With only 8 replies before yours, you really should have read them all. The question was already answered with supportable facts. In your reply you made six declarative statements. Five of the six are wrong, the one that is correct leads to an incorrect assumtion.
We were speaking of the Alaska Airlines operation at Dutch Harbor AK
The 737-200 is better on shorter runways than 737NGs because it is a much lighter aircraft.
The F-15 is lighter than the C-130. Does that make it use less runway? There are other factors. (I may say that again.)
The PW engines don't weigh as much as the CFM56 engines on the 737NGs.
True statement. The P&W JT8D weighs a bit over 4500 pounds. The CFM-56-7 weighs about 5200 pounds. That means that if weight was the only issue, the P&W powered airplane could carry seven hundred pounds per engine more than the CFM or a whopping 1400 pounds. But this completely ignores the greater thrust of the CFM, along with a host of other factors.
Therefore, since they are lighter aircraft, they can get off the ground much quicker than the 737NGs.
Getting off the ground "quicker" is not necessarily even desirable with VMC
considerations. With the same rudder, at lighter weights VMC
is generally lower. Again, there are many more factors at work here. The usual takeoff weight limiter is one of the climb gradients required in FAR
25. On a short segment, landing weight plus burnoff to destination often establishes takeoff weight.
Also, the NGs carry heavier loads of fuel, adding further weight to the aircraft.
Dead wrong. In the first place no airline carries more fuel on any given flight than is necessary for the completion of the flight, considering traffic, weather and alternate/reserves. That is; burnoff to destination, plus fuel to alternate if required, plus 45 minutes reserve for domestic flights. Exception would be tankering fuel through a place where fuel was scarce or expensive. No one tankers out of
Dutch Harbor. Then the CFM burns a lot less fuel than the JT8D and therefore for the same segment, will require less
fuel, not more.
Finally, the majority of the 737NGs carry more passengers than the 737-200s.
The passenger load is the passenger load. The number of people buying tickets out of Dutch Harbor is what drives the passenger load. There may be more seats installed on an NG
but (as I said before) there are other factors.
It's simply just the weight.
It is never "just the weight." On a Cessna 150 the weight carried affects the performance. So does the density altitude. So does runway slope. So does runway surface. So does wind. It is never "just the weight"
Don't mean to pick on you here but this forum is generally for people outside of, or new to, the industry to get correct
answers to technical questions. The Civil Aviation forum seems to be more tolerant of unsupported or unqualified opinion.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.