Woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1032 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (13 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2003 times:
Alaska Airlines being the launch customer wanted fleet comonality with their other 734s and 737-700s as well as needing more capacity.....although they probably dont need it right now!
The 739 is limited in its capacity by the number of emergency exits, thus not allowing a high density single class layout for charter ops, this is where the 752 has the advantage. Someone here can tell us what the limit is for the 739 (with its EE limitation), I think its in the 180pax range while the 752 can carry upwards of 220 in single class layout.
I heard that AS pilots were concerned about the 739s apparant tendency to tail strike on t/o in the simulator due to its short legs and L O N G distance between the main landing gear and tail. I dont know if this has become an issue in reality or not. What I do know is this: When I worked at Alaska Airlines, you could go out and check the tail "bumper" on any of their 737-400s and they were ALL scraped! Who knew that tail strikes happen so frequently. During the time I worked there, only one such incident was publicized within the company because of a rather severe weight and balance/loading error in Oakland.
Bove From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1979 times:
739 offers the ability to cram in 15 extra pax for the same operating costs as the 738. Most airlines don't need this kind of capacity on an aircraft this size and those that do usually prefer widebodies to carry this amount of people.
I think the maximum certificated capacity of the 738 is 189. In charter configuration you could fit many more but this is not allowed...thus she won't be a hit with charter carriers.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16435 posts, RR: 55
Reply 8, posted (13 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1843 times:
Boeing wanted to offer a 737NG compatible aircraft to compete with the A321. The 739 is a minimal-cost stretch of the 738...by keeping the number of emerg exits the same, they could reduce the cert/manufacturing cost. Hence the 739 has the same max capacity as the 738. This will make the 739 unattractive to charter carriers who are able to fit 189 into their 738's. However, the 739 will be attractive to sked carriers who, with a first class section, will usually come in below 189 seats anyway. KL, AS, CO all seat betw 167 & 178 on their 739's. The minimal stretch of the 739 also limits encroaching on possible 752 orders.
The 739 also uniquely bridges the gap betw the 738/A320 and the 752/A321....no other aircraft is in this segment.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6996 posts, RR: 31
Reply 9, posted (13 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1826 times:
The 757-200 and A321 really don't compete in the same segment. The 757-200 carries considerably more passengers than an A321 in a comparable configuration (i.e. 239 vs. 199 in a one-class configuration). The 757-200 also has considerably longer range than either the 737-900 or A321.
The purpose of the 737-900 is to provide a product which directly competes against the A321 (with similar range, passenger capacity, and compatibility with an existing narrowbody family).
TransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1797 times:
The A321 is really inbetween the 739 and 752 in capabilities.
- It is longer than the 739, but shorter than the 752.
- It has more emergency exits, so it can have more passengers than the 739 (the A321 can carry 199 in a generous 32" pitch, more in charter config) The 752 has a bit more capacity, though.
- It has similiar ranfge to the 739, but much shorter than the 752.
- It can carry more cargo in more standardized containers than the 739, probably similar to the 752.
- It is slightly heavier than the 739, but much lighter than the 752.
IMO Boeing should have put in more exits in the 739, to make it more useful for airlines - then they'd have a much better chance against the A321. As it is right now, both the 737-900 and 737-600 and pretty useless aircraft, and the sales numbers show that.
Bove From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1776 times:
Its not a case of Boeing not wanting to put more emergency exits on the plane. There can only be a maximum of two overwing exits on any narrowbody...otherwise you have to use doors or mini-doors and the additional weight/space of doing so would cancel out the effect of the additional seats.
I don't think the 736 is a useless aircraft...its just that for almost exactly the same purhcase price and operating cost you can have the 73G which is a far more flexible aircraft.
While the 739 offers only 15 more seats than the 738, it can hold up to 15% more cargo so there is some potential to develop a 739ERX with transatlantic range.
199 seems a lot for a 2-class configuration A321 although I must remember J-class in Europe is the same seat pitch as Y.