Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Do Airlines Get The 737-600?  
User currently offlineAirplanetire From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1809 posts, RR: 2
Posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5872 times:

Why do airlines get the 737-600? I've heard on this forum that they are as expensive to operate as the 737-800. I don't know if that is true, but if it is, I don't see the point in getting a 737-600. If it would cost you the same amount, you might as well get the -800 so you have the extra seats and can sell more seats. The only advantage to the -600 if what I've heard about operating costs are true, is that you'd maybe need fewer flight attendants. Can you tell me about the 737-600 and why airlines get it? Thank you very much!

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5829 times:

I'd like to step in here just to say I've heard the same thing as airplanetire. So I second this question. Thank you.


Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5814 times:

The 736 (like the 735 before it) was developed to cover the smaller capacity markets, where 100 seats are needed instead of 130 or more......there are some thin routes that require the smaller planes, or routes were there are, say, hourly, departures, and the smallest 737 is a good answer.

The 736 has not been very popular, but much has to do with timing; the 735s in service do not yet need replacement, but, more importantly, regional jets and the new larger 70 pax regional jets are changing the way large airlines work and run their businesses. It is not clear if airlines want airliners with less than 125 seats in their mainline fleets, thus the 736 (and the 717) have not found many buyers.....it will be interesting to see if Airbus has better luck with the A318, which will have capilities more similiar to the 736 than the 717.



User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5790 times:

Dutchjet,

I agree with your comments. Even so, the progress thusfar of the A318 development program has surprised me. I sometimes wonder why the whole program hasn't been cancelled entirely, especially after September 11 and because of the recent domination of the aircraft's intended market by regional jets and the like.

I would like to see the 737-600 here in the United States, possibly as a replacement for Delta Express' aging 737-200 fleet. It has also surprised me that Continental hasn't yet ordered the 736--they already operate a majority of the 73G types.

Chris


User currently offlineDoug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3402 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5769 times:

why have airlines ordered the 736? by and large they haven't. SAS wishes they hadn't, and China Northern.... well, china felt like boeings that week, so they orderd some. Fleet planning is more a political tool than a profit one over there.


When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5750 times:

Hey FlyNavy,

The 736 is absent in the US, but dont look for DL Express to get it - pre 9/11, it was decided that the 73G would replace the 732s for Express but the order was never placed and DL Express was cut back in size. CO's 735 fleet is still very, very new, so I dont expect any 736s for CO in the near future either.

There was talk that, at some point, AA would look to the 736 or 73G to replace its huge F100 and MD80 fleets, but those decisions are also many years off, and have been further delayed by the events of 9/11.

So much has to do with timing, the 738 became the most popular member of the 737NG family for one simple reason, airlines were anxious to replace their 72S fleets and, size wise, the 738 was an ideal solution----about the same number of seats, increased range, and better economics.

As I said above, will airlines, like AA, need an aircraft like the 736 or will the regional carriers eventually, after lots of discussions with the unions, fly everything will 100 pax or less......once that question is answered, either the 736 will see new orders or it will quietly be dropped from the 737 line-up.


User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5748 times:

What would be interesting would be a lightweight variant of the 737-600; aimed at much lower landing weights and shorter range, IOW, in an attempt to gain significantly better economy on shorter, thinner lines than the 737-700. Not being a design engineer, I don't know how much savings could really be accomodated (and with the coming of aircraft like the EMB-190, is it worth getting into that fight?), but I imagine the costs would be significant.

Steve


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5760 times:

And, the 736 is cheaper to operate than the 738, its lighter, and uses lower thrust engines. However, I would expect that the cost per pax per mile is higher in the 736 than in a 738, which is very common with the smallest member of an airliner family.......the economics of a 763 is better than a 762, and an A321 is more effecient than an A319......provided, of course, an airline can fill up all of the seats on the larger aircraft with pax paying reasonable fares provided decent yeilds.

User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5566 posts, RR: 36
Reply 8, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5742 times:

An Embraer 195 will take about the same numbers of passengers (~100) like the A 318 and 736, but is much cheaper to operate (I admit it can take less cargo). I am really wondering if the 318 will be a success.

User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5732 times:

Sleevin, I agree with your point, a 737Lite could be interesting, but I still do not think it could compete with the economics of regional jets.....it would have other advantages for sure, but the regional jet would still win with the accountants. Plus, there is another issue, a 737Lite would compete directly with the 717-Boeing has 2 offerings in the 100 seat category and neither has really caught the interest of the airlines.

User currently offlineBWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2200 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5722 times:

DutchJet I agree with your last comments. However Boeing will end up chosing between the 736 and the 717. I dont know why they went ahead with the 717 anyway. As for the 738 it has sucessfully taken on the role of mid range work horse in its class. Looking 30 years down the road if we still have jets like this flying with all this talk of bat jet and 500 seater jets.... The 757 and the 737 need to be integrated into one family as it so Boeing would have a 787 or 797 maybe the 808 as a family of single isle jets between the 100-200+ pax. The 767 should be combined with the 777 programme. Thus from the 100 short range to the 400 long range that there be commonality. Hence Boeing would be on the same plain as Airbus when it comes to fleet commonality. And all from the medium range size up should be at least subsonic mach 0.95.


Eagles Soar!
User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5715 times:

For 737-600 read 737-100, too small, wrong profile for the market and too close in size to competing airframes.

User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5702 times:

When Boeing was trying to decide on whether to kill the MD-95 program, they tried to sell AirTran and TWA on the idea of getting 737-600s at the same price as they were going to be getting the MD-95 for. Both balked, and thus the 717 was born. In hindsight, maybe they both should have went for it, since AirTran looks to be getting some 737NGs within the next few years, and American probably would have kept TWA's 736s if they had gotten them instaed of the 717. As for the A318, TWA order both it and the 717, each in the same amount, but other than that cancelled order, the number of buyers are waning. Frontier is looking at converting their order into either 320s or 321s, since they are beginning to think that the 318 may not be the right aircraft for them. The real interesting time will be when the EMB-190/195 enters the market, it could turn some of the regional airlines into real industry players.

User currently offlineAirplanetire From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1809 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5649 times:

When is the A318 planned to be entering airlne service? It seems like the first flight was a long time ago and I haven't heard much about the A318 since. Still, if the 736 costs as much as the 738, why don't airlines just get the 738 so there are more seats to sell? I am still confused. Thank you all for answering though. A lot of things have been cleared up for me now. I know that very few airlines operate the 736, but there are still a few and those are the ones that I am wondering about.

User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5635 times:

I concur with airplanetire. If the 738 is so much cheaper to operate, then why do airlines order 736 anyway? Sure it's for a reason other than out of stupidity. What are the specific advantages and disadvantages of the 736 compared to the 738?

User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5505 times:

Flynavy:

Airlines order the 737-600 if they have specific routes they don't expect to exceed the capacity of the -600. The absolute cost of getting a 737-600 from point A to point B is less than that of a 737-800, so if you don't have capacity needs in excess of the -600, while your margin per seat may not be as good, your net profit will be better with the smaller aircraft. And while the -600 may not be the best choice in its class, when you factor in things like fleet commonality and crew schedules, it can make sense for some operators.

Dutchjet:

I agree with you agreeing with my agreement  Smile But a 737Lite may still come to bear if Boeing decides to close the 717 line and not totally abandon the segment. Here in the US, because of scope, there's still likely to be light at the end of the tunnel for the 737-600/Lite as things like AA F-100 fleet and DL's 737-200 fleets age, and aircraft that size must be flown by mainline crews. In other places of the world, where regionals can and do operate 100 seat flights, they'll stick with the EMB-190 for commonality and the lower cost of regional crews.

Steve


User currently offlineAirplanetire From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1809 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5487 times:

Thank you so much Sllevin and everyone else! I finally understand. Why would people say that the -600 is as expensive as the -800 to operate though if it really is a bit cheaper to operate the -600?

User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5482 times:

Airplanetire:

It's just talking about different forms of measurement. It's one of those things about accounting that what appear to be two contrary statements can both be correct. Airplane yield management is one of those things I vaguely understand, and it scares me  Smile

Steve


User currently offlineFBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5410 times:

As SAS was finalizing their criteria when acquiring replacement aircraft for the DC-9 Classic and FK-28,McD-Douglas' financial situation was such that the MD-95 project could founder,and that left only the 736 as a viable option.In addition,Boeing needed a launch customer for the -600 and gave SAS a price that was extremely favourable.That's how we got the -600.
Experience,however,has shown the operating economics to be very poor for this plane in SAS service,specific fuel consumption being 0.049 KG/Kilometer (compared to the DC-9-41's 0.051,MD-80's 0.045,MD-90's 0.041.737-700 have the same figures as the MD-80 while the rest of the SAS fleet lies around 0.034-38).Latest figures state that SAS needs some 105-107% loadfactor to break even with the -600,and that is for the version with the lowest weight options.
Then there are the flight characteristics of the -600,especially in turbulence;POOR!



"Luck and superstition wins all the time"!
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8002 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5372 times:

Alas, I really doubt that AA will be ordering the 737-600 anytime soon.

Especially given that AA's F100 fleet is still very young and AA's S80 fleet could get an engine upgrade that will extend its life to at least 2015.


User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5261 times:

FBU: I have to admit, I am amazed that the -600 burns more fuel to carry a lighter load than the -700! Wow

RayC: I agree, the F-100's are going to be around a long time. I actually think if anything gets re-engined, it'll be the F-100's, because there will never be a great market for them. The MD-80's will be a moderate gold mine for AA when Stage IV is finallly set as a date, because they will be about the least expensive option for low-end carriers wanting Stage IV (i.e., folks flying the 727 and 737-200 right now). So depending on finances I see AA selling the MD-80 fleet at that time (taking advantage to renew the MD-80 fleet with the 737-800)

Steve


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6420 posts, RR: 54
Reply 21, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5242 times:

Sllevin, that was not FBU4EVER told. FBU is not totally specific since when he writes fuel burn figures in "kg/km" then he really means "kg/seat-km". 49 grams per seat per kilometer (that must be very strange figures for Americans who haven't gone metric yet).

Of course a 736 will burn more fuel per seat-km than a 73G or 738. And of course the 736 burns less fuel than in total going from A to B than a 73G or 738.

/36 engines are derated - means longer time between major maintenance works = lower operating costs. And lower weight = lower landing fees etc.

So if you have a load factor of 65 on a 736 on a specific route, then your load factor will be 50 on a 73G and 40 on a 738. And of course 736 is a better plane.

But then we come to the major 736 fault, as FBU4EVER also mentioned - its aerodynamically a bad plane, Boeing never finished off the development properly. Hopefully the 318 will not suffer the same way.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8002 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5222 times:

Sllevin,

I think given the pretty strong airframe structure of the MD-80 series, AA would be much wiser to seriously look at doing a re-engining project for their 260 plus-strong S80 fleet.

It'll be way cheaper than buying all-new 737-700/800's; given AA's S80 fleet size, they could spread the development costs of the re-engining so the total cost per plane is quite low.

Originally, I suggested using the Pratt & Whitney PW6024, but given the fact almost nobody wants the PW6000 series engine a much better solution is the Rolls-Royce Deutscheland BR715 in a 24,000 lb. version, essentially an uprated version of the engine used on the 717-200 (neé MD-95). With two uprated BR715's installed the MD-80 could get lower fuel burn and meet the ICAO Stage IV noise standard (now due to go into effect in 2006).

With the uprated BR715 re-engining many MD-80's that are now being retired getting a new lease on life, charter airlines based in Eastern Europe could get Stage IV-compliant planes at very reasonable prices.


User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5209 times:

How is the 736 aerodynamically a 'bad' plane?
Also, what is meant by 'Boeing never finished the development properly'?

I'm not a advocate of the 736 ..just curious.

The 318 looks like a loser too.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 24, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5180 times:

Concerning the 736 being a "bad plane aerodynamically", several had said that the 736 has a choppy ride and does not handle rough air as well as the other members of the 737NG family and other airliners in its class........due to its short fuselage. Personally, I have only flown on the 736 once (SAS) and did not notice any difference between the ride on the 736 and other members of the 737NG family, or the 732 or 735; however, it was a short flight in smooth skies. I really dont think that Boeing cut corners and did not develop the type fully, and if there was any real problem, it would have been worked out with modifications to the airframe or the software that manages the flight computers.

The 736 is a good plane simply in search of a market. Its ideal for medium-range thin routes, however, with airlines so focused on the hub system, there are not many 1000-2000 mile routes being flown with 100 pax planes.

As I said above, the future for this type depends on what the airlines and the unions (especially in the USA) decide concerning the maximum size of regional jets. If the regionals are allowed to fly larger planes approaching 100 pax in capacity, the 736 will see few orders. On the other hand, if the unions will not accept more than 70 pax and stick to it, airlines may take another look at the 736. Will Airbus have better luck with the A318? Probably not.



25 Sllevin : Ah, okay, so we're still holding with my original statement: If you put the same payload into a 737-600 and a 737-700 and fly them to the same destina
26 Post contains images AeroGlobeAir7 : Exactly. Perfectly stated. You cannot fly a 737-800 on a route that can only feasibly fill 100-130 seats. A good example would be St. Louis-Wichita. T
27 Airplanetire : Do you think that if there was an airline created that did not use the hub system, but instead point to point (is that the right term?), would the 737
28 Post contains links Srbmod : Southwest is a point-to-point airline, but yet we don't see any 736s in their fleet (at least not yet). Perhaps they consided it, but decided just go
29 Leo : I am sorry to be blunt, but the B737-600 is a lousy aircraft and Boeing knows this .. very well. Anyone familiar with B737-600 Direct Operating Cost w
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...
Why No Winglets For The 737-600? posted Tue Jul 11 2006 11:35:41 by LY777
Why Do Airlines Use The Dreamliner Livery? posted Mon Mar 6 2006 15:14:04 by RichM
Why Do Airlines Operate The 333 & 772? posted Sun May 22 2005 16:19:35 by B742
Why Do Airlines Cover The Titles After An Incident? posted Wed Feb 2 2005 19:33:12 by MADtoCAE
US Airlines And The 737-600 posted Sat Oct 18 2003 00:59:44 by COEWRNJ
Airlines Flying The 737-600 posted Sat Apr 1 2000 12:20:57 by SAS 737-600
Why Do Airlines Still Use The 732 posted Tue Jul 25 2006 19:12:07 by Curious
Why Do Airlines Still Use 200 Series 737 Aircraft? posted Sun Jun 20 2004 04:00:38 by Texasflyer
What Airlines Fly The 737-500/600? posted Wed May 8 2002 03:43:51 by Planelover
Why Was The 737-600 A Dud? posted Sun Jun 18 2000 05:58:50 by ATA757