Gregg From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 327 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 781 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.
Iahcsr From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3308 posts, RR: 46 Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 773 times:
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.....
NiteRider30 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 150 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 767 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.
Bombayhog From United States of America, joined May 2001, 554 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 725 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.
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3725 posts, RR: 31 Reply 12, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 725 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.
NiteRider30 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 150 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 722 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.
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3725 posts, RR: 31 Reply 15, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 707 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.
EIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1533 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 656 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.
Chrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1774 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 637 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"
N400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 570 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.
(that is if I hadn't just switched to N400QX recently....lol)
God bless America
Long live Alaska Air Group
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3725 posts, RR: 31 Reply 22, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 548 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.