Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900.  
User currently offlineValujetMD-81 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3051 times:

I think that if Boeing would have added a plughatch door on each side right after the wing (like on some 757s) on the 737-900 along with the 8 other exits. They could have lengthened it a little bit, and made it longer. This could have attracted many more airlines, and it would have seated more passengers. I do not see the point of the 739 when you got a 738 flying. Boeing completely Wasted the -900, when they could have saved it for something better designed, and something that could seat more while filling the 737 purpose. (Refer to the 757-300 design. But take the door just before the wing out). That is what I am talking about. Does anyone agree.?

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineValujetMD-81 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2832 times:

One thing I forgot to mention. When I was touring N30401 in IAH in July. The Captain of the flight boarded and told me that he wanted to fly in a 739. I had to sit there and tell him, "Uh, You're standing in one dude." He sat there and looked at me, looked at the airworthiness certificate, back at me, and said "COOL!!!" I find it pretty sad that the pilot couldn't even tell the difference.  Sad. Good thing they have the same type rating, or that captain would have been in a jam.

User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2814 times:

Thats funny !!.

What can they do to save the 737-600, 757-300 and 767-400 ??


User currently offlineValujetMD-81 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2788 times:

If this had no registration number, I would mistake it for a 738, actually, I wouldn't know. They are both practically the same thing with different model numbers, except one is stretched a few inches (like the 731,and 732)


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Jason Knutson



User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5645 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2770 times:

well, if you're standing in an airplane, it's kinda hard to tell what it is.

I mean, really... I can't tell a 733 from a 735. From the inside, that is. And I wouldn't expect a pilot to be able to either.

I think the 739 is a waste too. I think Boeing is kinda grasping for straws here. I don't see Continental and KLM and Korean's orders as being justification for a new subtype. But that's my opinion.

I don't think it would be worthwhile even if they had added two exits and more seats. WHAT'S THE POINT? I know, I know, it seats more in a two class config than a 738. But so what? a few extra seats aren't much anything. AND, with the world's airline industry the way it is, what does anybody want with a larger 737? Over here in the good ol' US of A we can't fill MD-80s, much less 727s and 738s. Who needs a 739?

Randy


User currently offlineValujetMD-81 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2751 times:

Boeing has had their heads up their a**es lately. If I were an airline, I would NOT buy a 753. I would buy a 763 instead. I would not buy a 736. I would buy a 737-700 instead, and I would not buy a 764. I would buy a 777 instead. Boeing is trying desperately to compete with Airbus, but I think Airbus is actually CONCENTRATING on what they are building. Not saying Uh.. Let's see what Phil has up his a** today. (No I do not hate Boeing, but they sure are doing alot of dumb things lately). Another Dumb thing would have been to cancel the 717. At least Phil got his head out of his rear, and paid attention to Harry Stonecipher for once. Whew.

I wish William Allen was still president of Boeing. He would set it straight. The dude who thought of the 727, and 737-100, and 747, and 707. He thought of jets that the airline industry NEEDED. Not jets that were useless when you got the same thing already out there.


User currently offlineVirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2723 times:

The 737-900 is a waste of time and space. Prop that thing up to longer landing gears and add more exits and it'll look like a 752! I think they should've focused more on the SST market. I'd love to fly in a plane that'll reduce my JFK-LHR trip to 3-4 hours. The Concorde will not be around much longer and there is still no sutable replacement.

Other waste of aircraft is the 767-400 the thing flies less further than the 767-200 and 300. So far I only know of CO that is flying it interntationally. DL is still flying it on the ATL-Florida routes.

The 737-700 is way better than the unpopular 736.

The 757-300 is way too long. I think that airlines should buy a 762 or a 763. With only one aisle and too long the 753 takes longer for people to exit and have the cleaning people come on. I think I'll stick with the 757-200

The best aircraft that Boeing ever made was the 727-100 and 200 737s with the exceptions of the 500, 600 and 900 The best of the 737s were the 200 and 700. The 747-400, 757-200, 767-200ER and the 777



"FUIMUS"
User currently offlineIAH_EWR From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 37 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2676 times:

ValuejetMD-81, You can't buy a 763 instead of a 753. They serve completely different markets. 763s are good for longer haul, high yield routes that often include cargo. The 753 is designed to ferry leisure pax from places like NYC to FL. That's exactly why CO ordered the 753.

As for a 764 instead of a 777, they too are not designed as substitutes. Using CO as an example again, the 777 has roughly 50 more seats which on many routes cannot be filled. Thus the 764 represents a more practical choice (Though the 763ER might be an even better choice). And as for the range issue, CO was planning on starting IAH-AMS with the 764, which is a pretty long way. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, but I am saying that different aircraft fill different needs. Just because CO is the only airline flying 764s across the Atlantic doesn't mean its a waste (just look at the profitably in recent quarters compared to UAL, AMR, DAL).

Bigger is not always better, particularly when it comes to the airline industry. It can be debated over and over again, but Boeing has different derivitives of aircraft because there are different markets for each. Some markets are certainly smaller (the 736 and 739 being examples) but that doesn't mean they are a waste. As profits become even harder to attain, it is increasingly important for airlines to match the aircraft to the demand for the route. You may not like the length of the 753, but chances are you'll be seeing more of them as they are one of the most cost efficient aircraft on the market. Putting a 763 on many of the same routes just bleeds red ink.


User currently offlineJmc1975 From Israel, joined Sep 2000, 3242 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2671 times:

I was wondering if Boeing had done a cost analyisis of its aircraft when it developed the 737-900 and compared it to the 757-100 which once considered for production over 20 years ago. Even though the capacities would be similar, wouldn't it be more economical for airlines to buy the 737-900 anyway?



.......
User currently offline777-200 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1020 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2651 times:

"ValuejetMD-81, You can't buy a 763 instead of a 753. They serve completely different markets."


um... IAH_EWR i think he was talking about the 763 not the 763ER


767-300
Passengers
Typical 3-class configuration 218
Typical 2-class configuration 269
Typical 1-class configuration up to 351

757-300
Passengers
Typical 3-class configuration 243
Typical 2-class configuration 280
Typical 1-class configuration N/A

Delta and many other Airline's use mostly 763 to major Leisure destinations.
I think the 767-400, 737-900 and the 757-300 were a mistake.




Another Day, Another Dollar.... Young Jeezy
User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2631 times:

They were obviously mistakes....thats why they are all so unpopular. If they were good business decisions, they would have been ordered more.

What do most people think is a " succesfully " airliner sales wise? By this I mean what is the level you would call a good mark to judge sucess sales wise?

ciao


User currently offlineIAH_EWR From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 37 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2615 times:

Even if we are talking just the 763 and not the ER, the 753 has a lower operating cost. Granted, many passengers prefer a widebody to a narrowbody (myself inlcluded), but why would an airline put a 763 on a route that can be served by a 753 at a lower cost. "Delta and may other Airline's" use 767s to major leisure destinations because they have so many of them to begin with. The cost of replacing their existing fleet with 753s would be greater than the cost savings they would achieve (basic strategic decision making). The 753 is a relatively new design. Give it some time, and it might become more "successful" (at least based on sales) particularly once airlines start realizing the need to cut costs even more.

BTW, Continental has all three of these so-called mistakes, yet their quarterly performance has been far better than AMR, DAL, and UAL even before 9-11.


User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2542 times:

I wasn't aware that the 737-900 needed "saving". This is an aircraft that was developed to fill a "niche" market. As is the 736 and 753. These aircraft weren't developed to be runaway successes for Boeing. They were designed to fill a customers needs. Regarding the 753, mark my words, the orders will start to come in. Once other airlines see how much money the 753 is producing for ATA, Continental and NWA, they will be knocking at Boeing's door. It will be the 752 for Boeing all over again.

User currently offlineSafetyDude From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3795 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2533 times:

I wasn't aware of a 739!  Laugh out loud
Yes, I do agree they should have made it longer for ailrines that like the 737 but don't want a 757.

Delta and US Airways might have bought it iof it was bigger for their shuttle routes. I have flown Metrojet and Delta Express and all the time they were over booked and I know the 739 would be filled to the max, or at least in peak times.

I do agree it is a waste of Boeing time. Perhaps they should have scratched the 739 and spend more time with the 747X.

Airplane Model


2001 $ in Millions

737-600 40.5 - 49.0
737-700 46.5 - 55.0
737-800 57.0 - 64.5
737-900 60.0 - 68.5

(source: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/index.html)
I don't see why an airline would pay more for a 900 when they could pratically get the same thing for less. (I'm saying this as if comparing an AC with the same features)

My $.02
-Will



"She Flew For What We Stand For"
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2492 times:

Firstly, how much do you think it cost Boeing to develop the 739?! NOTHING!! Just a 738 with fuselage plugs added! And for that minimal investment you've got a new subtype! Boeing probably made a profit after 10 airframes were sold.

All though it doesn't seem to be a success, they've added a new type, with little investment, and are making a profit.

Although we think they should add more exits to boost its max pax, don't you think Boeing will have thought about it too?! They're not stupid! There's no point in adding doors (increased weight, production costs, development costs, more expensive plane....) if no one wants to buy a plane like that!

The 739 at the moment is a very nice a/c. It allow airlines (like Alaska, Continental and KLM) to keep capasity at or around 738 levels, while having more premium seats, or more legroom. It's not just about squeezing as many people are you can in, y'know.


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2483 times:

In the past, Boeing built aircraft that it THOUGHT the airlines needed. Now it builds aircraft that the airlines WANT.

KLM could have concievably gone to Boeing and have said "ok, we'll buy 737NGs, but we want a 737 bigger than the 738." As i said before, it cost Boeing almost NOTHING to achieve this, and voila you have a new subtype!

A 739 would be cheaper than a 757-100, as the 757 would be heavier. Boeing have always stretch a/c. When they've shorteren a/c, they have tended to be too heavy, and not much of a success. (747SP, 735)


User currently offlineBigmikenice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2474 times:

The best aircraft that Boeing ever made was the 727-100 and 200 737s with the exceptions of the 500, 600 and 900 The best of the 737s were the 200 and 700. The 747-400, 757-200, 767-200ER and the 777

Is this just your opinion? In particular, the 737s, the 200 did not rank among the best of aircraft for Boeing, historically. The 100 and 200 series, although needed at the time, were very slow sellers compared to the "new classic" 300-500 series. The 300 was really the plane that revolutionized low capacity, high frequency travel. It was so efficient, so powerful and so much more quiet than the 200 it replaced, plus it added an extra 20 seats, that it clearly went down in history as the catalyst for the world's best selling airplane. The 700 will most likely do what the 300 did 20 years ago. Transform the domestic industry once mre, though with admittedly a little more added competition. I'd say the 300 and 700 are Boeing's best 737s.


User currently offlineWingman From St. Vincent and the Grenadines, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2402 times:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but by comparing the number of years on sale to number of units sold, both the 753 and 764 are on pace to best the entire 340 line from Airbus. Does this mean the 340 should be cancelled and Airbus was completely stupid for developing it? Just curious.

User currently offlineILUV767 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3141 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2392 times:

The 738 and the 739 have the same maximum seating capacity, but, almost no airlines will fill them to the max. Most airlines operating in a two class configuration on the 738 will have it seat close to 150 passengers. I belive that CO has 150 seats in their 738s with the mid cabin lav, and AA has 146. That is no where near 189 seats. The 739 in a two class configuration seats 167 passengers (CO's 739s).

I checked the numbers at Continental's website, and the 739 has exactly 10 less economy seats than theh 757. There are 6 less seats in first. With this very similar configuration, Continental can place the 739 on the florida routes (which they are doing) to move 757s on to higher yielding routes. Thus...the plane is filling a niche.

The 757-300 has the lowest seat/mile costs. While it seats over 200 passengers, the 753 can fly routes mainly to leasure destinations (CO again) to move 767s off of that, and on to higher yeilding destinations.

I L U V 7 6 7


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 19, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2376 times:

Actually, of all 737's sold, 1114 were 737-200's.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineCdfmxtech From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1338 posts, RR: 27
Reply 20, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2351 times:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/multimedia.html

Click on the Continental and Boeing...Work Hard, Fly Right video

COs 737 fleet is ingenious. You've got a B737-700 flying to CUN and a B737-900 flying to LAS - both from EWR. The 700 is oversold and the -900 is about where the -700 capacity is. U can swap the aircraft and not have to change flightcrews. You make money on both flights.

Like many have mentioned already, the B757-300 is a people mover, more than any otehr aircraft we fly.

The B7674 is not a B777, and we don't try to fly it like one. However, they will replace the DC10.
I believe the intent was as follows.

B767-400>>DC10
B767-200>>B757 TransAtlantic

Somtething like. There is a hell of a alot of flexibility w/COs fleet. Just watch



User currently offlineNotar520AC From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1606 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2329 times:

The 737 should only be so long though- it was made for short to medium haul routes with a small to medium pax capacity- IT WAS DESIGNED FOR SHORTER ROUTES WITH LESS PASSENGERS. I do not disagree with the fact that the -900 model was wasted, however, it looks like the whole airplane is on steroids. Instead of a longer 737, you could get a smaller 767 with longer range, and more pax capacity. Every airplane has a purpose, and was manufactured for that purpose.


BMW - The Ultimate Driving Machine
User currently offlineCleCo From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 569 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2315 times:

There has to be some reason they lengthened it, does the lenght of the -900 make it elligeble (sp???) for some rating or something like that?

Jake



EMBRY-RIDDLE BABY
User currently offlineB737-112 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 883 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2320 times:

The 739 is perfect for Alaska Airlines, along with other carriers that do not operate the -800 series. Continental may not need the -800 and the -900 operating together I agree. AS uses the 737-700 on a certain route and during a particular time of season the plane will always be filled up, that's when the extra seats on the 739 comes in. It works out perfect.

User currently offlineValujetMD-81 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2286 times:

The 739 could go great with Alaska. But Continental already has the 738. If they wanted the 739, they should have gotten winglets at least. The 739 is a waste of time for CO. They don't have to have every 737 doncha know.

25 ContinentalFan : Yes, Continental doesn't have to have every 737, but the fact that they do means that it's for a reason. Like others have pointed out before, the max
26 B727-200 : I think you may find that the -900 is the maximum fuselage length to efficiently match with the current B737 wing. If it was indeed more than a fusel
27 Lj : 77236ER is right why shouldn't Boeing offer the 739? Unless Boeing is desparate to loose customers to Airbus I don't see any reason why they shouldn't
28 777gk : IMO, the 737-800 will prove to be the best-selling 737 ever, just look at the massive firm orders it holds with 3 of America's top 5 airlines- America
29 Meechy36 : I only hope that when things level out that AA orders the 900. At AA, the 738 only has 134 seats, 20 F/C and 114 main cabin. It is quite a nice aircra
30 Lowfareair : 767-300 Passengers Typical 3-class configuration 218 Typical 2-class configuration 269 Typical 1-class configuration up to 351 757-300 Passengers Typi
31 ValujetMD-81 : Well if the point was to offer more legroom, then why didn't boeing do that. the 739 has 2 more rows in it. So if it has more legroom, it isn't much.
32 777-200 : i got it from the Boeing Web Site Lowfareair
33 Asqx : 777-200 misquoted the Boeing site. For the 757-300, it should be: 757-300 Passengers Typical 3-class configuration N/A Typical 2-class configuration 2
34 EIPremier : AS was the 739 launch customer, and indeed, the plane is well-suited to Alaska's route system. The 739 allows them to increase the number seats availa
35 EIPremier : I know someone is going to question what I said about the cargo space on the 739, so I went to the Boeing website to get the exact measurements.... 73
36 Post contains links and images N400QX : I agree with Boeing Nut and ElPremier on this one... The 737-900 is a great aircraft to fill customer's desires for a 737 bigger than the -800 (carryi
37 JU101 : One thing that doesnt make sense to me about Boeing, is how fast they are adding aircraft to their production lines and design tables. CLASSICS B737-3
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...
Could Delta Order The 737-700? posted Sat Sep 9 2006 01:22:28 by 1337Delta764
Could Ryanair Order The 737-700? posted Tue Jul 19 2005 14:39:27 by Gkirk
Could Ryanair Consider The 737-700? posted Fri Jan 14 2005 21:53:04 by GKirk
What Happens After The 737-900? posted Sat Oct 2 2004 23:54:07 by Jetpixx
Is Alaska Airlines Disappointed With The 737-900? posted Mon Jun 21 2004 17:49:30 by John
What Is The Point Of The 737-900 posted Sun Dec 1 2002 16:57:04 by BR715-A1-30
The 737-900, NOW More Attractive To Airlines? posted Thu Sep 19 2002 21:19:38 by John
Gary Toomey: Virgin Deal Could Have Saved AN posted Sun Sep 8 2002 09:23:46 by Singapore_Air
The 737-900, The Final 737 Produced? posted Mon Jul 16 2001 08:53:56 by B737-112
Please, Explain Me The Purpose Of The 737-900 posted Fri Jun 1 2001 10:33:18 by Steman