Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
737-900  
User currently offlinePATM04 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 57 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1431 times:

What do you think of it? It doesn't even look like a 737 to me. It so long! It almost looks like a 767 but thinner. I kinda like the look, what do you think?


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Jason Knutson



22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSkihigh2002 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1311 times:

It looks like a fat 757!  Smile

Chris


User currently offlineCOboeing777 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 693 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1305 times:

you mean a squashed 757.....

I really don't think its looks much longer than an -800. I saw one on the ramp and if I hadn't looked at the reg #, I probably wouldn't have even noticed it was a 900. Still looks cool nonetheless.

BTW, is it just me or did they raise the nose gear on it? It looked a little higher when I saw it in person.


User currently offlineCap'n Dan From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1276 times:

Is it ETOPS certified? As I've posted in the past, I think a plane like this would be perfect for thin transatlantic routes. If CO can use a 757, why not a 737?

User currently offlineGregg From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1235 times:

737-900.... Looks like a money maker. Not too much more fuel burn the 737-800, and CO can either put a few more seats in, or preferably the same amount of seats with more room, then use the -900 on cross country flights that don't justify bigger a/c.

User currently offlineIahcsr From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3462 posts, RR: 42
Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1227 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The bigger/longer/heaver they get, the shorter the range. I don't believe the 739 could fly that far. Even if it can, to provide the meal service(s) for such journeys would require twice the galley space, hence reducing the number of Human Beings (read:$$$) to be transported at any one time. I haven't a clue as to how the cost structure for the 739 compares to the 752, but.....


Working very hard to Fly Right....
User currently offlineIahcsr From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3462 posts, RR: 42
Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1213 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Oops, I was refering to transatlantic flights, not transcons....


Working very hard to Fly Right....
User currently offlineNiteRider30 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 150 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1221 times:

I have a friend who flew on the 737-900 on Alaska Airlines from SEA to ANC a couple months back, and he really liked the plane. Obviously it was a very new and fresh plane, but from what I understand, it was very comfortable in there, compared to the older 737s.  Big thumbs up

NiteRider30


User currently offlineThe747Man From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1219 times:

Looks like the typical Boeing aircraft....................EXELLENT!

User currently offlineChrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 2170 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1204 times:

We call it the "poor man's 757" But it's a hell of a lot better than a 757!! BTW-It's not ETOPS...I don't think Alaska has plans on making it ETOPS.



User currently offlineConcorde1518 From United States of America, joined May 2001, 746 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1201 times:

I like it. I always liked the -400 and -800 best, because I thought that the -200, -500, and in some shots the -300 were a little too chubby. The length makes it look good.

User currently offlineBombayhog From United States of America, joined May 2001, 557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1179 times:

I think it's too chubby, along with the whole 737 series. Doesn't really look graceful or powerful at all to me. I guess the -800 and -900 aren't as bad as the others, but on the whole, I'm not a fan of any 737. Unfortunately, the world seems to disagree with me.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

/gwl


User currently offlineTango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3806 posts, RR: 29
Reply 12, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1179 times:

Having both seen and flown on a 737-900, it looks very much like a NG 737 to me. For me, it takes a 'good look' to notice the difference between a 738 (without winglets) and a 739.

As for the range of the 739, its full-payload range is less than 2,600 miles, as Alaska Airlines has stated that the type cannot be used on its ANC-ORD non-stop service in either direction unless flown with reduced payload. Alaska's DCA-SEA service (a flight of approximately 2,350 miles), when operated by 739 equipment, could not be flown non-stop westbound in most weather conditions without payload restrictions.


User currently offlineNiteRider30 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 150 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1176 times:

I wonder then if Alaska Airlines has any plans to get aircraft with longer range to fly those routes? Obviously they aren't in a financial position to be buying airplanes right now, and neither is any other airline, but they've gotta be thinking about it.

NiteRider30


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16335 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1164 times:

The 737-700 has a longer range than the 737-900. AL flew the -700 on the ANC-ORD route last summer if memory serves.





Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineTango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3806 posts, RR: 29
Reply 15, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1161 times:

From post of NiteRider30: I wonder then if Alaska Airlines has any plans to get aircraft with longer range to fly those routes?

Alaska Airlines has a growing fleet of 737-790s that are used on its longest routes such as ANC-ORD, ANC-LAX, SEA-IAD, and soon, LAX-CUN. The type is very capable of covering these routes non-stop in both directions with full payload. If/when Alaska is given the go-ahead to resume SEA-DCA non-stop flights, the route will be operated by 737-790 equipment in place of the 737-990 used before service to DCA was halted by the events of 9/11. The 737-790 can also fly SEA-DCA non-stop in both directions with maximum payload.

Another Alaska route to which the 737-790 is especially well-suited is SNA-SEA and SNA-PDX non-stops. It is the only type in Alaska's fleet that can meet SNA's stringent noise restrictions in all weather conditions when operating flights of these distances without sacrificing payload. The 737-400s were restricted to as little as half their passenger capacity on some days when the type was used on SNA-SEA non-stop services.


User currently offlineEIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1549 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1110 times:

The 73G is Alaska's ideal "long-haul" aircraft in terms of operational efficiency. The aircraft can fly about 700 miles further than the 739, and is configured with 52 fewer seats than the 73G. When you take into consideration that Alaska is a new player in the long-haul market and that the long-haul routes AS serves are not especially high volume, you can see why the capacity of the 73G is perfect.

For Alaska, the 737-900 is better suited to its medium distance, high volume routes such as SEA-ANC and SEA-LAX. Alaska's goal with the 737-900 was to help compensate for inflated demand at peak times of the day by adding more seats, rather than more flights. This could be especially useful at an airport like LAX, PHX, SAN or SFO, where Alaska has limited gate space.

The 737-900 is well suited to the ANC-SEA route because of its cargo capacity (which amounts to even more than that of the 757-200, if you can believe it). So during the peak season, you can not only carry a lot of tourists, but also a lot of fish in the cargo hold.


User currently offlineChrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 2170 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1091 times:

Alaska only operated the -900 to Washington because the other airlines threw a fit of having a "small" plane fly there. The 757 (TWA) operated with those slots earlier, so therefore, the other airlines suggested (demanded) that the 739 be the only type used on that route. Of course, since AS has those slots, they will use whatever they want on that route. I wouldn't be suprised to see a 73G fill in every now and then if the loads are light. The payload restriction on the -900 out of DCA is slight, only 10% (15-20% if the weather is hot/humid)

BTW-Anchoridge-LA was operated with a M80. The 73G flew San Fran-Anchoridge.

YYZ-Who is "AL" and to my knowledge only Alaska flies Anchoridge-Chicago. The Alaska 2 letter code is "AS"



User currently offlineEIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1549 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1046 times:

I wouldn't be suprised to see a 73G fill in every now and then if the loads are light. The payload restriction on the -900 out of DCA is slight, only 10% (15-20% if the weather is hot/humid)

BTW-Anchoridge-LA was operated with a M80. The 73G flew San Fran-Anchoridge.


The SEA-IAD flight is now being operated with a 73G, and the SEA-DCA flight (if/when it is re-started) will also be operated with a 73G due to new restrictions on DCA ops.

Both LAX-ANC and SFO-ANC are now 73G routes (although SFO-ANC is seasonal).


User currently offlineTango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3806 posts, RR: 29
Reply 19, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1039 times:

Today I noticed for the first time a somewhat surprising route to be flown by Alaska with 739 equipment on at least one daily frequency during the upcoming Winter season: LAX-SJD.

User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16335 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1031 times:

Chrisair, sorry....by AL I meant AS.

 Smile

Neil



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1024 times:

>Obviously they aren't in a financial position to be buying airplanes right now, and neither is any other airline, but they've gotta be thinking about it.

Well, you'd be surprised. Alaska Air Group likes to keep its ducks in a row and not keep much of a debt. They weren't hit too hard by the attack... virtually no flight reductions, nor layoffs. Haven't heard of them cancelling or putting any orders on hold.


Anyway, I flew the Alaska 739 in August-- I must say, it is a fine aircraft... another great product from the great folks in Renton. When I boarded, well... lol-- i looked down the aisle and thought 757. Its a few rows short of a 752, but still. The ride was great, very comfortable (TONS of room!)... can't wait to fly it again.

N305AS
(that is if I hadn't just switched to N400QX recently....lol)


N400QX
God bless America
Long live Alaska Air Group


User currently offlineTango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3806 posts, RR: 29
Reply 22, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1002 times:

From post of N400QX: Haven't heard of them (Alaska Air Group) cancelling or putting any (aircraft) orders on hold.

To my knowledge this is correct. The only adjustment made with regard to new aircraft deliveries has been a swap of delivery positions where Alaska will receive 73Gs that were scheduled for later delivery than a like number of 739s. The 739s will then be delivered at the later dates for which the 73Gs had been scheduled.

What will happen with Horizon remains to be seen. Their short-haul flights (especially SEA-PDX) have been hit especially hard by the changes implemented after 9/11.




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...
KE 737-900 Lands On Taxiway In Japan posted Sat Jan 6 2007 10:20:08 by SMOLT
APB Launches Winglet Program For 737-900 posted Wed Dec 27 2006 05:11:56 by RyDawg82
Why No Winglets For 737-900? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 05:55:25 by UncGSO
Travel Service Buys 737-900 posted Fri Sep 22 2006 15:03:49 by JustPlanes
CO 737-900 And Winglets... posted Sun Jul 16 2006 18:30:41 by BlueSky1976
737-900 "true" Range posted Tue May 9 2006 17:12:20 by N743AS
KE 737-900 Enroute To ANC posted Thu Jun 23 2005 01:49:41 by Chugach
SpiceJet To Order Boeing 737-900's? posted Tue Jun 21 2005 20:33:52 by United777
KLM 737-900: Chances On LHR Route? posted Sat Jun 11 2005 12:28:22 by Voodoo
Shenzhen Airlines First 737-900 posted Sat Jun 4 2005 16:57:05 by B742