Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
737 Nextgen Vs Classics Vs A320, Logic?  
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2896 posts, RR: 10
Posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11252 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Ok, I know I should know this, so sorry if these questions come off as dumb, but what are the major differences between a 737 NG vs a 737 classic. I assume better financial performance and avionics and comonality, but what is the real NG vs a classic differences? Who was the launch customer and did they prove them out? How do they compare to an A319/20 and what are the major drivers for an airline to choose one over the other? It seems so dramatic that Continental, Southwest, GOL, Ryan Air and others are such ardent loyalists to the 737, while so many others are equally in love with Airbus A320 like Swiss, JetBlue, TAP, TAM and UA's decision to rid themselves of all their 737's. I love them both, I just wonder why each is a "winner take all" depending on the airline. I think that was 10 questions...but I really want to know! Thx


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAfterburner From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1211 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11235 times:

Have you read the articles about 737 and 737 NG in Wikipedia?

User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2896 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11168 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

No. I assume you believe they are accurate! But it is a good idea. I will go there now! Thx


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineThegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10836 times:



Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Ok, I know I should know this, so sorry if these questions come off as dumb, but what are the major differences between a 737 NG vs a 737 classic.

A lot of commonality is there...
73Gs have a stonger wing and newer engines and a glass cockpit...
73Gs have pioneered the blended winglets
73Gs have better 777 style interiors
A lot of 73Gs don't have the eyebrow windows.....

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
How do they compare to an A319/20 and what are the major drivers for an airline to choose one over the other?

An airline usually picks the a/c for the sake of commonality that's why I'll never understand why SAA operates the 738.....
Look at AF, the 737 makes no sense for them....they have A320 family a/c and alot of fleet commonality is there...
The newly redesigned 737s weigh less than the A320 and therefore require lower engine thrust
which means they have lower engine maintenance costs and lower navigation and landing fees...I could go on and on...



Our Returning Champion
User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3169 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10723 times:



Quoting ThegreatRDU (Reply 3):
A lot of 73Gs don't have the eyebrow windows.....

Not really relevant. The NG's have been delivered with eyebrow windows for years. Since two or three years, most 737 operators replace the eyebrows by plugs, saving weight and maintenance costs. This happens both on classics and NGs.

737-400 before and after the modification:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Martin Hodgson
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Derek Siu



Quoting ThegreatRDU (Reply 3):
An airline usually picks the a/c for the sake of commonality that's why I'll never understand why SAA operates the 738.....

An airline usually selects aircraft based on total costs of ownership. Commonality plays an (important) role in TOC-calculations, but it's not the sole decision factor. Price / discounts, financing, etc, play an equally important role.

Quoting ThegreatRDU (Reply 3):
The newly redesigned 737s weigh less than the A320 and therefore require lower engine thrust
which means they have lower engine maintenance costs and lower navigation and landing fees...I could go on and on...

The 737-700 is slightly lighter than the A319, but that doesn't make the 73G the better aircraft in all situations. Just for comparison, the 737-300 is considerably lighter than the -700, but still the -700 is considered to be the better of the two. (although on short sectors, the difference between the -300 and -700 is small).

Carriers like easyJet and JetBlue all had good reasons to buy Airbus instead of 737NG.


User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3169 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10699 times:

The wikipedia entry looks accurate, but provides only ver few information:

* The NG has a new wing design, thereby the NG has more wingspan and a higher wing area
* The NG has new, bigger engines, which are less "flattened" on the bottom:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © HGabor
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ruud Brinks



* The NG has a completely new, higher landing gear (though still, the A320 series is even higher);
* The NG requires less maintenance, allowing the airline to fly more between maintenance checks
* The NG features a glass cockpit, although the last classics have also been delivered with a glass cockpit. Amongst these aircraft are the easyJet 733 deliveries, now flying for (amongst others) Thomson and Air Baltic, the latter one having even added winglets;


User currently offlinePfletch1228 From South Africa, joined Aug 2006, 198 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10659 times:



Quoting ThegreatRDU (Reply 3):
An airline usually picks the a/c for the sake of commonality that's why I'll never understand why SAA operates the 738.....

The 738 was procured under CEO Coleman Andrews in the late 90's. At the time, SAA operated a fleet of 744, 743, 742, 762, 732, A300 (9), and A320 (7). The A300 was due to be replaced, and SAA operated under the business model of capacity over frequency on the main trunk routes. Andrews wanted to replace the A300 with something smaller, and increase frequency, so they investigated the A320 vs 738 to replace the nine A300s. At the time, had they gone A320, it would have been the odd one out in an otherwise all Boeing fleet. With this in mind, they selected 21 new 738s and chose to dispose of the relatively new A320s (which found a home at TAM).

For a short while they operated an all Boeing fleet. Andrews then left SAA, Andre Viljoen took over, and an RFP was put out to replace the then aging 747 and 732 fleets. It was a 777 vs A340 race for the widebodies, and a 73G vs A319 race for the narrow bodies. Given that SAA operate out of a hot and high airport (JNB), the A340 won the widebody race because it offered superior economics to the 772 and 773 at JNB airport. Many were expecting a split fleet (Airbus widebody, Boeing Narrowbody), but ultimately SAA chose the A319, citing better discounts, crew training savings, and fleet commonality. Within a couple of years, SAA became a predominately Airbus fleet, and the 738 suddenly found itself as the odd one out (along with two 744s that were brought back from the dead to aid growth). The 738 is destined to be replaced by A320s within the next 4 years, mainly as the 738s come off lease. By 2015, SAA should be an all Airbus fleet.

As a side note, there are 6 A332s coming in this year to replace the 2 744s and some of the older A342s. An A350 order is expected within the next couple of years to replace the A346/A343. At this stage it appears the balance of the A342s left will be replaced by A332s at some point, but given that SAA have leased the A332 and not purchased them, you could find they replace all the A330/A340 at the same time with a combo of A350-800, A350-900, and A350-1000.



War does not determine who is right. War determines who is left.
User currently onlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2187 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10647 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 737NG features vacuum lavatories vs circulating blue-juice on the Classics - major improvement as the circulating toilet motor may represent a fire hazard if it gets hot if the flushing goes on and on without stopping.

The A320 family also has vacuum lavs.



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6858 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 10440 times:



Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
I assume better financial performance and avionics and comonality, but what is the real NG vs a classic differences?

Differences between 73CL and 73NG is quite significant, yet, still provide huge commonality depending on the age of one's 737CL fleet. Here's my summary on the differences (with comparisons to the A320 family put in here and there... based on what I can remember offhand coz I can't be bothered to open the manuals and give a lecture over it).

The obvious ones are the larget wings on the NG to give it a better cruise performance at higher altitudes as the Classics often found themselves "shortlegged" versus the 320s. This came with stronger fuselage to cater for the higher pressure difference at higher altitudes, result is 737CLs are limited to 37,000ft whilst the NG can go to 41,000ft, with the 320 family at 39,000 (and 39,700 for some, allowing for FL397 cruise in metric airspace... eg: Russia).

The next difference is the payload range capability thanks to the above. The 737-400's heaviest MTOW allowed if I remember correctly is 68Tons, with the 737-800s capable of up to 78Tons... this gives it a massive payload range leap for those who need it... the A320 is capable of up to 78Tons, but on a heavier airframe, despite the cheaper fuel burn on the A320, the 738s can go further. For some this matters, for others, it doesn't.

The new wing and engines also allow it to have a higher cruise speed. Whilst the Classics often find themselves at 0.74M, the NG goes at 0.76M, with the 320 going at 0.78M... The supercritical wing of the 320 however, gives Long Range Cruise speed (ie: it's most efficient speed), near the optimum cruise speed, which os 0.78... it's a different story with the 737s. For some this matters, for others, it doesn't.

The 737CL and NG has no significant differences in the flight controls set up. Both are still mechanically linked controls with hydraulic boost (allowing for manual reversion) on pitch and roll, with rudder on fly-by-hydraulics... that's why it has 2.5 HYD systems (Hyd A, Hyd B, and Stdby Hyd)... the 320 has 3 Hyd systems because it has an unlinked flight control system (FBW, no manual reversion) although the rudder is mechanically linked, some like it, some don't...

Oh, and did I forget to mention the position of the landing lights?  Smile The Classics have the outboard landing lights on one of the outboard flap fairings on each side of the wing, in addition to the wingroot lights... the 320 and NG have those located inboard of the engines underneath the wing...

The electrical system set up on the NG is better and safer in my opinion. You can now start your APU in flight with a failed GEN2 and a flat battery... if you happen to be in that position on a Classic, U're out of luck! Bye bye all the stuff on AC Main Bus 2 (coz U've lost the alternative power supply to AC Main Bus 2, the APU), U only have the stuff on AC Transfer Bus 2 cross powered from GEN 1... On the NG, OK, sod the APU, it's not gonna start if the battery is flat, but, all the Main AC Bus 1 and Main AC Bus 2 is downstream of the transfer buses... No APU? Sod it, just power Main AC Bus 2 from the transfer buses (powered from GEN 1)... Is this important? maybe, maybe not, sorry can't be bothered to look it up. Better electrical set up on NG... my opinion  Smile

On the engine bleeds, the Classics have Fan Air bleed as well as 5th stage and 9th stage bleed... the NG doesn't have the Fan Air bleed... no wasting the fan air (which is where most of the thrust is generated).

The Classics have a Power Management Control for the engines, which controls the conventional hydro-mechanical unit to control the engine. The NGs have FADEC... like the 320s.

The Flight Instruments data sourcing is slightly different between the Classics and the NG. The Classics use 2 Air Data Computers, using 2 Pitots and 2 statics with an alternate static source, with 2 further pitots and statics for such systems as the flap load limiter airspeed switch, pressurization, and cabin altimeter & differential pressure. The non-EFIS classics have the standby airspeed using the Captain's pitot, and the vertical speed indication from the air data computer. The EFIS classics have the a separate pitot for the standby airspeed indicator, the vertical speed indicators now use the IRS, and doesn't have the flap load limiter airspeed switch on the system. The NG uses 2 ADIRUs (Air Data Inertial Reference Units) and takes the analogue air data digitally processed through the air data modules from the various pitots and statics. Angle of Attack data now gets processed, unlike the old Air Data Computers. On the 320s, they have 3 ADIRUs...

On the flight instrumentation, you can now vertical side profiling displayed on the NG, as an option... (something the Airbus 320s don't have yet as far as I know).

On the Navigation front, the Classics rely on the 2 IRUs for position input to the FMC, which is then corrected by the 2 VHF Nav receivers (which can be autotuned... ie... the FMC uses the receivers to provide position correction updates as the IRU accuracy degrades over time). On the NG, there's no Autotune feature as it is automatically done without interfering with the selected frequency.

The significant difference in navigation of the NG over the Classics is GPS Nav (although some late built classics have these). The A320s have had GPS Nav for a while (GNADIRS, now GPIRS)...

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
How do they compare to an A319/20 and what are the major drivers for an airline to choose one over the other?

If I want to fly damn long distances and carry stuff, I'd go with the NG. If I want the cheapest fuel burn, I go with the 320s... if I want to do heaps of short hops, I'd go with the Classics. The 320 has some nice "bonuses", doesn't matter how short of a flight you want to do, your payload is strucuturally limited by the Max Zero Fuel Weight... whereas for the 737s (CL and NG), you have to watch out that your MLW is not exceeded...

Fuel burn may be cheapest per payload kilometer on the 320, but fuel burn isn't everything. Discussion on maintenance costs are always controversial here on a.net so am not going to say anything more than "the 320 is damn cheap on maintenance for the first 5 years"  Smile U bang one of them, it becomes an expensive airframe to keep... Boeing's may not be cheap for the first 5 years, but the chances of that growing exponentially at 5 - 15 years is not greater than the bus.

Quoting Joost (Reply 4):
An airline usually selects aircraft based on total costs of ownership. Commonality plays an (important) role in TOC-calculations, but it's not the sole decision factor. Price / discounts, financing, etc, play an equally important role.

The second hand market can yield strange things. For the same age/hours/cycles used... I've found the 737s (CL and NG) cheaper to obtain than the Airbuses, this does affect your TOC calculations in low utilization environment, and less effects in a high utilization environment.... but the used market is cyclical so use this paragraph with huge caution!

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 7):
The 737NG features vacuum lavatories vs circulating blue-juice on the Classics - major improvement as the circulating toilet motor may represent a fire hazard if it gets hot if the flushing goes on and on without stopping.

LOL! Yes, Bye bye toilet drone noise, and welcome vacuum flushes... be you on an NG or a 320...

Let me come back to:

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
How do they compare to an A319/20 and what are the major drivers for an airline to choose one over the other?

In the end, it's how much your expected total operating cost will be, including crew training costs etc... commonality savings, lease/ownership discounts, maintenance discounts and warranty packages etc etc... and in some cases, a buyback guarantee/option, this will fix the depreciation cost of the aircraft against cycles... can be useful for some. Other factors include fuel costs and navigational charges. In places where fuel is expensive, it may be worthwile to look at the 320... BUT, if navigation and landing charges are hideous, you could be better off with the 737 as it is lighter, hence cheaper on this front. Your average hour per cycle rate can also determine the choice (for the purposes of "useful life remaining" and anticipated future maintenance costs).

Others have mentioned "what other types do you have on your fleet"... this does come into play, there's more to train than just pilots and cabin crew... so, "philosophy commonality" between fleet types can provide savings (eg: go all Boeing or all Airbus, or who cares, just mix them up!).

In some markets, being able to have containerized cargo can be a factor, this is where the 737 loose out... but at the same time, containerized cargo may make your cargo ops neater and more efficient, it requires additional investments and also, dead weight (those containers have a dead weight too you know)...

There are multitudes of factors that come into this... so the answer is "it depends on the airline in interest".

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3169 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10335 times:



Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 8):
If I want to fly damn long distances and carry stuff, I'd go with the NG.

Looking at Jetblue's experiences with the 320 operating transcons, the distance from where the NG starts to become a more effective choice than the 320, is at about 2000nm.

Whether or not the 2000-2200nm range is useful to the airline, depends a lot on where the airline is situated. For example, from New York, the extra range makes the difference between comfortably operting transcons, and the need to make fuel stops when winds are unfavorable.

However, from CDG for example, there is not much use of this extra range; from the major hubs in Western Europe, the whole continent can be reached easily by either aircraft. The only significant market in Europe where the range can be an issue, is Scandinavia-Canaries.


User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2896 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10250 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Can a 737NG do JFK to LHR with a 2 cabin configuration, or an A321?


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16863 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10196 times:



Quoting VC10er (Reply 10):
Can a 737NG do JFK to LHR with a 2 cabin configuration, or an A321?

There are Boeing Business Jets (737-700s) operating for Privatair/KLM between Houston IAH and Amsterdam, a 5,000+ mile flight. Domestically in two class configuration CO flies 737-800s nonstop from IAH to ANC, a 3,200+ mile flight.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2896 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8959 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I knew of the BBJ and often cosidered it to Geneva ( if they fly to GVA) but I wonered if it was a good business model to have a 2 class version First & enhanced coach with muliple fequencies on BA, AA, CO, VS from NYC and UA out of IAD and JFK to connect to UA p.s do those routes 2 to 3 times a month and pay top dollar. FRA on LH would be awesome too! To have so much more flexability (especially midday departures to Europe and very late back ( like 10pm through 1am.) would be heaven, especially not having to deal with the crowds of a very heavy plane deplaning and luggage etc! If I got my StarAlliance miles too - I would be the world's most happy flier!


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3169 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8616 times:



Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 8):

There are multitudes of factors that come into this... so the answer is "it depends on the airline in interest".

True. And at the same time, for a typical operation, both aircraft are extremely competitive, and often the ultimate decision depends greatly on the kind of deal that either manufacturer is willing to make.

When easyJet chose to switch from the 737NG to the A320, they claimed that although there were differences between the aircraft, both types were equally well suited for the operation. In the end, they don't differ too much - and for U2, the decision to order Airbus resulted from Airbus being more willing to provide a deal.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 10):
Can a 737NG do JFK to LHR with a 2 cabin configuration, or an A321?

Not economically. This is where the difference between the 757 and 737/320 is clearly demonstrated.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 11):
There are Boeing Business Jets (737-700s) operating for Privatair/KLM between Houston IAH and Amsterdam, a 5,000+ mile flight.

These BBJs are not the same as the normal 737-700s. Instead, they have the fuselage length of the -700, but use the stronger cross section, wing and landing gear that's used on the -800 and -900, increasing it's MTOW considerably. Per this data:

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=95
http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=108

The -700 has an MTOW of up to 154,500lbs (HGW-version), whereas the BBJ can take up to 171,000lbs. The 737-700ER that is used by ANA uses the BBJ-configuration too, by the way. With the extra MTOW, extra fuel can be taken in aux. fuel tanks.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 12):
but I wonered if it was a good business model to have a 2 class version First & enhanced coach with muliple fequencies

Premium narrowbody long-haul service has proven to be a difficult market and very much a niche. MaxJet, Eos, Silverjet, l'Avion and OpenSkies show that it's not an easy market. On the other hand, LH, LX, KL, AF and BA have some (with some differences between them) examples of making it work.

Flying all-business 737/A320s long-distance is very expensive. So to make it work, you must be able to fill 40 to 50 business class seats every day, with good yields. You can hardly take any cargo, so no money here either.

And when you can also fill 180 economy seats at the route, it's more economical to fly a 763 or 332, than a 73G or 319.

So you need a market where you have a very specific high-yielding business demand, but not that much economy passengers to fill a true widebody.

Now, this practically leaves out all hub cities. From LHR, CDG, FRA or AMS, airlines can easily fill the back of a widebody from passengers all over the world, connecting at the respective hub. To put it a bit exxagarated, when you know you can fill 30 C-class seats (at good prices) each flight, you can also find 200 pax for the back of the aircraft.

Now, this leaves (in the current climate) the market to a few very specific routes. These include routes to/from airports that are not suitable for big operations.

BA's LCY-JFK is a clear example of a route than can only be operated by a narrowbody, as LCY cannot handle more. JFK-ORY seems to work, as ORY is "artificially" constrained (demand from ORY is big, but French policymakers have decided that long-haul traffic is to be flown from CDG; AA used to fly to ORY not too long ago, before they were forced to use CDG).

The routes that KL, LH and LX fly are all routes with a special story. AMS-IAH has an extraordinary high demand of business class seats thanks to the oil industry; and they can actually fill a 74M on the route, but not two. The same is true for LH's routes (Pune, for example, has a very specific demand from the car-industry), although LH takes it a little further than the others. AF flies 319s to specific African destinations, that can't support a 332.

But all-in-all, you need to have a very specific market (few pax, but all high-yielding) and there aren't much of these markets. When you can fill a 763 or 332: do that.


User currently offlineN521NA From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 516 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8513 times:



Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 8):
Whilst the Classics often find themselves at 0.74M, the NG goes at 0.76M, with the 320 going at 0.78M...

The NG can definitely and does cruise at 0.78M


User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8382 times:



Quoting Joost (Reply 13):
Premium narrowbody long-haul service has proven to be a difficult market and very much a niche. MaxJet,

MaxJet never flew narrowbodies. All operations were done with a fleet of (very old) 767s.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6858 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8301 times:



Quoting N521NA (Reply 14):
The NG can definitely and does cruise at 0.78M

Yes they do, but not here, they're at 0.76M a lot... any ideas as to why? Their Mmo is what? 0.81M? *can't remember* Just being stingy on the fuel perhaps? or?



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2896 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8288 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If one flies "privat" which I think LX metal, do you get to earn/redeem miles on StarAlliance?


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3169 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8067 times:



Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 15):

MaxJet never flew narrowbodies. All operations were done with a fleet of (very old) 767s.

Of course, and so did SilverJet (762s). I should have said business-only service in (relatively) small aircraft.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 17):
If one flies "privat" which I think LX metal, do you get to earn/redeem miles on StarAlliance?

Depends on who you book with. When they have an LX-code, it's an LX flight. So for the ZRH-EWR, this is a LX flight and you'll earn StarAlliance miles. And when you fly AMS-IAH, it's a KL flight and you earn SkyTeam miles.

By the way, does anyone know why the BBJ-service AMS-IAH is not bookable now?


User currently offlinePfletch1228 From South Africa, joined Aug 2006, 198 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7325 times:



Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 8):
result is 737CLs are limited to 37,000ft whilst the NG can go to 41,000ft, with the 320 family at 39,000



Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 8):
the NG goes at 0.76M, with the 320 going at 0.78M

The A320 and B738 both have an econ cruise of 0.78M

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 8):
If I want the cheapest fuel burn, I go with the 320s...

That would depend on the trip profile. If you can get above FL390 to FL410, and you are not too heavy, the B738 will actually burn less fuel than the A320 by a minute margin. You will also get the occasional advantage of more direct routing, less (slower) traffic, and weather avoidance which can also make a not insignificant difference to trip cost. At FL390, and especially at heavier weights, the A320 burns a minute amount of fuel less than the B738 assuming the A320 has CFM engines as well. At FL330 to FL370 their fuel burn is almost identical.



War does not determine who is right. War determines who is left.
User currently offline0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 939 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7274 times:



Quoting Joost (Reply 4):
Carriers like easyJet and JetBlue all had good reasons to buy Airbus instead of 737NG.

jetBlue actually wanted 737NGs but Boeing wouldn't budge on the price. David said Boeing didn't really take jetBlue seriously when it was being formed. ...He did say that he didn't regret going with the Airbii though.



"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2896 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6852 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A side question as I started this thread admitting some of my aviation shortcommings: what is a "trunk" route?


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineKrisYYZ From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6794 times:

Are all B737s fly-by-cable ?

Can the B737 carry any cargo? I ask only because the A32X can carry LD containers and the 737s are loaded by hand.

KrisYYZ


User currently offline0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 939 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6544 times:

Quoting VC10er (Reply 21):
A side question as I started this thread admitting some of my aviation shortcommings: what is a "trunk" route?

A trunk route would be like Chicago - New York or say the DC/NY/BOS shuttle routes. They are the very heavy traffic routes that an airline focuses on and are specific to each airline.

[Edited 2010-01-02 16:37:13]


"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2896 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6176 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Thanks for that! Then a botique route would be (in UA's case) would be an IAD to Kuwait City?


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
25 SeaBosDca : Keep in mind also when making these calculations that the 738 in particular has slightly greater capacity than the A320. In my opinion, Boeing sized
26 XT6Wagon : Yes, WN is working its way up the top 10 US domestic cargo list with... only 737s. The A320 family suffers from the problem of LD containers when use
27 Mandala499 : Yes... except for the rudder... Fly by Hyds (just me being pedantic) It can carry cargo allright, just not containerized. Containerized cargo has adv
28 Viscount724 : 737 wingspan: 100/200 - 93 ft. 300/400/500 - 94 ft. 9 in. 600/700/800/900 - 112 ft. 7 in. (without winglets); with winglets 117 ft. 5 in. In addition
29 SeaBosDca : Wonder where Boeing got that idea? A320 wingspan = 111 ft. 11 in.
30 Tdscanuck : They're all normally hydraulically boosted, and the rudder PCU's are actuated by cables. All the surfaces are cable-to-hydraulic. Tom.
31 Mandala499 : From what I understand, there's no manual reversion for the rudder in the event of loss of Stdby Hyd system... Excuse my pedanticity but in my unders
32 Tdscanuck : Correct, as far as I know. There's nothing about cable-to-actuator-to-control surface that prevents manual reversion...the cable is still hauling on
33 Mandala499 : That's very interesting... I do wonder why the manual (on the 767) says no manual reversion then... and the rudder for the 737... am I missing someth
34 Pfletch1228 : Yip, you are quite correct. My figures were quoting equal passenger numbers and cargo for apple to apple comparative purposes. I have redone the figu
35 AirNz : An airline chooses aircraft based on a great many factors and, in actual fact, commonality has a very low priority by itself. You don't have to under
36 Mandala499 : What the 2 have done is exactly as the normally professional conclusion... they're so closely matched... the deal clincher will be other stuff! Well,
37 Joost : Yes, I know, that's what I was refering too: despite initially wanting to have 737s (and for U2, despite having a fleet of 737s), both aircraft are t
38 Tdscanuck : It's all about the way it's rigged...it's not really that it's too heavy, it's that you need to have the actuator rigged in a particular way, with pa
39 Joost : Could you elaborate on this? For me, the difference between engines on the same aircraft, is still a very unknown area.
40 Mandala499 : Tds, Cheers for that, I'll have a further read on it when I get the material... Joost, the CFM56-5Bs give less fuel burn per trip than the IAE2500s fo
41 Viscount724 : I don't think that's the reason. How could you fit more than the current 180 maximum passengers on an A320? That's already based on the lowest accept
42 CRJ900 : The B739ER is no good? I'm hoping my airline will consider the B739ER so I'm anxious to find out how the 739ER is coping with 212-215 seats, economic
43 Pfletch1228 : I think what Mandala499 is referring to, if I read him right, is that relative to their respective smaller brothers, the B739ER and A321 consume quit
44 SEPilot : Where you need the rudder is with an engine out, and I suspect that no two people would be strong enough to manually hold the rudder against an engin
45 Mandala499 : It's not the only reason... the extra cabin length helps But if they don't have the upward hinging exits, they'd probably be limited to 180 seats sti
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
737-700 Vs A319 Or A320: Regarding AirTran posted Thu Mar 6 2003 14:29:21 by Atcboy73
Delta.com 737-800 Vs. 737 Designation posted Wed Sep 17 2008 09:28:08 by RafflesKing
Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321 posted Mon Aug 20 2007 04:57:29 by EA772LR
Boeing 737-800 Vs Dehavilland Q400 posted Tue Oct 10 2006 10:50:50 by Cumulus
Match Up...737-900ER VS 757-200 posted Tue Aug 29 2006 14:52:15 by Socal
737-200 Vs. Dc 9 Vs. Bac 1-11 posted Sun Jun 18 2006 16:32:00 by Columba
737-400 Vs. 737-800 posted Fri Apr 29 2005 14:29:21 by NASCARAirforce
737-300 VS MD87 posted Mon Dec 13 2004 21:23:24 by Sbe727
Boeing 737-500 Vs. 737-600 posted Thu Apr 22 2004 00:55:55 by TradewindL1011
Delta 737-800 Vs MD-90 posted Sun Jan 25 2004 02:33:18 by ZONA8