Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Weight Restrictions For B737-900ER/ 9 MAX  
User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1000 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5838 times:

Icelandair ordered the B737-9 MAX for flights to North America. Obviously, for such a long flight Icelandair will want to take-off at MTOW, need a range of about 2500 nm. and in summer there will be hot days (90 degree weather). Furthermore, some of the airports they operate to (such as BOS) have a 10,000 ft runway. Plus, since KEF is in the middle of the Atlantic ocean the aircraft will need to have abnormally large reserves for an alternative.

My question is the following. For a B737-9 MAX: How serious will the weight restrictions be for a flight taking off on a hot day from BOS (at sea level), flying about 2500 nm. (with abnormally large reserves given GLA alternative) and from a 10,000 ft runway.

How would the A321 NEO perform? Would the B737-8 MAX be better?

Obviously, not all the information is available. However, the B737-900ER should suffice as an alternative.

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2390 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5796 times:

Firstly, BOS-KEF is 2097 nm. Max range of the B739ER is 3265nm with winglets and 2 aux tanks. The B737-9 MAX has even better range, 3595nm. So the 10,000ft runway should be plenty.

BTW, a MTOW B739ER in ISA conditions (15 C, no wind, etc) at sea level, needs roughly 3000m (9,843 ft) of runway. The B737-9 MAX will require a shorter runway, methinks, what with better engines, and ligher weights.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2013-10-17 14:16:56]


us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5774 times:

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 1):
Firstly, BOS-KEF is 2097 nm, factor in the tailwind, and the plane is nowhere near MTOW. Max range of the B739ER is 3265nm with winglets and 2 aux tanks, which I'm sure Icelandair will get. So a BOS-KEF flight is nowhere near MTOW. So the 10,000ft runway should be plenty.

Boston is one of the closest destinations. Let's take Washington, for example. IAD is over 2500 nm away. Plus, they need to be able to fly to Glasgow, which is the alternative for KEF. I would think that they probably need to be fuelled up for 3,000 nm. There are often tailwinds but there may be days where they don't benefit from it.

The max range may be 3265 nm but I'm asking about take-off performance. I realize IAD has an 11,500 ft runway but there may be other destinations that they want to add.


User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2390 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5755 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 2):
Let's take Washington, for example. IAD

I dont see Icelandair putting the 737 MAX 9 on IAD-KEF, or any other route that is longer.

It will stick to YHZ, YYZ, JFK, EWR and BOS.

The 757 is and will remain the workhorse of Icelandair for some time to come. If they do put he 737 MAX 9 on long routes and they need to file an IFR alternate like GLA or wherever 700 nm away, expect a fuel stop in YHZ. That's all.

Even UA, DL and AA 757s across the pond westbound during the winter encounter fuel stops on occassion. S**t happens.

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 2):
but I'm asking about take-off performance

As i said, takeoff performance is not an issue with any airport that Icelandair serves with at least a 10,000ft runway, which in North America is all of them except YHZ. (and YHZ is only 1785nm from KEF, so it doesn't need a 10,000ft runway)

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2013-10-17 14:31:36]


us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5748 times:

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 3):
I dont see Icelandair putting the 737 MAX 9 on IAD-KEF, or any other route that is longer.

Actually, they plan to put the B737-9 on all routes apart from SEA, DEN and so forth. I mean they ordered 8 of them. So east coast destinations will be served with these planes, theoretically. I think they've miscalculated.


User currently offlineroseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9511 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5703 times:

There are 4-5 other airports in Iceland with 5,000+ft runways in Iceland, so I’m not sure Glasgow needs to be an alternate for Keflavik.

Also, temperatures from the US aren’t as important because the winds only help on US-Iceland. Iceland is often north of the main jetstream, but it can help shorten flight time. US-KEF is usually shorter than KEF-US. Temperatures in KEF are never above 70F, so that helps.

BOS-KEF is no worse than BOS-LAX. IAD & MSP will be bigger challenges.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24917 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5684 times:

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 3):
As i said, takeoff performance is not an issue with any airport that Icelandair serves with at least a 10,000ft runway, which in North America is all of them except YHZ. (and YHZ is only 1785nm from KEF, so it doesn't need a 10,000ft runway)

Longest runway at YHZ is 10,500 feet. Extension of runway 05/23 from 8,800 to 10,000 opened for use almost a year ago, November 15, 2012.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...-runway-for-bigger-jets-1.1330018.

Press release on the official opening in January.
http://hiaa.ca/2013/01/extended-runw...-ushers-in-new-era-in-air-service/


User currently offlinethenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2390 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5633 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 6):
Longest runway at YHZ is 10,500 feet. Extension of runway 05/23 from 8,800 to 10,000 opened for use almost a year ago, November 15, 2012.

I'll be darned ! You learn something new everyday !

Thenoflyzone



us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24917 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5603 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 6):
Longest runway at YHZ is 10,500 feet. Extension of runway 05/23 from 8,800 to 10,000 opened for use almost a year ago, November 15, 2012.

Too late to edit. Should read ...from 8.800 to 10,500...


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17003 posts, RR: 67
Reply 9, posted (9 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5531 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
Plus, since KEF is in the middle of the Atlantic ocean the aircraft will need to have abnormally large reserves for an alternative.
Quoting eaa3 (Reply 2):
Plus, they need to be able to fly to Glasgow, which is the alternative for KEF.

Rules like decision Point Procedure and Isolated Airport (AKA Island reserve) may apply. These cut the needed fuel significantly compared to standard "overland" rules.

If KEF is seen as an isolated airport, you wouldn't need an alternate. From memory you would need two hours of reserve fuel at cruise speeds, but not alternate fuel or final reserve.

Besides:

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 5):

There are 4-5 other airports in Iceland with 5,000+ft runways in Iceland, so I’m not sure Glasgow needs to be an alternate for Keflavik.
Quoting eaa3 (Reply 4):
I think they've miscalculated.

And I think that between Icelandair and Boeing they can probably find a few guys who know what they are doing.

[Edited 2013-10-17 23:14:02]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5328 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 9):
And I think that between Icelandair and Boeing they can probably find a few guys who know what they are doing.

Boeing has probably promised things regarding the B737-900 performance that didn't pan out as expected.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17003 posts, RR: 67
Reply 11, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5271 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 10):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 9):
And I think that between Icelandair and Boeing they can probably find a few guys who know what they are doing.

Boeing has probably promised things regarding the B737-900 performance that didn't pan out as expected.

Granted, manufacturers have from time to time overpromised, but even in the MD-11 case we're talking a few percent fuel burn. What you're talking about are very gross miscalculations.

I would be astounded if Boeing had gotten it so wrong.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1813 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5220 times:

The 739 will take a payload hit on the longer routes, this is the sad part of it being a 757R in Boeings mind. It also is very limited on hot and high take offs.. The 757 still rules the 3000nm+ routes despite being very old.

User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3575 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5118 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 10):
Boeing has probably promised things regarding the B737-900 performance that didn't pan out as expected.

Curious. What things do you think they probably promised?


User currently onlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1308 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5007 times:

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 1):
The B737-9 MAX will require a shorter runway, methinks, what with better engines, and ligher weights.

Not quite correct. The MAX will both be heavier, empty, and have significantly higher maximum design weights than the NG, e.g. MTOW 194.7 vs 187.7 for a MAX9 vs a 900ER. Lift and thrust will, however, remain more or less where they are today. Actually, looks like thrust may be going slightly down (28.0 for a Leap-1B vs 28.4 for a CFM56-7)

Since the -900ER is already a dog when it comes to even slightly challenging conditions, we should expect the -9MAX to be as bad, if not actually worse; the raised nose gear doesn't exactly do wonders for tail clearance on rotation, neither does increased weights without bumping up the thrust.

But all that should not make any material difference to Icelandair; they've also put in an order for 787s for routes the MAX can't cover, either for demand or performance reasons.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineroseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9511 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4891 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 14):
Since the -900ER is already a dog when it comes to even slightly challenging conditions, we should expect the -9MAX to be as bad, if not actually worse; the raised nose gear doesn't exactly do wonders for tail clearance on rotation, neither does increased weights without bumping up the thrust.

The 900 series certainly is not the right plane for short runways, but a taller nose gear does not influence takeoff performance. Takeoff is about angle of attack, not degrees of rotation, so the ground profile won't make a difference on takeoff. Where it will be a factor is on landing. A higher angle of attack when the nose is on the ground results in lower weight on wheels and less braking effectiveness, but that should be relatively minimal.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently onlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1308 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4798 times:

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 15):
Takeoff is about angle of attack, not degrees of rotation, so the ground profile won't make a difference on takeoff.

Yes, and no. What the raised gear will mean, is that the pilots will have fewer degrees of rotation available to them. Which means you have to be very, very careful not to over-rotate into a tail-strike. To reduce the chance of that happening, the manual will call for V-speeds a couple of knots higher than they, in lack of a better expresson, 'ought to be', which will have a negative impact on runway performance.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineroseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9511 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4703 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 16):
Yes, and no. What the raised gear will mean, is that the pilots will have fewer degrees of rotation available to them. Which means you have to be very, very careful not to over-rotate into a tail-strike. To reduce the chance of that happening, the manual will call for V-speeds a couple of knots higher than they, in lack of a better expresson, 'ought to be', which will have a negative impact on runway performance.

I am not sure how the 737-9 will be any different than the 737-900ER. Tail clearance is tight, but I don't think there is any evidence that it is unreasonable. Yes it will take a lot of runway, but the 737-900 series should not have too much trouble operating most of icelandairs routes,

[Edited 2013-10-20 20:04:47]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinedoug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3402 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4680 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 16):
Yes, and no. What the raised gear will mean, is that the pilots will have fewer degrees of rotation available to them.

Did they change the angle of incidence?



When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offlineplanewasted From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4595 times:

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 15):
Takeoff is about angle of attack, not degrees of rotation

Won't the drag on the take off roll be higher because of this? That will give slower acceleration and therefore longer runway length requirement. Or maybe it's negligible?


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (9 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4539 times:

If the thrust of the engines are given by Boeing they should be BET (Boeing Equivalent Thrust) which is defined as the thrust at M 0.25 (which is 163kts at SL on an ISA day) times 1.255. This means a higher bypass engine will have more thrust as the start of the roll and equal at 163kts (which is past V2 for the MAX) for an equal BET.

The MAX has higher weights and therefore more mass to accelerate. Once rotated the dominant drag is induced drag, there the Y winglets help but can not compensate fully for the higher MTOW. I get the following drag values -900ER parasitic 3klbf, induced 14klbf and -9MAX 3klbf parasitic and 15klbf induced. I have deliberately skipped the fractions as the real numbers from my model are close to these numbers and my assumptions around start slats and flaps drag is not of the quality of the rest of the model.



Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4446 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 16):
What the raised gear will mean, is that the pilots will have fewer degrees of rotation available to them.

It means the pilots will have to rotate less to get the wheels of the ground. Pilots are flying the aircraft based on it's reactions, if a new model requires you to rotate less from a certain nose position to get to your usual references vs. the horizon / the rotate angle on the PFD you learn that immediately. That does not change because your nosegear is longer.


Quoting planewasted (Reply 19):
Won't the drag on the take off roll be higher because of this? That will give slower acceleration and therefore longer runway length requirement. Or maybe it's negligible?

Take a look at the latest 737 MAX airport compatibility brochure:

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/airports/plan_manuals.page

The airplane seems to sit perfectly level on the ground. If one looks at the difference in height of the entrance door of the -900ER and the MAX we are talking about 0.2m which on 16m length from the MLG means less then a degree angle diff. Should be negligible



Non French in France
User currently onlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1308 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4415 times:

Ferpe,

As always, you submit valuable information of high technical standards, thank you very much for that.

I trust you are also a pilot, or at least knowledgable enough to appreciate some of the challenges pilots face, and thus able to appreciate the issue of having a reduce arc through which you can rotate the aircraft, without suffering a tail-strike. The -900NG is already very susceptible to this condition, and reducing the available arc by even one degree will, I am fairly certain, lead to the manufacturer dictating slightly higher Vr speeds for any given weight on the -9MAX compared to the -900NG. I'm not saying pilots won't get used to it, nor that they will hammer the tail into the ground on a regular basis, but part of the reason for that will be the increased Vr speeds.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (9 months 2 weeks ago) and read 4355 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 22):
I trust you are also a pilot,

Yes, military and civilian.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 22):
I trust you are also a pilot, or at least knowledgable enough to appreciate some of the challenges pilots face, and thus able to appreciate the issue of having a reduce arc through which you can rotate the aircraft, without suffering a tail-strike. The -900NG is already very susceptible to this condition, and reducing the available arc by even one degree will, I am fairly certain, lead to the manufacturer dictating slightly higher Vr speeds for any given weight on the -9MAX compared to the -900NG.

I don't see the logic in this, the V speeds are based on the aerodynamic performance of the airframe, not the pitch margin to tail-strike. The margin between the tail of the aircraft and ground at lift-off will be essentially the same. The tailstrike risk is a function of your rotation speed (the risk of an overswing before the wings lift of the aircraft), you will have to do the rotation a bit less abrupt and more exact to be sure to stop at your predetermined picth angle.

In one ot the fighters I flew we had to aerodynamically brake the aircraft after landing at max pitch with the tail at about 0.2-0.4 m above the runway. Now that is not so diffucult but then you should also pump brake at the same time in order to get the thing stopped before you had no more runway (no continuous braking, it would have killed the brakes and you would have landed in the emergency catch fence at end of runway, no hard pumping and balancing the tail clearance with the stick), after that it was nose down and continued pump braking. It was difficult but one learned how to do it using eyemarks and practice. It is the same for the 737-9 pilots, they learn it. There are more difficult things in flying then doing a sensible rotate.



Non French in France
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17003 posts, RR: 67
Reply 24, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4338 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 23):
In one ot the fighters I flew we had to aerodynamically brake the aircraft after landing at max pitch with the tail at about 0.2-0.4 m above the runway. Now that is not so diffucult but then you should also pump brake at the same time in order to get the thing stopped before you had no more runway (no continuous braking, it would have killed the brakes and you would have landed in the emergency catch fence at end of runway, no hard pumping and balancing the tail clearance with the stick), after that it was nose down and continued pump braking. It was difficult but one learned how to do it using eyemarks and practice. It is the same for the 737-9 pilots, they learn it. There are more difficult things in flying then doing a sensible rotate.

        

It continually surprises me on a.net how many people are extremely worried about tailstrikes and similar things. Yes, they happen, but not very often. As you say, pilots train for the quirks of their airplane until they become background noise. The certification requirements do specify that "unusual skill" should not be required (ok not military...). This is true from the very first light aircraft flown. At a certain point landing the Q400 without hitting the bumbum on the ground isn't a worry anymore, just another constraint.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently onlinebarney captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 930 posts, RR: 13
Reply 25, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4535 times:

Interesting discussion. All I can add is that at similar weights, the -800 has much higher speeds for both take-off and landing as compared to the -700. It has been explained to me that this is strictly because Boeing wanted increased tail-strike protection - i.e.

Higher speed at rotation = less pitch required to get the mains (and tail) off of the ground.

Higher speed on approach = flatter pitch in the flare.



...from the Banana Republic....
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 26, posted (9 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4560 times:

Quoting barney captain (Reply 25):
Interesting discussion. All I can add is that at similar weights, the -800 has much higher speeds for both take-off and landing as compared to the -700. It has been explained to me that this is strictly because Boeing wanted increased tail-strike protection - i.e.

Higher speed at rotation = less pitch required to get the mains (and tail) off of the ground.

Higher speed on approach = flatter pitch in the flare.

That I buy, it makes sense. But the -900ER and the -9 is geometrically the same except one is sitting 0.6° more nose up because the nose landing gear is longer to get the same ground clearance for wider nacelles. I don't think this 0.6° diff from where one starts the rotation has any influence on weather I over-rotate or not. The added MTOW of the -9 will require higher Vr and V2 dependent on how much the Leap and Y wingtips can compensate this weight increase. I doubt that Boeing will require the -9 pilot to rotate to a higher pitch on the PFD however unless they introduce an improved over-rotate protection. Thus I would expect the tail strike risk to be the same for -9 .



Non French in France
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6389 posts, RR: 54
Reply 27, posted (9 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4378 times:

Nothing to worry about. From the Icelandair site:

Icelandair’s current fleet of Boeing 757-200 aircraft configured to hold 183 passengers will remain in operation and together with the additional 737 MAX will give Icelandair new options for added frequency and destinations.

Furthermore: Icelanair ordered 7 B737-9MAX and 9 B737-8MAX. Those 9-MAX are just perfect for all those 1000 to 1500nm European destinations. The 737-8Max can take on slightly longer sectors.

All those 737MAX will be delivered between 2018 and 2021. When delivery has taken momemtum in 2019-20 it is fair to assume that some older 757s will be retired. But it is also fair to assume that the newer 757s will soldier on beyond 2025.

With a mix of 737-8 and -9MAX and 757-200 they will of course put in the planes where they fit best. That means that the -9MAX will mainly serve CPH and LHR which are 1100 nm-ish.

What will happen next? Even the newest 757s won't last forever, but the people who will one day decide on their replacement have probably not graduated from highschool yet.

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
Plus, since KEF is in the middle of the Atlantic ocean the aircraft will need to have abnormally large reserves for an alternative.

No. Aternatives are Akureyri (7,900 ft runway) and Egilsstadir (6500 ft runway). Plenty of asphalt for landing and repositioning any 737 or 757 within 200 nm from KEF.

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
Icelandair ordered the B737-9 MAX for flights to North America.

No, they didn't. They ordered a small subfleet of -9MAX for flights where the better runway and range performace of the -8MAX or 757-200 isn't needed.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (9 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4063 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 27):
Furthermore: Icelanair ordered 7 B737-9MAX and 9 B737-8MAX. Those 9-MAX are just perfect for all those 1000 to 1500nm European destinations. The 737-8Max can take on slightly longer sectors.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't make sense. The reason is that Icelandair's hub and spoke system is based upon a 24 hour cycle in which an aircraft will do one round trip to Europe and one to North America. Obviously the entire fleet won't operate a North America flight daily as they have 21 aircraft and probably an average of 10 flights to North America a day in summer. Some aircraft operate 2 flights a day to Europe. However, aircraft that don't operate a North America flight have about 12-14 hours of usage a day as opposed to 16-19 hours for an aircraft that does. This means that the entire subfleet of B737-9 MAX will have way lower usage than the rest of the fleet. I don't think they would deem this reasonable. Especially because when they chose the MAX they chose it over the NEO and the A321 NEO can almost certainly operate from Iceland to North America. They would never have chosen the MAX if they did not believe it could operate to North America, as the fleet usage collapses with Europe only flights.

I do agree though that these aircraft will be great for flights to Europe.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 27):
No. Aternatives are Akureyri (7,900 ft runway) and Egilsstadir (6500 ft runway). Plenty of asphalt for landing and repositioning any 737 or 757 within 200 nm from KEF.

Technically, yes. But those airports are very small and I'm not sure they could handle 10-20 jets that all needed to land within an hours time frame. I'm not sure they have the parking needed.


User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6389 posts, RR: 54
Reply 29, posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3875 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 28):
I'm pretty sure that doesn't make sense. The reason is that Icelandair's hub and spoke system is based upon a 24 hour cycle in which an aircraft will do one round trip to Europe and one to North America. Obviously the entire fleet won't operate a North America flight daily as they have 21 aircraft and probably an average of 10 flights to North America a day in summer. Some aircraft operate 2 flights a day to Europe. However, aircraft that don't operate a North America flight have about 12-14 hours of usage a day as opposed to 16-19 hours for an aircraft that does. This means that the entire subfleet of B737-9 MAX will have way lower usage than the rest of the fleet.

Icelandair scheduling is a lot more complicated than that, and it is very seasonal. In summer one plane makes not two, but three roundtrips a day to the relatively near northern European destinations such as LHR, CPH, GLA, BLL and OSL. On longer routes to southern European (holiday) destinations they make two roundtrips. Or, as you indicate, they may combine a short European and a long American roundtrip.

And in winter (except Christmas etc.) they have just way too many planes.

So if we think about year 2021, when all 16 B737MAX planes have been delivered, and they have some 25+ planes, 7 of which are 737-9MAX, why would they ever dream about putting those planes with the shortest range in the fleet on their longest routes where they would suffer a severe payload penalty? No way will they do that as long as 80% of their traffic is to Europe and 20% to America.

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 28):
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 27):
No. Aternatives are Akureyri (7,900 ft runway) and Egilsstadir (6500 ft runway). Plenty of asphalt for landing and repositioning any 737 or 757 within 200 nm from KEF.

Technically, yes. But those airports are very small and I'm not sure they could handle 10-20 jets that all needed to land within an hours time frame. I'm not sure they have the parking needed.

That would be a mess for sure. With rows on the taxiways. That would be something like a mini version of some Canadian airports on 9/11. But it is hard to imagine what could cause such a situation short of a crash on the middle of the KEF runways - God forbid that ever happens.

