DeltaRules
Topic Author
Posts: 3658
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 11:57 am

Why Wasn't The 737-400 Big In The U.S.?

Sun Nov 11, 2001 8:39 am

I was wondering why airlines who bought the 737-300 didn't go with the 737-400 as well. USAirways and Alaska (and Carnival when it existed) are the only U.S. airlines to have it that I know of.

United, Continental, and Southwest have the -300 and the -500, but why didn't they take the -400, too??
Just wondering...

DeltaRules
A310/319/320/321/333, ARJ, BN2, B722/73S/733/734/735/73G/738/739/744/757/753/767/763/764/777, CR1/2/7/9, DH6, 328, EM2/ERJ/E70/E75/E90, F28/100, J31, L10/12/15, DC9/D93/D94/D95/M80/M88/M90/D10, SF3, SST
 
mls515
Posts: 2954
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2000 5:56 am

RE: Why Wasn't The 737-400 Big In The U.S.?

Sun Nov 11, 2001 8:46 am

I think the reason SWA didn't go with it was because they would have needed an extra flight attendant.
 
exusair
Posts: 658
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 12:15 am

RE: Why Wasn't The 737-400 Big In The U.S.?

Sun Nov 11, 2001 8:53 am

Poor performance and range when fully loaded.
 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The 737-400 Big In The U.S.?

Sun Nov 11, 2001 9:21 am

The 737-400 was origianly created as a 727 replacement. At the time, United Airlines didnt need the 727 replacement. When it came time to begin retiring the 727, Airbus made United an awsome pitch to get them to go with the A320. The A320 offered more cargo capacity, as well as more range with lower seat per mile costs. United had a choice between the 734 and the A320. The A320 could fly transcons with out additional tanks and the 734 could not. The A320 won, as it was more capable.

When Boeing realized that the A320 family is hurting the sales of 737 classics such as the -400...they began developing the 737NG product. The 737-800 became a good 727 replacement, and it also competes much better with the A320 than the 734 does.

I L U V 7 6 7
 
Guest

RE: Why Wasn't The 737-400 Big In The U.S.?

Sun Nov 11, 2001 10:57 am

I have to agree on the concept that most U.S. majors were not ready to replace B727s at the time the B734 came out. BTW, ProAir, PanAmII were also B734 operators.

-Tom
 
gkirk
Posts: 23345
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Why Wasn't The 737-400 Big In The U.S.?

Sun Nov 11, 2001 6:52 pm

I think thee 737-400 came out around the same time as the 320?? At the time I believe the 320-200 offered 7% cheaper operational costs than the 734, but now the 738 offers about 6% cheaper operational costs than the 320. Thats how the 738 is an extremly successful a/c.
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: Why Wasn't The 737-400 Big In The U.S.?

Sun Nov 11, 2001 11:29 pm

The 738 offers about 6% cheaper operating costs than the A320?That cant be true otherwise why would airlines such as BA ,who have been very loyal Boeing customers,order the A32X over the 737NG even when they have a big fleet of 734's?
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Why Wasn't The 737-400 Big In The U.S.?

Sun Nov 11, 2001 11:33 pm

The 738 DOES offer 8% cheaper operating costs than the A320. The BA/Airbus deal has been discussed much, and was probably due to political pressure, as well as a huge discount on price by Airbus.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
gkirk
Posts: 23345
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Why Wasn't The 737-400 Big In The U.S.?

Sun Nov 11, 2001 11:39 pm

Why do you think Excel Airways operates the 738 instead of the charter popular A320??
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
Flying-Tiger
Posts: 3923
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 1999 5:35 am

RE: Why Wasn't The 737-400 Big In The U.S.?

Sun Nov 11, 2001 11:41 pm

The figures I have show a difference of only 4%. But this is sorted out by the airline´s own mode of operation, not by Boeing or Airbus.
Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: Why Wasn't The 737-400 Big In The U.S.?

Sun Nov 11, 2001 11:41 pm

Range?The 737NG has greater range than the 32X series.
 
Tango-Bravo
Posts: 2887
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 1:04 am

RE: Why Wasn't The 737-400 Big In The U.S.?

Mon Nov 12, 2001 9:45 am

Concerning the 727/150-seater replacement idea, keep in mind that AA, DL, CO and TW were committed to substantial fleets of MD-80s having the same seating capacity as the 737-400. USAir had sizeable fleets of MD-80s and 737-400s, inherited from PSA and Piedmont, respectively. UA, NW and HP opted for the A320 to meet their 150-pax aircraft requirement of the late '80s-early '90s, while WN chose (apparently for economic reasons) to operate aircraft no larger than the 733/73G.

All of which means that the 737-400 would have been a redundant type for the U.S. majors, with the exception of USAir. Alaska's decision to become a 737-400 operator came at the expense of the MD-90 program. The reason most frequently heard for Alsaka's decision to cancel its MD-90 order in favor of 737-400s is the latter's vastly superior belly cargo capacity, a significant advantage for services to and within the state of Alaska.
 
Guest

RE: Why Wasn't The 737-400 Big In The U.S.?

Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:04 am

Not that it matters much anymore, but Pro Air flew 737-400's and did well with it's capabilities out of a very short runway in Detroit. Full flights to Florida would present some performance problems, but over all I would not say the -400 was a performance problem. Then again, they didn't have many full flights anyway.
 
hkgspotter1
Posts: 5750
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:43 pm

RE: Why Wasn't The 737-400 Big In The U.S.?

Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:09 am

Because of the great A320 ?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, alski, AsiaTravel, b377, fun2fly, georgiabill, hkcanadaexpat, juanchito, MEA-707, milemaster, MSN [Bot], SANFan, seat1a and 292 guests