strfyr51
Posts: 3886
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:24 am

RWA380 wrote:
FatCat wrote:
I was looking at the differences between AS's -900 and -800, on seats arrangement.
What a strange configuration. 3 classes on -800 and some -900.
What Seatguru calls "Premium" is some sort of Business, right?
Never seen a 3 classes 738 here in EU, they are mostly sardine cans 189 full Economy, lol


The idea is that the entire AS fleet, Airbus, Boeing & Embraer (Boeing South) will offer 3 distinctive cabins on all of their aircraft. Coach (with decent seat pitch). premium economy & First class. AS has a couple more 900ER's than 800's at this point & the field performance is not great on the 900ER, it's a slow ascent but the long take off runs are kind of fun.

The first 900ER for me, was on AS PDX-HNL, it was full of fuel (noted by the weight movement of the fuel as we cornered) it was certainly my longest roll on a 737 taking off towards the west, a long slow gradual ascent & by the time we hit the coastline, we were getting to cruising altitude, we were forward of the wing with an unobstructed view of the ocean for hours. 6h 20m PDX-HNL, slow ride!

You were flying into the wind! The prevailing westerlies flow west to east. So you're probably flying into 30-50 Kts of wind across your nose.
 
vadodara
Posts: 940
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:45 pm

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:36 am

NameOmitted wrote:
vadodara wrote:
Pretty strong statement! From op's perspective, any idea how the 737 stacks up against the A320?


Before this gets into a standard A/B argument, remember that AS owns 737s, and leases the A320s. Since aircraft age by cycles, there is an advantage to ruining leased aircraft on shorter, more frequent flights.

Also, at this point we are talking AS configured 737 vs. VX configured A320s. The difference in passenger density will be more pronounced on longer flights.


Ha, ha! I imagine no harm in having more frequent landings on the leased VX aircraft. Point taken on the passenger density.

No, was not getting into a A/B argument, just curious how the 737's were getting op's advantage.
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 4062
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:38 am

AS flies the 739ER on IND-SEA
Status for 2019/2020: AAdvantage Platinum, Delta Gold, Southwest A-List
 
Sancho99504
Posts: 636
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:44 pm

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:59 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
vadodara wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:
Look for the 900ER to take over the majority of the pre-acquisition VX transcons; by January the transcons will be 70% Boeing, 30% Airbus.


Pretty strong statement! From op's perspective, any idea how the 737 stacks up against the A320?

The strong statement was announced on the earnings call.

Cross country performance of 737NGs is fine. 739ER vs A320 is a nice gain in seat count.

The 739ER has a far better CASM than the A320. For the same fuel, the 738 carries more people than the A320. Had there been a sizable A321 fleet, the percentage of Airbus transcons would be a lot higher than 30%. The A319s will see more transcons than the A320 because not every flight can fill over 150 seats and they burn less fuel than the considerably older 73G.
kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out-USMC
 
QXAS
Posts: 347
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:26 am

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:30 am

FriscoHeavy wrote:
It's not always possible to tell how a flight is loaded based on the amount of runway used. Flying out of LAX, SFO, SEA, BOS -- they are almost always flying a derated takeoff given the longer runways and elevation above sea level. By using a derated takeoff, it will naturally eat up more runway.

Secondly, a 737 or 320 fueled and loaded up for 6-7 hours of flight will be much closer to MTOW proportionally, than a 777 fueled and loaded up for 6-7 hours. In this situation, the 777 would be pretty light and thus, be spritely on runway performance.

So your comparison is like apples to oranges, unfortunately.

Speaking of derated takeoffs I was once on a Delta flight departing from 25L at LAX on a 738 and we rotated at the 1000 foot markers, and we might have nudged the ground on rotation. We rotated, then I heard a grinding noise accompanied by a sudden stop in rotation, then the nose dropped and then we rotated again a few seconds later and off we went.
I talked to a United flight crew about 739 runway performance and they said that they will always work out the math to rotate with about 1500 feet of runway left for a more efficient departure. Captain continued to joke that this means TOGA at DEN in mid August on the 739.
The 739 is fine on transcontinental flights. If it wasn’t, AS, UA and DL wouldn’t operate them on trans cons every day.
I am NOT an employee of any airline or manufacturer. I speak for myself, not on the behalf of any company.
 
77H
Posts: 1458
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:39 am

RWA380 wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
RWA380 wrote:

The idea is that the entire AS fleet, Airbus, Boeing & Embraer (Boeing South) will offer 3 distinctive cabins on all of their aircraft. Coach (with decent seat pitch). premium economy & First class. AS has a couple more 900ER's than 800's at this point & the field performance is not great on the 900ER, it's a slow ascent but the long take off runs are kind of fun.

The first 900ER for me, was on AS PDX-HNL, it was full of fuel (noted by the weight movement of the fuel as we cornered) it was certainly my longest roll on a 737 taking off towards the west, a long slow gradual ascent & by the time we hit the coastline, we were getting to cruising altitude, we were forward of the wing with an unobstructed view of the ocean for hours. 6h 20m PDX-HNL, slow ride!


PDX-HNL is fighting against the wind over the ocean, so it's going to be a long ride at certain times of the year. Has nothing to do with the aircraft. Also "movement of the fuel" really dude? Come on.


Why the bashing? Dude! If you've never been on an aircraft full with fuel, that when the pilot turns onto a runway and advances the throttle that you've never felt the weight displacement in an aircraft that is at it's comfortable operational limits, then you've not been paying attention. SMH.

If you disagree fine, don't be a douche about it. Used to be people could relay a memory here & the most would also enjoy, now you've given me an attitude like I'm lying, well you can pop that up your [email protected]@. I have no reason to lie, I am not lying & you sirs are a fool, by missing out on one of the best parts of a flight. IMO. You don't have to believe it, but don't start saying I'm telling tales. got it?


I was just about to chime in and suggest a step stool to help the triggered posters above dismount off their high horses.

While I can’t be positive it was due to fuel vs something else, I too feel like I’ve felt this phenomenon, but on a 772. I feel like it’s most noticeable during tight turns, like lining up for the center line.

I think the posters who would scoff at RWA’s comments ought to consider that a commercial airliner near max fuel has tens of thousands of pounds of liquid fuel in the wings. Liquids at those volumes shifting around is going to have some momentum to it. Consider the fact that mere inches of moving water in flood conditions can sweep away 4-5,000 lb cars. Consider the effect the weight of fuel has on the wings of aircraft operating long haul. It is not uncommon to see the wings of heavily fueled aircraft sagging/drooping due to the fuel weight. Can you honestly say that much weight shifting couldn’t be felt?

Hell, I’ve felt planes yaw side to side sitting at the gate while ULDs are being positioned in the hold or loaded/unloaded. Fuel is magnitudes heavier than ULDs even when maxed out. I suppose I’m crazy too ?

77H
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 5516
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Sat Jul 28, 2018 1:27 pm

77H wrote:
RWA380 wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:

PDX-HNL is fighting against the wind over the ocean, so it's going to be a long ride at certain times of the year. Has nothing to do with the aircraft. Also "movement of the fuel" really dude? Come on.


Why the bashing? Dude! If you've never been on an aircraft full with fuel, that when the pilot turns onto a runway and advances the throttle that you've never felt the weight displacement in an aircraft that is at it's comfortable operational limits, then you've not been paying attention. SMH.

If you disagree fine, don't be a douche about it. Used to be people could relay a memory here & the most would also enjoy, now you've given me an attitude like I'm lying, well you can pop that up your [email protected]@. I have no reason to lie, I am not lying & you sirs are a fool, by missing out on one of the best parts of a flight. IMO. You don't have to believe it, but don't start saying I'm telling tales. got it?


I was just about to chime in and suggest a step stool to help the triggered posters above dismount off their high horses.

While I can’t be positive it was due to fuel vs something else, I too feel like I’ve felt this phenomenon, but on a 772. I feel like it’s most noticeable during tight turns, like lining up for the center line.

I think the posters who would scoff at RWA’s comments ought to consider that a commercial airliner near max fuel has tens of thousands of pounds of liquid fuel in the wings. Liquids at those volumes shifting around is going to have some momentum to it. Consider the fact that mere inches of moving water in flood conditions can sweep away 4-5,000 lb cars. Consider the effect the weight of fuel has on the wings of aircraft operating long haul. It is not uncommon to see the wings of heavily fueled aircraft sagging/drooping due to the fuel weight. Can you honestly say that much weight shifting couldn’t be felt?

Hell, I’ve felt planes yaw side to side sitting at the gate while ULDs are being positioned in the hold or loaded/unloaded. Fuel is magnitudes heavier than ULDs even when maxed out. I suppose I’m crazy too ?

77H


77H thank you for your post, it certainly reinforces what I was saying, there was another pleasent & helpful comment (it was removed by admin of course), from PDXPOL who had just had a conversation at PDX with an AS pilot who did confirm my assertion once again, especially on the 900ER model. The jist of his posting is below.

You are correct that you would have felt that same on other airliners when departing for flights that are long haul for the plane being flown. If the pilot has an unrestricted takeoff, he or she will start spooling up the engines, then turn onto the runway & there is a certain amount of listing to one side as fuel moves in their respective tanks.This can also be felt if, while taxiing & the plane stops quickly, say waiting in line to take off, you can feel fuel movement just after the brakes are applied. It's high school physics, not rocket science. I can feel fuel move in my truck with the double tanks full too.

Lastly, If you don't believe it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, best thing I can advise is, you best be sure you know what you are talking about, before calling out another member a liar. TY!
707, 717, 720, 727-1/2, 737-1/2/3/4/5/7/8/9, 747-1/2/3, 757, 767-2/3/4, 777-2/3, DC8, DC9, MD80/2/7/8, D10-1/3/4, M11, L10-2/5, A300/310/319/320
AA AC AQ BD BN CO CS DL EA EZ HA HG HP KL KN MP MW NK NW OZ PA PS QX RC RH RW SA TG TW UA US VS WA WN WP YS 8M
 
77H
Posts: 1458
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:19 pm

QXAS wrote:
FriscoHeavy wrote:
It's not always possible to tell how a flight is loaded based on the amount of runway used. Flying out of LAX, SFO, SEA, BOS -- they are almost always flying a derated takeoff given the longer runways and elevation above sea level. By using a derated takeoff, it will naturally eat up more runway.

Secondly, a 737 or 320 fueled and loaded up for 6-7 hours of flight will be much closer to MTOW proportionally, than a 777 fueled and loaded up for 6-7 hours. In this situation, the 777 would be pretty light and thus, be spritely on runway performance.

So your comparison is like apples to oranges, unfortunately.

Speaking of derated takeoffs I was once on a Delta flight departing from 25L at LAX on a 738 and we rotated at the 1000 foot markers, and we might have nudged the ground on rotation. We rotated, then I heard a grinding noise accompanied by a sudden stop in rotation, then the nose dropped and then we rotated again a few seconds later and off we went.
I talked to a United flight crew about 739 runway performance and they said that they will always work out the math to rotate with about 1500 feet of runway left for a more efficient departure. Captain continued to joke that this means TOGA at DEN in mid August on the 739.
The 739 is fine on transcontinental flights. If it wasn’t, AS, UA and DL wouldn’t operate them on trans cons every day.


I posted about the 9ER on another thread a few days ago. I don’t think anyone who isn’t particularly fond of the aircraft believes that it can’t perform the missions it’s been tasked with, safely or even profitably. But the 9ER has a fair amount of quirks and restrictions that you don’t find find with other 737 series aircraft, their Airbus counterparts or the 757 which it has replaced on a number of missions.

For example, OGG sees no less than 15 daily 737 flights to/from the West Coast by AS/UA/WS. The flights are all 738 with the rare 73G sub, but never the 739. OGG’s runway is just under 7,000 ft and the 739 doesn’t have the performance to make the trip loaded up with passengers and the fuel needed to make the trip to the West Coast. Meanwhile, AA operates the 321 (most direct competitor of the 739) to the West Coast everyday. AA and UA operate 772s to DFW and ORD respectively (UA’s ORD flight even being operated by the less powerful 77A) UA manages to operate the 752 to DEN and DL, the 763 to SLC. Earlier this year OGG even saw a 77W operate OGG-SFO when UA subbed it for a 77A that went tech. At one time or another, every ETOPS rated mainline aircraft type in-service today with the major North American carriers has successfully departed from OGGs runway. One plane that can’t? The 739.

I’ve been on my fair share of 9ER flights ranging from a 20 min hop ORD-MSN to over 6 hrs on LAX-HNL. The plane is versatile and can perform its missions fine, but seems to do so with less finesse than other aircraft.

77H
 
birdbrainz
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 6:57 am

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:37 pm

WkndWanderer wrote:
Not really outside of DCA where runway length is a factor. The 900ER's make regular appearances on SEA-BOS, SEA-FLL, and even to Hawaii, among the longest routes AS operates. The -800 makes up almost a third of the mainline fleet so you see them throughout the system. If anything there seems to be even less 800's headed to the east coast then there used to be since the 738 has taken over some of the pre-merger Virgin Hawaii flying (SEA-KOA, LAX-OGG) that had previously been operated with the Airbus.


Not to start an A320 vs 737 mudslinging contest, but why replace the A320 with the 738 to Hawaii? In previous threads, it was mentioned that the A320 is more efficient on longer (>1500nm) flights while the 738 is more efficient for shorter flights due to its lower weight. This isn't consistent with AS's behavior. Of course, there could be a multitude of other reasons like crews, aircraft utilization, ETOPS factors, etc.
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
 
thegreatRDU
Posts: 909
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:47 am

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:27 pm

mffoda wrote:
The 739ER is on SEA-RDU route as well..

No it's only 738/A320s we see.
Our Returning Champion
 
Northwest1988
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:10 pm

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:45 pm

What type of 737 does AS use on the SEA-CHS route?
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2350
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:59 pm

Does AS have the MAX 9 on order? Will that be OGG-capable?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Sun Jul 29, 2018 12:18 am

thegreatRDU wrote:
mffoda wrote:
The 739ER is on SEA-RDU route as well..

No it's only 738/A320s we see.

RDU-SEA is typically 739 or 739ER... on occasion it’s a 738.... SFO is typically 320
Aiming High and going far..
 
n7371f
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Sun Jul 29, 2018 5:08 am

The 73J from the Virgin Airbus' will be quite a shock for the first class passengers on transcontinental initially. Going from 55" and a barcalounger to 4 inch recline (yes I know 73J's are to be reconfigured, eventually) & pre-flight service & continuous service throughout flight vs AS's cup of water, initial service then 4 hours of sometimes nothing could be a culture shock...

Then again based on the paid LF's we're tracking, AS isn't losing much with the change. Paid LF in F on Virgin transcontinental routes are paltry after merger compared to competition. But it does clarify decision to forgo ultra-premium transcontinental vs an upgrade class.
 
ASFlyer
Posts: 1648
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:25 pm

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Sun Jul 29, 2018 7:32 am

seabosdca wrote:
I think I've flown on -900ERs on every AS transcon route I've flown except for DCA. DCA is runway limited and a -900ER can't take off from there with a full load of passengers and fuel. I would love to know if the A321neo can do it, as DCA could desperately use more seats.

Years ago, when the -800 fleet was small, AS used to use the non-ER 900s on SEA-BOS and SEA-EWR. If weather was unfavorable there would be blocked seats and sometimes even IDBs on the westbound legs. I don't think I've ever seen blocked seats on a -900ER.


When AS first started flying SEA-DCA it was on a -900. I worked this flight on 9/8/2001 and it was, indeed, a -900. I don't know whether seats were blocked or not, or how full it was, but it was a scheduled -900. In fact, the application for the beyond perimeter slot stated that AS would use a -900 on the route. Obviously, they don't now, but at the time they did.
 
tphuang
Posts: 3108
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:32 am

n7371f wrote:
The 73J from the Virgin Airbus' will be quite a shock for the first class passengers on transcontinental initially. Going from 55" and a barcalounger to 4 inch recline (yes I know 73J's are to be reconfigured, eventually) & pre-flight service & continuous service throughout flight vs AS's cup of water, initial service then 4 hours of sometimes nothing could be a culture shock...

Then again based on the paid LF's we're tracking, AS isn't losing much with the change. Paid LF in F on Virgin transcontinental routes are paltry after merger compared to competition. But it does clarify decision to forgo ultra-premium transcontinental vs an upgrade class.


Depending on the route. On jfk sfo and lax, their average fare has remained about the same level, which is not possible without selling a fair amount of first class seating. On other transcon with less premium demand, that’s a different story.
 
GSPSPOT
Posts: 2482
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:44 am

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Sun Jul 29, 2018 5:34 pm

Nice to see MKE got the 739 when AS upgauged the SEA flight to mainline earlier this year. Hope the loads justify the use of the a/c!
Great Lakes, great life.
 
scoping2008
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:48 am

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Sun Jul 29, 2018 11:28 pm

CRJ900 wrote:
Does AS have the MAX 9 on order? Will that be OGG-capable?


Yes, AS has 32 MAX 9 on order. And, yes, OGG-capable.
 
User avatar
admanager
Posts: 245
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:28 pm

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:59 am

Northwest1988 wrote:
What type of 737 does AS use on the SEA-CHS route?

According to the AS website, every flight next week (they only go 5 days a week - no Tuesday or Saturday) is on the 900ER.
 
WkndWanderer
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:36 pm

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:21 pm

birdbrainz wrote:
WkndWanderer wrote:
Not really outside of DCA where runway length is a factor. The 900ER's make regular appearances on SEA-BOS, SEA-FLL, and even to Hawaii, among the longest routes AS operates. The -800 makes up almost a third of the mainline fleet so you see them throughout the system. If anything there seems to be even less 800's headed to the east coast then there used to be since the 738 has taken over some of the pre-merger Virgin Hawaii flying (SEA-KOA, LAX-OGG) that had previously been operated with the Airbus.


Not to start an A320 vs 737 mudslinging contest, but why replace the A320 with the 738 to Hawaii? In previous threads, it was mentioned that the A320 is more efficient on longer (>1500nm) flights while the 738 is more efficient for shorter flights due to its lower weight. This isn't consistent with AS's behavior. Of course, there could be a multitude of other reasons like crews, aircraft utilization, ETOPS factors, etc.


Well the 738 has more seats and VX had a relatively small fleet of the newer, sharkleted A320's, a large portion of their A320 fleet were 2006-2008 builds and I imagine are not the enhanced A320 (although I'm not sure around what line number most of the enhanced improvements were incorporated). The "A320 is better on longer flights" conventional wisdom has been discussed on here for years, but UA and DL also use 737's heavily on longer flights, anecdotally AA seems to use the Airbus more heavily on longer flights than the other two, but even they choose to operate the longest flight within the contiguous US with a 738 and have no shortage of Airbus narrowbodies on hand, so the post-merger fleet behavior of the U.S. carriers has seemed to mix up that conventional wisdom a bit. I'd be curious to know what the average stage length of each fleet type for the mixed fleet operators are, I've only ever seen it broken down by fleet average or category average (i.e. small narrowbody, large narrowbody, widebody).
 
User avatar
flybynight
Topic Author
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:20 pm

So it seems that the 900ER's are going to the east coast more than I though.

But doesn't the 800 have just a little more range than the 900ER's?

Of course with the MAX's coming range should not be an issue. Not sure how the MAX handles runway length though.
Heia Norge!
 
evank516
Posts: 1953
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:28 pm

flybynight wrote:
So it seems that the 900ER's are going to the east coast more than I though.

But doesn't the 800 have just a little more range than the 900ER's?

Of course with the MAX's coming range should not be an issue. Not sure how the MAX handles runway length though.


From what I hear the MAX handles runway length better than the NG.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6493
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:34 pm

flybynight wrote:
But doesn't the 800 have just a little more range than the 900ER's?


Yes, but the -900ER has plenty for any route Alaska is flying, provided that it gets enough runway.

Of course with the MAX's coming range should not be an issue. Not sure how the MAX handles runway length though.


Similarly to the NG with all short field options. If the -900ER is runway-challenged on a given route, the MAX 9 will be as well. Like the -800SFP, the MAX 8 should be fine out of almost any airport that can accommodate commercial service. MAX 10 should have similar runway performance to MAX 9, with its additional length and cantilevered gear canceling each other out.
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1592
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:54 pm

seabosdca wrote:
flybynight wrote:
But doesn't the 800 have just a little more range than the 900ER's?


Yes, but the -900ER has plenty for any route Alaska is flying, provided that it gets enough runway.

Of course with the MAX's coming range should not be an issue. Not sure how the MAX handles runway length though.


Similarly to the NG with all short field options. If the -900ER is runway-challenged on a given route, the MAX 9 will be as well. Like the -800SFP, the MAX 8 should be fine out of almost any airport that can accommodate commercial service. MAX 10 should have similar runway performance to MAX 9, with its additional length and cantilevered gear canceling each other out.


Actually, the MAX-9 will likely be less hampered by runway than the 739ER. While it may not be tremendously better, the fact that UA will be sending it to OGG when they wouldn't send the -900ER indicates it has somewhat better takeoff performance. It may not be much, but apparently enough to make a difference on a route such as this.
Whatever
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9416
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: AS use of 900ER's on cross country flights

Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:12 pm

FriscoHeavy wrote:
seabosdca wrote:
flybynight wrote:
But doesn't the 800 have just a little more range than the 900ER's?


Yes, but the -900ER has plenty for any route Alaska is flying, provided that it gets enough runway.

Of course with the MAX's coming range should not be an issue. Not sure how the MAX handles runway length though.


Similarly to the NG with all short field options. If the -900ER is runway-challenged on a given route, the MAX 9 will be as well. Like the -800SFP, the MAX 8 should be fine out of almost any airport that can accommodate commercial service. MAX 10 should have similar runway performance to MAX 9, with its additional length and cantilevered gear canceling each other out.


Actually, the MAX-9 will likely be less hampered by runway than the 739ER. While it may not be tremendously better, the fact that UA will be sending it to OGG when they wouldn't send the -900ER indicates it has somewhat better takeoff performance. It may not be much, but apparently enough to make a difference on a route such as this.

At equivalent weight (eg at MTOW) there should be little difference in runway performance. But for a given route the MAX of course needs less fuel so all else being equal the plane will likely be lighter which may be enough to make the MAX useable on marginal -900ER cases. At equivalent weights (~take off performance) the MAX will fly further or lift more payload further, depending on how the weight is distributed between fuel and payload.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos