Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The 737-900, NOW More Attractive To Airlines?  
User currently offlineJohn From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1374 posts, RR: 5
Posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 3286 times:

Since Boeing decided to modify it with additional exit doors, offering MORE seating capacity, for up to 205 pax. I really never understood the reason for the 737-900 as initially designed, anyway. It has slightly LESS range than the -800, and aside from additional cargo capacity below, it could only carry a maximum of 189 passengers, same as the -800. So why would a potential airline customer opt for the -900, as Alaska did, for example? I wonder if current 739 operators will retrofit their fleets with the added exits? Continental and KLM operate both the -800 and -900, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Maybe someone here, can shed some light on the subject.

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 3263 times:

John,

You can only get 189 pax in a -800 with all Y at 31". Airlines like AS and CO chose the -900 so they could have 189 pax in two class layouts, and for most of their runs, they don't need the full range of the -900 (i.e., IAH is less than 2000 miles from most anywhere in the United States).

Steve


User currently offlineJohn From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1374 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 3242 times:

I believe CO's version carries 172 total, if I'm not mistaken.

User currently offlineLowfareair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 3191 times:

>>You can only get 189 pax in a -800 with all Y at 31". Airlines like AS and CO chose the -900 so they could have 189 pax in two class layouts, and for most of their runs, they don't need the full range of the -900 (i.e., IAH is less than 2000 miles from most anywhere in the United States).<<

Correction: 189 at 29" in a -800.


User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 3108 times:

The 739's have done great for CO on short/medium, high capacity routes from IAH such as MCO, MSY, SAT, AUS, DEN, LAS, etc.

User currently offline737-990 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 3063 times:

Very few airlines operate the 737-800 at its maximum seating capacity of 189. Continental has their -800s at 156 seats and American has it with 138 total! Most airlines that have the -900 have both first and coach seating so even they wont use the full 189 seat capacity of the -900. Alaska's are configured to carry 172 total pax (F16/Y156). I would think only charter companies would operate the -900 with the extra exit doors and configure it with 205 seats.


Happiest is a man who has his vocation as a hobby
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 6, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 3054 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

All I know is that the 739 is killing off the 757  Sad

User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3875 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2997 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

I don't think the 737-900 is killing of the 757 because the 757 has ETOPS certification that the 737-900 doesn't have. I think that the BBJ is the only 737 variant that ever had ETOPS certification. Both have a capacity of over 200 pax in one class config, that's true. The 737-900 is meant to be a short to medium haul aircraft like Cba says, while the 757 is meant to be a medium to long haul aircraft. I don't think a 737-900 could fly nonstop from coast to coast, maybe it could with maximum fuel and no passengers but not with a pax load factor of over 70% (I know the 800 can, American and Continental do it with the 800), a 757 can do the job of hauling passengers nonstop from coast to coast.
A few major airlines and charter operators have operated the 757 transatlantic, Continental, Canada3000,...the 757 doesn't have the range that the 767 ER variants have but it does carry passengers across the pond which a passenger 737 doesn't do nonstop, not even NG variants.

Ben Soriano
Brussels Belgium



Ben Soriano
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 8, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2978 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Air Pacific and Aloha both have ETOPS 737's, flying from Canada and the West Coast of the U.S. to Hawaii and Fiji.

User currently offline777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2914 times:

Ben-

The 737-800 is capable of reaching most points of the British Isles nonstop from EWR with a full load, and the 737-700 can reach the western half of continental Europe at or near full capacity. In 2000/2001, when we toyed with the idea of pursuing a summer-seasonal EWR-KEF nonstop, we identified both the 737-800 and 757-200 as potential candidates for the service.

Several of our 737-700s and -800s (IIRC, I don't fly them anymore) are ETOPS-certified for overwater ops. In the Micronesia division, where many flights qualify for ETOPS restrictions, we mostly operate -800s with the necessary inspections and modifications for ETOPS certification.


User currently offlineIahcsr From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3452 posts, RR: 42
Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2903 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

For the record, CO's 739s are configured 18/149 = 167. The 738's come in 14/141 and 18/132 configurations .. (the 4th lav in the 18 newest planes accounts for the difference)


Working very hard to Fly Right....
User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2883 times:

The new 205 seating for the 739 is significant in Boeings competition with airbus. It strengthens its hold on the low fare market in that all the 737 operators Ryanair / easyjet / probably even Southwest can raise loads to 205 without any relevent fleet change or training.

Don't see Continental getting all that excited about it, but the low fares should love it.... 'Packed like lemmings into shiny metal boxes'

Jeremy


User currently offline737-990 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2846 times:

Its highly unlikely any airline will ever operate the 737-900 with 205 seats. For the 5 extra seats over 200 you would have to have a fifth flight attendant, versus four if it was configured with 199 seats.

For the record Alaska's 737-900 operated this summer SEA-BOS with full passenger loads.



Happiest is a man who has his vocation as a hobby
User currently offlineMeechy36 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 312 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2818 times:

Don't look for Southwest to fly anything larger than what they have now, at least for the foreseeable future. Anything that is "certified" over 150 seats will require 4 flight attendants, that would create havoc with their crew scheduling model and raise their costs.

Mike-BOS


User currently offlineDiz From New Zealand, joined May 2001, 44 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2740 times:

Is there a media release for the "new" 737-900? Can you point me to it?  Smile

D


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 15, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2737 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

like this?

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2001/q2/news_release_010417a.html


User currently offlineDiz From New Zealand, joined May 2001, 44 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2655 times:

Sorry - I was meaning these new/additional doors? Or am I just totally getting the wrong end of the stick? :P

To me John is saying there is a design revision that changes the all Y to 205pax?

D


User currently offlineCdfmxtech From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1341 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2638 times:

American 767

I don't think the 737-900 is killing of the 757 because the 757 has ETOPS certification that the 737-900 doesn't have.

You sure about that!?


User currently offlineCdfmxtech From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1341 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2634 times:

There is a difference betwwen not being certified for ETOPS and not being flown ETOPS.

User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 44
Reply 19, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2603 times:

739 is flown CLE-LAS at least once a day... That's the replacement for the previously used 757-200.  Sad Just one less 757 at CLE each day...

redngold



Up, up and away!
User currently offlineHlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2575 times:

How is the 739 killing the 757? There aren't that many 739s out there flying around like there are 757s. I bet there are still more 757s on the order books than 739s

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2562 times:

In theory, WN could get the 737-900 since with roomier Economy seating WN uses the 739 could probably seat about 175-180 passegers, which could make the need for the extra cabin crew member worthwhile. They could use such a plane for their busier routes, especially in and out of MDW and MCO.

However, I doubt WN will get the 739 because of one important issue: the need to turn the plane around in around 20 minutes. WN will have to relax that rule and increase the turnaround time for the 739 to 25-27 minutes because of the many more extra seats over the 737-700.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16307 posts, RR: 56
Reply 22, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2453 times:

I just read an interview in Aviation Week in which a Sr WN Exec discounted interest in the 738, as being too much of a capacity jump over the 73G....hence the 739 would seem even more unlikely for WN.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineNdebele From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 2901 posts, RR: 23
Reply 23, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2428 times:

How long will it take until the first 737-900 with additional exits will be flying? Will Boeing wait until they get orders before building a prototype for certification?

User currently offlineCrosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2600 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (12 years 1 month 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2265 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

737-990
-----
Its highly unlikely any airline will ever operate the 737-900 with 205 seats. For the 5 extra seats over 200 you would have to have a fifth flight attendant, versus four if it was configured with 199 seats.
-----


While that's true for most US and low-fare airlines, charter carriers which the B737-900X is aimed at normally carry more than the minimum crews in order to allow them to provide full inflight service.

Most UK charter airlines operate the 180 seat A320 with 5 cabin crew against the minimum of 4, and operate the 218/220 seat A321 with 6 or 7 cabin crew agains the 5 required.

Regards
CROSSWIND


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...
Is Alaska Airlines Disappointed With The 737-900? posted Mon Jun 21 2004 17:49:30 by John
What Happens After The 737-900? posted Sat Oct 2 2004 23:54:07 by Jetpixx
What Is The Point Of The 737-900 posted Sun Dec 1 2002 16:57:04 by BR715-A1-30
Will A 737-900 With More Exits Be Offered Or Not? posted Mon Sep 30 2002 10:37:50 by Godbless
Boeing Could Have Saved The 737-900. posted Wed Jan 2 2002 06:26:43 by ValujetMD-81
Do The Laws Of Grammar Not Apply To Airlines? posted Mon Dec 31 2001 02:49:32 by 777236ER
KLM Have All 4 737-900's Now posted Thu Nov 1 2001 19:24:17 by Donder10
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
What´s The Point In The 737-900? posted Thu Feb 15 2001 12:35:12 by Airsicknessbag