The 757 will be an old plane in 10 years from now. I wouldn't be surprised if Continental orders it, because they currently operate a bunch of 737-800's and 900's as well as a bunch of 757's, they have decided they would go all Boeing for ever and they seem to be very focused on the Boeing 737. Will the FAA approve it for ETOPS flights? That's another question. I see Continental using it on nonstop transcon flights from Newark to the West Coast even if it is not approved for ETOPS flights, but if it is, Continental can use it on flights from Houston to South America, Hawaai (I'm not too sure about Houston-Honolulu nonstop) or Alaska. It's subsidiary Continental Micronesia would have to have it ETOPS certified because all of their flights are overwater. I imagine that in airline schedules the aircraft will be designated as 73X.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2970 times:
The 757 will be an old plane in 10 years from now.
Umm, and the 737 is how old?
I still think when the 7E7 gets going, or maybe even when the 739X is launched, there will be serious study on a 757NG. It's really the only model in Boeing's line that hasn't had a serious makeover, other than the -300, in it's lifetime.
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7732 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (11 years 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2855 times:
West US Coast to Hawaii yes... Hawaii to Japan no... that would even be a stretch for a 757-200.
I could see both AS and CO being likely customers. As Alaska builds up long hauls from SEA, ANC and PDX some of these routes are going to warrant more pax than a 737-700 can carry. The -900X would certainly have the legs to carry a full load on the long flights from Florida and the north east. As well as more leisure oriented flights deeper into Mexico. Likewise Continental could use them from EWR to the west coast freeing up international configured 757s. OR they could put BF seats in the -900X and run a EWR based premium transcon service... again freeing up international configured 757s.
Basically any major operator of the 737 is a customer... whether they need the range or the capacity.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13175 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (11 years 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2831 times:
They certainly don't need it for the pax capacity...they don't fly their -900's anywhere near the 189 capacity now....
I beg to differ. Per Boeing's website, the -900's capacity of 189 passenger is when carriers run it in a one class configuration, and AS operates with both a First Class and Coach cabin.
The usual load for this configuration would be 177 passengers. AS opted for extra seats in First Class, making less room for coach seats. The end result is a configuration of 16 in First Class, 156 in Coach, or 172 total.
And I can assure you that AS regularly sells the whole thing out in the various markets the -900 is operated in. The only "Achilles Heel" for this plane is the range, which needs to be a bit longer. The -900X program will solve that problem, and add capacity as well.
AS remains highly interested in this program.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
BWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2200 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (11 years 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2773 times:
With the addition of this 900X the 737Ng family can effectibly go head to head with Airbus's 32X family.
From Airliners.net Aircraft Data and History section the 321 can carry up 220 and the range with 2630nm /4907km. I dont see why Boeing just cant give the 900X 225 max pax and as range of 3000nm and call that george.
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4443 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (11 years 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2718 times:
This aircraft definately strengthens the 737 family against the A32X family. One does have to wonder though what is going to happen to the 757. It seems that the 737-900X will pretty much fit its niche. That being said, maybe Boeing is going to redo the 757 so it's a step above the 737 family but below the 7E7? If a 757NG was to have a common flight deck with the 7E7, then maybe it would help sales?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2704 times:
This bird seems more an IGW concept than an -ER one..... 3,188mi range is not enough to cross the Atlantic; even BOS-SNN would be a roundtrip stretch for this aircraft. Because of that, it's still not on equal footing to the 752ET.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6240 posts, RR: 54
Reply 22, posted (11 years 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2669 times:
No airline yet dared to put the full legal capacity 189 pax into a 739. Now they propose - with added exits - to stretch that limit even further to almost A321 teoretical capacity.
What a non-event! That's the closest thing to real cattle transport.
Nobody dared yet to fill a 321 to capacity. And then this 739X bird - 8 feet shorter and 7 inches narrower - is proposed to expand beyond the 189 limit into the never used, teoretical 321 pax capacity.
That could be OK for a week-end tour for a kindergarden. If airlines really think that they can make business with such equipment, then they will be sold. But they will have to do business without me as passenger.
And BTW, calling a plane with so much less floor space a direct 321 competitor, that is really stretching "marketing information".
Boeing should instead save the weight and cost of extra exits, stick to the 189 pax limit, stretch the fuselage so is can really accommodate 189 adult pax, beaf up the structure for increased range, and that way produce a comfortable and economic medium range, medium capacity plane. That would be a winner.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm