ContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4971 times:
The 737-600 is not attractive to US airlines because it is largely a replacement aircraft for the 737-500. The -500 is a relatively new aircraft and is in service will only 3 US carriers (Southwest, Continental, and United) all of whom are not interested in replacing their 737-500 fleets.
SuperDash From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 574 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4897 times:
It has nothing to do with weight. Just its operating cost per seat mile is very high. Even the -700 cost per mile is high, but can work. So, the -600 is not real attractive. CRJ-700's or EM-170s would be equally and more attractive to the -600 due to cost and who flies them (regional v. mainline). There could be a limited market for -600's, but the 737 operators seem less interested in them than A-320 family operators are in the 318.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4849 times:
The operating cost per seat mile for the 736 is related to its weight and capability.
The 736 and A318 were designed for the days when service to every airport in the Northeast from LAX and SFO, and vice versa to all the regional California airports from EWR, IAD, ATL, and BOS, was going to be viable due to an unprecedented economy.
Now that time is long since past... and we're flying RJs and lighter planes to our hubs and putting people on less frequencies of larger airplanes again.
Also... the 318s operating cost is a touch better than the 736s... the 736 and 73G have equal trip costs, but the 73G gives you more seats to make more profit.