BR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3507 times:
I don't know the point of the 737-900, So I am asking it here. Why did Boeing take an existing -800. Stretch it a few feet, and call it a -900. What was the point of this? Why didn't they just make a -800ER. I mean, The -900 fits the same amount of seats as a -800. and due to the number of emergency exits, you cannot add more seats. So what's the point here?
Donder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3442 times:
The 739 carries quite a few more seats than thr 738 in a 2class configuration so that clearly is 'its point.'
YYZ717,I think Boeing realeased a statement about the additional overwing emergancy exits which should boost max 1 class capacity upto around the same as the 321.
BR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3389 times:
I think they have stretched the 737 to its limit. If they were to stretch the 737 anymore, It would strike the runway. Airbus has done it backwards because they went from A320 to A321 to A319 to A318 (Bigger to Shorter) and Boring went from Shorter to Bigger
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2793 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3343 times:
I think they have stretched the 737 to its limit...
It could be done though . . . off course the plane now needs some longer legs, in order to prevent tailstraikes at rotation. Furthermore, a larger wing would be desirable, since anymore lift out of the existing wing would not be possible. The larger wing would hold more fuel, giving it true transcon range [no payload restrictions], possibly trans atlantic. The larger wing, more fuel, and stretched fuselage give consedarble higher MTOW. Now we need some nice efficient engines [RR/PW]. Since were giving the 737-900 design a nice refurbishment, finishing touches are a new cockpit design to give some more speed... Oh wait...hell...it looks like a 757!!
Seriously, the -800 was stretched in order to give the -800 capacity some more legroom, and increase two class seating capacity. The -800/900 design is limited in capacity by the 90 second evacuation time. In order to increase capacity even further, additional [or larger] exits are required. So the limited -800 stretch to the -900 did not increase max. capacity, however it did increased average space per pax. This is why KLM purchased the -900.
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
Ybacpa From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1108 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3323 times:
Granted, capacity is defined both by regulatory restrictions and airlines' needs, but the gist of it is Boeing wanted to offer 73x carriers something with approximately 752 capacity, without them having to introduce a whole new fleet type into their system.
SkyTeam: The alliance for third rate airlines finally getting their act together!
Slawko From Canada, joined May 1999, 3803 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3193 times:
Once the extra exit mod is introduced the -900 will do what the A321 does quite well.....It will be for airlines that do not need the range of a 757 type aircraft, but would like the 200 seats on shorter routes...It's a good idea, they just should have introduced the extra doors right away, I think they would have had a lot more orders for it then...
"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada