ILUV767 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3142 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (14 years 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3496 times:
The 737-400 was origianly created as a 727 replacement. At the time, United Airlines didnt need the 727 replacement. When it came time to begin retiring the 727, Airbus made United an awsome pitch to get them to go with the A320. The A320 offered more cargo capacity, as well as more range with lower seat per mile costs. United had a choice between the 734 and the A320. The A320 could fly transcons with out additional tanks and the 734 could not. The A320 won, as it was more capable.
When Boeing realized that the A320 family is hurting the sales of 737 classics such as the -400...they began developing the 737NG product. The 737-800 became a good 727 replacement, and it also competes much better with the A320 than the 734 does.
GKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 25324 posts, RR: 55
Reply 5, posted (14 years 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3389 times:
I think thee 737-400 came out around the same time as the 320?? At the time I believe the 320-200 offered 7% cheaper operational costs than the 734, but now the 738 offers about 6% cheaper operational costs than the 320. Thats how the 738 is an extremly successful a/c.
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
Donder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (14 years 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3342 times:
The 738 offers about 6% cheaper operating costs than the A320?That cant be true otherwise why would airlines such as BA ,who have been very loyal Boeing customers,order the A32X over the 737NG even when they have a big fleet of 734's?
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3811 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (14 years 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3281 times:
Concerning the 727/150-seater replacement idea, keep in mind that AA, DL, CO and TW were committed to substantial fleets of MD-80s having the same seating capacity as the 737-400. USAir had sizeable fleets of MD-80s and 737-400s, inherited from PSA and Piedmont, respectively. UA, NW and HP opted for the A320 to meet their 150-pax aircraft requirement of the late '80s-early '90s, while WN chose (apparently for economic reasons) to operate aircraft no larger than the 733/73G.
All of which means that the 737-400 would have been a redundant type for the U.S. majors, with the exception of USAir. Alaska's decision to become a 737-400 operator came at the expense of the MD-90 program. The reason most frequently heard for Alsaka's decision to cancel its MD-90 order in favor of 737-400s is the latter's vastly superior belly cargo capacity, a significant advantage for services to and within the state of Alaska.
Go Around From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (14 years 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3270 times:
Not that it matters much anymore, but Pro Air flew 737-400's and did well with it's capabilities out of a very short runway in Detroit. Full flights to Florida would present some performance problems, but over all I would not say the -400 was a performance problem. Then again, they didn't have many full flights anyway.