They never get surprised by a thunderstorm because thunderstorms never happen at KEF.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineNatflyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2013, 123 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (9 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3347 times:

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 1):

Advertised range from OEMs says very little for actual operations. B737 MAX 9 can take 2 AUX tanks, but they are useless in airline operations, as pound for pound they reduce the available payload. The airplane simply does not have the weight capability to use AUX tanks and profitably carry passengers (will work for a BBJ though...)

The 737 MAX 9 will be limited out of Boston in summer temperatures, and basically only one runway gives reasonable take-off performance. It may not always be available. Last time I checked, AS for example used -800 out of BOS and FLL to SEA and I was told by one of their employess the 739ER would hardly work for performance reasons.


User currently offlineonebadlt123 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2945 times:

Quoting Natflyer (Reply 30):
739ER would hardly work for performance reasons.

The 739 does not have any performance issues related to BOS specifically. We run them on BOS-SFO/LAX regularly without structural issues. In the winter they pose an issue primarily being limited by their 46K lb fuel capacity. (Headwinds)

The primary handicap on the 739ER is its fuel capacity. Sure, aux tanks are an option, but then you are sacrificing payload instead for fuel. The MTOW is actually pretty favorable for the AC type. It's also an unfavorable aircraft for high altitude airports. (approach climb limit issues)

[Edited 2013-11-07 12:20:55]

User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4385 posts, RR: 19
Reply 32, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2748 times:

Very interesting.



Reality is the 757 really is unique and nothing built or in development can replace it.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17003 posts, RR: 67
Reply 33, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2749 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 32):
Reality is the 757 really is unique and nothing built or in development can replace it.

It's a weird market quirk actually. This aircraft has very desirable characteristics, as evidenced by its strong sales and continued use, but seemingly not quite strong enough to warrant a replacement model. Or perhaps more correctly, the two big manufacturers are focusing on other things and have no resources for a 757NG right now. Opportunity for Bombardier and Embraer? Or perhaps even Tupolev, as the closest in production aircraft would seem to be the Tu-204?

Given no new frames are forthcoming, will we see a re-engined 757 like with the DC-8?

Thread hijacking complete. 



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4385 posts, RR: 19
Reply 34, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2541 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 33):

It's a weird market quirk actually. This aircraft has very desirable characteristics, as evidenced by its strong sales and continued use, but seemingly not quite strong enough to warrant a replacement model. Or perhaps more correctly, the two big manufacturers are focusing on other things and have no resources for a 757NG right now. Opportunity for Bombardier and Embraer? Or perhaps even Tupolev, as the closest in production aircraft would seem to be the Tu-204?

Given no new frames are forthcoming, will we see a re-engined 757 like with the DC-8?

Thread hijacking complete.

I wish Sblue but there's just no suitable engine anywhere close to it's thrust class. But Boeing could have addressed the issue


The 757 occupies such a unique niche and one that was never really addressed by A or B, great shame, I firmly believe if Boeing had persevered with the proposed 757NG that lull in sales would have gone away and it would have rebounded forcefully, the proposed Aircraft could have flown 5000nm with great economics, a modern day 707, the ultimate long and thin route airframe while still being very efficient on shorter routes.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Weight Restrictions For B737-900ER/ 9 MAX
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Weight Restrictions For 764 On EWR-HNL posted Tue Apr 16 2002 04:32:10 by 762er
East Coast Heatwave 7/6: DCA Weight Restrictions? posted Tue Jul 6 2010 18:35:28 by 777fan
Dash 8 Q200 Weight Restrictions? posted Fri Apr 23 2010 13:01:55 by Airport
AA MD-83 Weight Restrictions posted Thu Jun 4 2009 22:11:42 by Cross757
ERJ-145XR Weight Restrictions posted Tue Feb 24 2009 15:59:42 by JA
Twin Aisle Replacement Analysis For B737/757/767 posted Sat Aug 2 2008 22:26:34 by LAXDESI
Height Restrictions For Pilots posted Sat Jun 14 2008 12:11:51 by Longitude
AC SFO-YYZ Weight Restrictions? posted Thu May 29 2008 16:49:42 by VikingA346
Question For B737 MX People posted Mon Aug 27 2007 14:57:37 by Dougloid
B737 Series Max Fuel On Board posted Wed Nov 16 2005 18:09:22 by HAWK21M

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format