Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Continental Airlines And The 737-500  
User currently offlineukoverlander From United Kingdom, joined May 2010, 367 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 12 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 15856 times:

Last week I travelled from Newark to Dallas on one of CO's 737-500's. If I'm not mistaken (and please correct me if I'm wrong) with the exception of the 500's all of CO's 737's are now 737-700, 800, or 900 derivatives - the missing link being the absence in CO's fleet of the 737-600.

We often see mentioned in the forums of the lack of a modern market for the 737-600 and the A318 among airlines today but that was not necessarily as evident when these aircraft were first manufactured. This got me thinking as to why having completely upgraded the 737 fleet in all other areas over many years CO retained the 500's and did not for example replace them (even in the short term) with the 600NG?

My thinking (maybe simplistically) is that even if the 600NG is comparatively inefficient to operate by today's standards because of it's higher weight/passenger ratio, surely it's still considerably more efficient than the 500? Also the 600 has been around for a decade so why was it never considered by CO at an earlier time (or was it?)? Those 500's have been kept for a long time after the 600NG replacement was made available on the market so I'm sure there was some solid logic behind this that I'm missing.

If anyone can help me with that I'd really appreciate the insight into CO's approach regarding the 500 and 600.

47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineisitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 1, posted (3 years 12 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 15808 times:

Someone here at A Net said CO pulled the 500's then put them back because they needed them.
I know I booked a CLE-RSW trip for Feb and its on a 500......CO 1857. Boy, did I get a deal. Thats why I jumped on it so early.
Now, lets see if there is an equipment change between then
and now.
safe



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6763 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (3 years 12 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 15806 times:

Quoting ukoverlander (Thread starter):
If anyone can help me with that I'd really appreciate the insight into CO's approach regarding the 500 and 600.

Well, to begin with, CO's 737-500 fleet is still relatively young, being among some of the newest 737 Classics in existence. The average age of CO's 735's is just over 14 years -- not even three years over the average age of their 737-700's. Consequently, the NG 737's entering the fleet over the past dozen years were replacing much older aircraft -- 727's, 737-200's & -300's, and MD-80's. And, given their average age, the 737-500's simply have not been due for retirement.

Moreover, the 737-600 and 737-500, while similar in size, do not serve the same function. The 737-500 is much lighter but sacrifices range. For CO, that additional range is largely only needed on longer routes from EWR, and these routes are better-suited to higher-capacity aircraft like the 737-800 and 737-900 in any event. CO has also been gradually moving to larger 737's as they have found that the 737-800 and -900 are better fits to their network as it has evolved; they stopped taking 737-700's long ago.


User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 890 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (3 years 12 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 15567 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 2):
Moreover, the 737-600 and 737-500, while similar in size, do not serve the same function. The 737-500 is much lighter but sacrifices range. For CO, that additional range is largely only needed on longer routes from EWR, and these routes are better-suited to higher-capacity aircraft like the 737-800 and 737-900 in any event. CO has also been gradually moving to larger 737's as they have found that the 737-800 and -900 are better fits to their network as it has evolved; they stopped taking 737-700's long ago.


ScottB is correct, there are indications that CO will only take larger 737s (-800s and -900ERs, as has been done with recent deliveries).

The 737-500 fleet still exists at CO primarily due to Scope/Outsourcing limits and the long term leases that many of the -500s are on. Most of those leases expire relatively soon, though (2012 and 2013) and if the owners don't make drastic reductions in leasing costs, CO will shed the 737-500s as quickly as possible.

But without an airplane in this size class, the new UA (merged UA/CO) will have a significant gap in seating capacity between the 70 seat RJs and the 124 seat 737-700s.

Expect to see a big battle over Scope/Outsourcing as the combined pilot contract negotiations proceed. 1400+ furloughed pilots at UA know why this is a critical issue.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineukoverlander From United Kingdom, joined May 2010, 367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 12 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 15508 times:

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 3):
But without an airplane in this size class, the new UA (merged UA/CO) will have a significant gap in seating capacity between the 70 seat RJs and the 124 seat 737-700s.

I had also been thinking about this.What routes does CO currently use the 500's on (in addition to Dallas)?

These 500's are I think part of the mainline CO fleet (i.e not the aircraft regional partners flying in CO colours). I'm guessing if the 500's disappear UA/CO needs to fill those routes with either:

a) Existing larger mainline fleet aircraft
b) Regional partner (if possible?) or (I assume)
c) by introducing a new aircraft type

Any thoughts on how that is most likely to be handled? if I'm mistaken in my assumptions please jump in and correct me.


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2634 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (3 years 12 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 15261 times:

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 3):
But without an airplane in this size class, the new UA (merged UA/CO) will have a significant gap in seating capacity between the 70 seat RJs and the 124 seat 737-700s.

UA has 55 A319 aircraft that are all under 13 years old. They hold 120 vs. the 735's 110. Pretty comparable on seat size if you ask me.
CO has 35 73Gs, but has received 120 738/739/739ERs since it took its last 73G in 1999. My guess is they'd probably wish they had a one-to-one swap out with the 738 for those 35 73Gs, especially with UA 120 seat A319 merging into the fleet soon. There are few routes where the 73G is needed for range or takeoff capability - are there more than SNA and UIO?

Additionally, CO recently shipped 3 or 4 73Gs out to Micronesia in trade for one fewer 738.


User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5673 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (3 years 12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 15242 times:

Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 4):
I had also been thinking about this.What routes does CO currently use the 500's on (in addition to Dallas)?

SLC-IAH has 2 daily 735's and one 738 and one ERJ-145. EWR-SLC used to be 73G and 735 exclusively. IAH-PIT used to be 735 territory as well, not sure now. IAH-MIA also is a good 735 route.



Check out my blog at fl310travel.blogspot.com!
User currently offlineyxd172 From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 449 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 15221 times:

Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 4):

I had also been thinking about this.What routes does CO currently use the 500's on (in addition to Dallas)?

I know they use it on IAH-YEG. Must be one of the longer routes, almost 4 and a half hours. I guess the range restrictions only really impact trans-con flights?



Radial engines don't leak oil, they are just marking their territory!
User currently offlineisitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (3 years 12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 15197 times:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 5):
CO has 35 73Gs


I guess I'm losing it with this industry but could you tell me what is a 73G?
I would guess some sort of 737, but I need you to elaborate.
Thanks in advance.
safe



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 15161 times:

Quoting isitsafenow (Reply 8):
I guess I'm losing it with this industry but could you tell me what is a 73G?

737-700 series aircraft. It is a G designator since that is the 7th letter of the alphabet and 737 reflects the entire 737 family. 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 73G, 738, 739.

Pet peeve of mine, NG refers to any New Generation 737 (600-900ER). No need to refer to a 738 as an 800NG or the like. By default it is an NG. 800NG (or the like) is just Department of Redundancy Department  duck 

[Edited 2010-09-21 18:25:26]

User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 890 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 15068 times:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 5):
UA has 55 A319 aircraft that are all under 13 years old. They hold 120 vs. the 735's 110. Pretty comparable on seat size if you ask me.

Point taken.

My point was more about a need for a seating capacity of 90 to 100 seats, though. IIRC, the CO 737-500s used to have 104 seats (112 now?).

I believe there's a need for something above the UAX CRJ-700s and below the CO 737-500s. Time will tell how it all works out, but I believe the 1400+ furloughed UAL pilots will want a shot at flying those aircraft.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (3 years 12 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 15015 times:

Another important thing to note is CO 73G's have IFE. The 735s do not. As a matter of fact in the middle of last decade CO was flying the 735s on 4.5 hour routes of out EWR including SLC and ABQ so they do have decent range. The 2008 fuel crisis happened and CO was all for retiring them, then they brought some back, and now I'm not sure what exactly CO thinks of them. I'd assume they'd be around post merger though.

Also that CO flight that crashed in December 2008 on take off out of DEN going to IAH was a 735.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (3 years 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14733 times:

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 3):
But without an airplane in this size class, the new UA (merged UA/CO) will have a significant gap in seating capacity between the 70 seat RJs and the 124 seat 737-700s.

It is going to hurt. Just like how it hurts AA. CR7 to the Super 80s. Scope will be a HUGE deal with the combined company. I don't see United giving up the CR7s and 170s.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4521 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (3 years 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14714 times:

Several problems with the -500.


As was pointed out already, they had / have very high lease rates for a limited number of seats.


It has the old 737 Classic wing that makes for a very slow bumpy ride, ok for short flights but painfully slow on longer ones into headwinds.



It is just too small, you cannot shoehorn enough seats in to make it economical (see 1 ! )



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (3 years 12 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 14565 times:

Not only CO but also LH seem to love their -500s and don´t want to get rid of them.


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineTriStar500 From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 4695 posts, RR: 42
Reply 15, posted (3 years 12 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 14380 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 14):
Not only CO but also LH seem to love their -500s and don´t want to get rid of them.

To the contrary.

Phase-Out B735

D-ABIZ, D-ABJC und D-ABJD: 31.07.11
D-ABJA: 31.08.11
D-ABJE: 30.09.11
D-ABJF und D-ABJH: 30.10.11
D-ABJI: 31.12.11



Homer: Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 890 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (3 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12756 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 13):
As was pointed out already, they had / have very high lease rates for a limited number of seats.


There may be big changes in the lease rates, though. What operator wants them? In other words, they're about to become a white elephant for the leasing companies.

IF the lease rates come down, they might become economical again.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (3 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12554 times:

Wheather the lease rates come down again or not, I think it's pretty clear that scope is the absolute only reason why the 5s are still around. Same thing with the Qs. Just from what i've read from internal memos, it seems to me that they dont even know what to do with all that they have on hand plus the new orders they wil get through the year.


What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlinecaptaink From Mexico, joined May 2001, 5109 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (3 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12465 times:

Glad CO is doing that.. I love those 500s, love those engines it is a great little plane. I have had a few flights between LGA and IAH with it, is it still the equipment used?


There is something special about planes....
User currently offlinestburke From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 12 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11492 times:

An old exec at CO and myself were talking about the same thing a year ago when I was inquiring why F9 was the only US airline with A318's. Basically all he said was "For the right price you can make money on any airplane." From what I understand is that both F9 and CO received a generous price on their short planes.


aaaand it's gone.
User currently offlinedeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9424 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (3 years 12 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10322 times:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 5):
CO has 35 73Gs, but has received 120 738/739/739ERs since it took its last 73G in 1999. My guess is they'd probably wish they had a one-to-one swap out with the 738 for those 35 73Gs, especially with UA 120 seat A319 merging into the fleet soon. There are few routes where the 73G is needed for range or takeoff capability - are there more than SNA and UIO?

They could if they wanted to......

Have you ever had the thought that maybe, just maybe, CO only wants 35 73Gs? That would explain why they have only taken 35 of them.........



yep.
User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (3 years 12 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10280 times:

Quoting deltal1011man (Reply 20):
Have you ever had the thought that maybe, just maybe, CO only wants 35 73Gs? That would explain why they have only taken 35 of them.........

737-700s are not the most efficient compared to the 738 or 739 hence why CO only has 35 of them.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (3 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9822 times:

CLT gets a couple a day, along with few 738s/73Gs. This summer we got a 739 as well.


E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlinedeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9424 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (3 years 12 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9721 times:

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 21):

737-700s are not the most efficient compared to the 738 or 739 hence why CO only has 35 of them.

I know the 73Gs numbers, but CO isn't going to go run out and replace them just because they haven't taken one in X number of years.

CO is taking 800s* because they can use them on most of its network, but the 73Gs still fit the roll in which they fly, and wont be replaceable by 319s. Same song and dance as DL/NW, the 73G and 319 can live in the fleet together and if DL can make 10 frames work CO should be able to make 35 frames work.

*I don't believe CO is still taking in 900ERs at this time, but IIRC its 737 Orders/options are for any 737NG(600-900ER) so they could take more 900ERs.
.



yep.
User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 890 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (3 years 12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9617 times:

Quoting deltal1011man (Reply 23):
*I don't believe CO is still taking in 900ERs at this time, but IIRC its 737 Orders/options are for any 737NG(600-900ER) so they could take more 900ERs.

According to the fleet plan (link below), two more 737-900ERs are scheduled for delivery in the fourth quarter of this year.

http://www.continental.com/web/en-US...inental_fleet_plan_2010_072203.pdf



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
25 FlyASAGuy2005 : Haven't read a CO Daily NEws Update in a while but the last one I read mentioned 738s and 739s for this year.
26 Post contains images iahcsr : They have 36 73Gs actually... Four of which (including one in *A colors) are now in GUM The original number of 735s was 67 and is now down to just ab
27 drerx7 : Yep, looks like it flew IAH-AMA on Sunday.
28 Post contains images nycbjr : Kind of like the XWB thing.,. its really grating on me.... LOL Cheers
29 TOMMY767 : But eventually these 738s will get directv correct? I remember last year when the 739s were delivered and didn't have IFE and some a.netters were pis
30 WesternA318 : Whatever happened to reading a book, taking a nap or initiating a conversation with your cell...errm...seatmate?
31 Post contains images TOMMY767 : IFE is better then all those options for me
32 WesternA318 : I prefer the window, lol...
33 Post contains images iahcsr : 'Eventually' is the correct word yes.. An internal bulletin on the matter indicated it could be 'up to two years' .. On the rare occasion when I trav
34 TOMMY767 : HAHA that's not bad either. That's about all you can do when your stuck on an AA M80 to entertain yourself. Think pics will be uploaded here before o
35 WesternA318 : That's not bad either...I do prefer AA, US and Virgin America over everyone else anyways.
36 Post contains images iahcsr : Don't know about the UA aircraft, but Ship 124 is in, and will remain in, AMA for now. So anyone with a camera in the area....
37 AADC10 : Even if CO/UA gets a great lease rate, unless there is a gigantic leap in demand, CO will retire the 735 just as UA had a couple of years ago. It is o
38 robo65 : Ship 442 737-900er is also in AMA at this time and it appears that it will also come out in new livery.
39 TOMMY767 : According to wikipedia a 738 will also be painted in new colors but it's wikipedia so they can very well be wrong. Also what about any UA ships going
40 umichcub : I've flow the 737-500 a few times with CO, once on the IAH-IND route, and I believe once or twice between BOS and IAH. Once or twice, I've sat in the
41 Antoniemey : In other words, they may wait until they decide what they're doing with IFE on the combined fleet to do these planes... or they've already decided to
42 Post contains images DualQual : Well, techically that is correct since ALL the airplanes will be painted at some point into the new United livery
43 Post contains images iahcsr : That is a very good question... Given I've heard no talk within CO about this I'm going to guess it's not going to be an issue... Nine 738s were deli
44 Max Q : Good point, I don't think so, if the market is that small as you say just use less frequency. I can't see an economical case for a mainline Aircraft
45 Post contains images Conti764 : If I could decide, I'd paint a 747 in the new colors
46 iahcsr : I'm sure that will come soon enough, as it is, I'm hearing rumors that UA will have two 777s ready to unveil on Oct 1st.
47 Post contains images keesje : I think many airlines have (had) a problem replacing their 737-300/500s. They have / had pretty low operating costs, acceptable fuel efficiency, good
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...
US Airlines And The 737-600 posted Sat Oct 18 2003 00:59:44 by COEWRNJ
What Airlines Fly The 737-500/600? posted Wed May 8 2002 03:43:51 by Planelover
Japan Airlines And The Garden Jets. posted Fri Apr 9 2010 22:33:25 by SexyAdonis
Singapore Airlines And The 757 posted Thu Mar 25 2010 19:55:52 by vheca
Continental Airlines In The 1960's posted Sat Feb 6 2010 18:17:30 by Jackbr
US Airways And The 737-400 posted Mon Nov 23 2009 14:53:23 by N62NA
American Airlines And The Internet posted Tue Jan 6 2009 08:33:22 by BoeingForEver
US Airlines And The 380 posted Sun Dec 14 2008 17:30:06 by Plairbus
Air Busan And Asiana's 737-500's posted Tue Dec 9 2008 19:07:23 by NWADC9
Air Asia And The 737 posted Tue Oct 7 2008 04:30:06 by Zeke