User avatar
HAWK21M
Topic Author
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

Not Many B737-600s

Sun Oct 19, 2003 11:52 pm

Why not too many B737-600s are produced compared to the 700/800/900s.
regds
HAWK
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
LMP737
Posts: 4810
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Not Many B737-600s

Mon Oct 20, 2003 12:05 am

Hello HAWK21M:

The main reason is that the -600 is much heavier than other airplanes in it's class. The empty weight of the -600 is approx 81000lbs. While the empty weight of the 717 is 68500lbs, EMB-190 59500, EMB-195 61500 and the CRJ-900 weighs in at 47000lbs. As you can see that's a lot of extra weight for an airliner to be carrying around. This also explains why there have not been many orders for the A318, it tops the scales at 86000.

Some people might say "what about commonality". Commonality is nice but you are still carrying around an extra 10000-30000lbs. That adds up into higher fuel costs over the life of an airplane. Jet Blue decided to go with Embrarer instead of ordering the A318. Why, because the A318 was just to heavy.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
BR715-A1-30
Posts: 6525
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 9:30 am

RE: Not Many B737-600s

Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:50 am

I concur with LMP737, Who would want to be lugging all of that unneeded weight around.
Puhdiddle
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Not Many B737-600s

Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:54 am

Same concept applies to the 747SP.

It's also why several shrunken concepts (e.g., 777-100X, A330-500, etc) never got off the ground.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
JBirdAV8r
Posts: 3454
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:44 am

RE: Not Many B737-600s

Mon Oct 20, 2003 7:03 am

Same concept applies to the 747SP.

I don't think that's quite correct. The 747SP is not in the same boat as the 737-600 or A318.

The 747 Special Performance really did have special performance: vastly increased range over early 747's using basically the same technology. There was never a huge demand for the type, and it filled its niche quite nicely.
I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
 
FlagshipAZ
Posts: 3192
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 12:40 am

RE: Not Many B737-600s

Mon Oct 20, 2003 9:27 am

This topic did raise a question for me. I was sure there are more 736s around than 739s. Sure enough the Boeing website says 72 736s versus 52 739s. So I suppose both of these subtypes will play 'second-fiddle' to the 73G/738 models. Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
 
AirT85
Posts: 1241
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 1999 12:36 am

RE: Not Many B737-600s

Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:23 am

Doesn't the 739's lack of sales have something to do with its door/capacity configuration? Due to the need for another exit it seats not much more than an -800 does and therefore hasn't tapped into the charter carriers and such like other 737NG models have? Anyone else have more thorough info on that?

Tony
Why would God make us all so different, if He wanted us to be the same?
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Topic Author
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Not Many B737-600s

Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:42 pm

If the B736s are not profitable under the circumstances why produce them.
Whats the rate of production of B736s vs B739s.
regds
HAWK
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
LMP737
Posts: 4810
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Not Many B737-600s

Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:33 pm

HAWK21M:

My guess is so that Boeing can offer a family of aircraft covering a wide range of needs. I have a feeling that if Boeing were to cease production on the -600 they might lose some orders. Or at the very least Airbus PR department would have a field day.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
N243NW
Posts: 1597
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:29 am

RE: Not Many B737-600s

Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:17 am

Doesn't the 739's lack of sales have something to do with its door/capacity configuration? Due to the need for another exit it seats not much more than an -800 does and therefore hasn't tapped into the charter carriers and such like other 737NG models have? Anyone else have more thorough info on that?

True, but not the whole truth. (Stats from http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/technical.html:

Model-----------#pax in standard 2-class config---------#pax in standard 1-class config
737-800------------------------------162---------------------------------------------------189
737-900------------------------------177---------------------------------------------------189

The maximum seating capacity of the 739 is the same as the maximum seating capacity of the 738 (they both seat 189 in one class with minimum seat pitch), due to the number of emergency exits required.

However, suppose ABC Airlines decides to buy both the 738 and 739 and equip them both in the standard two-class configuration. In this case, because the emergency exits can still evacuate 189 people safely, the 739 will seat more pax than the 738.

Why, however, would ABC Airlines (or any airline for that matter) choose the 739 in addition to/instead of the 738? Not only can the -900 seat more in a standard two-class configuration, it also has more space underneath for cargo/baggage. Sorry if any/all of this is confusing to anyone; I did my best to word it as well as I could.

About the production numbers, Boeing would never cancel the 736 or 739 production lines as long as the other 73Gs are being made, because all the same Next-Generation models are assembled at the same production facility, in the same basic way, the only significant difference being the length of the fuselage. As long as they are taking orders (and even if they are not), it seems silly to end production of the 736s or the 739s as it would not lose any money for Boeing. And who knows - with the seemingly imminent 757 production end, the 739 may have more demand.

Hope all this information helps! Feel free to correct or reword anything I've said. Cheers!

-N243NW Big grin
B-52s don't take off. They scare the ground away.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Not Many B737-600s

Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:24 am

What is the empty weight of the 737-500, is it not the smallest in the fleet, or was it replaced?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
POSITIVE RATE
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 11:31 am

RE: Not Many B737-600s

Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:33 pm

The 737-500/-600 are the oddballs in Boeings 737 fleet. Hardly anyone operates them and you never see them. And how does the 737-500 compare in size to the 737-300 and the 737-700??? I think the -700 is slightly longer than the -300, but where does the -500 fit in??
 
justplanesmart
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 3:25 pm

RE: Not Many B737-600s

Wed Oct 22, 2003 5:21 pm

The 737-500 and 737-600 are both virtually the same size (fuselage-wise) as the 737-200, and are therefore designed to carry about the same passenger load. The 737-300 and 737-700 are nearly the same fuselage length.
"So many planes; so little time..."
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6419
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Not Many B737-600s

Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:40 am

It is correct that "max seating" is 189 on both the 738 and 739 - limited by exits.

But those values really have no meaning.

Have you ever flown on a 738 with 189 seats? I haven't, but I have flown on a charter configured 738 with 184 seats - for a 45 minutes jump. And every minute was plain horror. I am 6'2", that's maybe one or two inches more than avarage, but nothing unusual.

189 pax on a 739 is also way above any reasonable treatment of customers. But it can of course take a few more seat rows than the 738 with equal seat pitch.

Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests