Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Wasn't The 737-400 Big In The U.S.?  
User currently offlineDeltaRules From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3730 posts, RR: 9
Posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2718 times:

I was wondering why airlines who bought the 737-300 didn't go with the 737-400 as well. USAirways and Alaska (and Carnival when it existed) are the only U.S. airlines to have it that I know of.

United, Continental, and Southwest have the -300 and the -500, but why didn't they take the -400, too??
Just wondering...

DeltaRules


Let's Kick the Tires & Light the Fires!!
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMls515 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3076 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2661 times:

I think the reason SWA didn't go with it was because they would have needed an extra flight attendant.

User currently offlineExusair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 684 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2655 times:

Poor performance and range when fully loaded.

User currently offlineILUV767 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3141 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2632 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.

I L U V 7 6 7


User currently offlineWarriorII From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2585 times:

I have to agree on the concept that most U.S. majors were not ready to replace B727s at the time the B734 came out. BTW, ProAir, PanAmII were also B734 operators.

-Tom


User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24912 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2525 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!
User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2478 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?

User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2473 times:

The 738 DOES offer 8% cheaper operating costs than the A320. The BA/Airbus deal has been discussed much, and was probably due to political pressure, as well as a huge discount on price by Airbus.

User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24912 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2469 times:

Why do you think Excel Airways operates the 738 instead of the charter popular A320??


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4160 posts, RR: 36
Reply 9, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2467 times:

The figures I have show a difference of only 4%. But this is sorted out by the airline´s own mode of operation, not by Boeing or Airbus.


Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2468 times:

Range?The 737NG has greater range than the 32X series.

User currently offlineTango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3803 posts, RR: 29
Reply 11, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2417 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.


User currently offlineGo Around From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2406 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.

User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2403 times:

Because of the great A320 ?

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...
Delta - Why The MD-88 Over The 737-400? posted Fri Jul 28 2006 22:25:39 by 1337Delta764
Why Did CO Not Purchase The 737-400? posted Wed Apr 14 2004 05:31:22 by Njdevilsin03
Why Wasn't The MD-87 A Big Seller? posted Mon Feb 23 2004 22:58:54 by 727LOVER
Why The 737-400 Of US Airways Were Broken Up? posted Sun Jan 18 2004 07:45:55 by 747SPA330MD11
Why Wasn't The BAe ATP Successful? posted Sun Jun 4 2006 17:34:59 by 8B775ZQ
Why Wasn't The Tupolev TU-144 A Success? posted Tue Apr 12 2005 17:15:06 by Alberchico
Why Wasn't The 757 The LCC Aircraft Of Choice posted Fri Jan 28 2005 03:22:46 by Airline7322
Why Wasn't The Tristar Ever Updated? posted Sat Oct 20 2001 02:12:21 by RonE
Why Wasn't The 717, Named The 787? posted Sun Jan 16 2000 04:32:37 by USAirways A330
Why Wasn't The C-141 Ever An Airliner? posted Wed Dec 29 1999 23:34:06 by Matt D