Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:02 pm

Did Boeing management view the 737-900ER as a disappointment, or were expectations modest at the beginning? Did they view it as a relatively low cost way to wring an extra $40-$50 billion out of the B737 Next Generation Program.

737-900ER: 447 orders from 4 primary customers
79 Alaska
136 United Airlines
130 Delta Air Lines
102 Lion Air
58 Total from minor customers

A321ceo: 749 orders from 9 primary customers (5 from USA)
127 DELTA AIR LINES UNITED STATES
121 US AIRWAYS UNITED STATES
91 ILFC UNITED STATES
77 CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES CHINA
72 CHINA EASTERN AIRLINES CHINA
71 AMERICAN AIRLINES UNITED STATES
65 TURKISH AIRLINES TURKEY
64 LUFTHANSA GERMANY
61 JETBLUE AIRWAYS UNITED STATES
1050 Total from minor customers
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27089
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:04 pm

The 737-900 was the true disappointment.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19727
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:16 pm

First,

Stitch wrote:
The 737-900 was the true disappointment.

The first -900ER sort of helped the type. After winglets and and engine PiP, there were late orders.

But for a type launched on 30 orders? I do not think a moon shot was expected:
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2007-04-27 ... r-Lion-Air

It looks like Boeing was counting on a slight range advantage over the A321(CEO). Recall, it was after engine PiPs and Sharklets that the A321 sales took off.

At the time of EIS, the A321 wasn't selling well. So I doubt Boeing expected much more in sales. No one expected the A321 to sell so well. But two V2500 engine PiPs and Sharklets changed the market.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:26 pm

Stitch wrote:
The 737-900 was the true disappointment.

Frankly, I thought they needed more orders than that to launch a program
Korean Air 16
Alaska Airlines 12
United Airlines 12
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 5
Shenzhen Airlines 5
Jet Airways 2

08 AUGUST, 2006 SOURCE: FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL LOS ANGELES
Boeing claims the 737-900ER, which replaces the 757, will have up to 9% lower operating costs per trip and 7% lower operating costs per seat than the Airbus A321.


The A321ceo had made 371 deliveries through 2006. I know that companies are always optimistic to the media, but it sounds like that Boeing thought the -900ER would have comparable sales to the A321.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6602
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:38 pm

My reading was that the A321-200, which launched before 737NG EIS but after the 737NG variants were defined, took Boeing a bit by surprise. The 737-900A was a lower-cost way of competing with the A321-100; it leveraged the 737-800's advantages to allow a straight stretch instead of having a revised wing and separate engine variants like the A321. But it couldn't compete with the A321-200, and couldn't fly US transcon missions. The 737-900ER was a way to get one more row of seating and enough range to compete with the pre-sharklet A321-200. And, sure enough, it proved attractive to US operators for transcon service.

I doubt Boeing expected it to set the world on fire, because it was always clear that the 737-800 was a more versatile product for most operators. The full potential of the A321 (late sharket ceo and especially neo) didn't become clear until years after the 737-900ER was in service.
 
Chemist
Posts: 734
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:50 pm

It seems like Boeing didn't expect a lot and probably the number sold would be what they would call a success. But it was the much greater, later sales of the 321/neo that I think was a real surprise. So while the 900ER wasn't a disappointment (absolutely speaking), its relative sales to the 321 series says something about the competitiveness between the two models.
 
DarthLobster
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:40 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:58 pm

Well this one variant sold nearly half as many frames as the entire 757 line (which according to A.Net was plucked from God’s very chin) and almost ten times as many frames as the initial -900 model. Yup, sounds like a big fat failure to me... :roll:
 
jayunited
Posts: 2767
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:20 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
Did Boeing management view the 737-900ER as a disappointment, or were expectations modest at the beginning? Did they view it as a relatively low cost way to wring an extra $40-$50 billion out of the B737 Next Generation Program.

737-900ER: 447 orders from 4 primary customers
79 Alaska
136 United Airlines
130 Delta Air Lines
102 Lion Air
58 Total from minor customers

A321ceo: 749 orders from 9 primary customers (5 from USA)
127 DELTA AIR LINES UNITED STATES
121 US AIRWAYS UNITED STATES
91 ILFC UNITED STATES
77 CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES CHINA
72 CHINA EASTERN AIRLINES CHINA
71 AMERICAN AIRLINES UNITED STATES
65 TURKISH AIRLINES TURKEY
64 LUFTHANSA GERMANY
61 JETBLUE AIRWAYS UNITED STATES
1050 Total from minor customers


From a sales point of view yes it was a failure especially when compared to the A321ceo.

From a performance point of view it a mixed bag. On Transcons from the North East/New England and West Coast-Hawaii flights UA's 739ERs struggle during the winter months and in most cases UA has to block seats during but during the summer the 739ER can handle these routes with no problem. Looking at shorter flights like IAD/ORD/IAH-SFO/LAX/SEA this aircraft has lower operating cost vs a 757 which is an improvement for airlines trying to save money and you can carry the same amount of passenger you find on a 757. However the aircraft struggles into and out of DEN. In the summer when its extremely hot a fully loaded 739ER can take a weight penality and in some cases has to hold off passengers and/or cargo. Whereas in the winter there is an icing accretion penality into DEN that can cause weight restrictions on 739ERs into DEN.

If you look hard enough you can find a few bright spots, but at the same time its hard to overlook its deficiencies.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2980
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:29 pm

-900ER should have been the original -900. Probably would have sold more if it was available from the beginning.
 
N649DL
Posts: 923
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:36 pm

jayunited wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
Did Boeing management view the 737-900ER as a disappointment, or were expectations modest at the beginning? Did they view it as a relatively low cost way to wring an extra $40-$50 billion out of the B737 Next Generation Program.

737-900ER: 447 orders from 4 primary customers
79 Alaska
136 United Airlines
130 Delta Air Lines
102 Lion Air
58 Total from minor customers

A321ceo: 749 orders from 9 primary customers (5 from USA)
127 DELTA AIR LINES UNITED STATES
121 US AIRWAYS UNITED STATES
91 ILFC UNITED STATES
77 CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES CHINA
72 CHINA EASTERN AIRLINES CHINA
71 AMERICAN AIRLINES UNITED STATES
65 TURKISH AIRLINES TURKEY
64 LUFTHANSA GERMANY
61 JETBLUE AIRWAYS UNITED STATES
1050 Total from minor customers


From a sales point of view yes it was a failure especially when compared to the A321ceo.

From a performance point of view it a mixed bag. On Transcons from the North East/New England and West Coast-Hawaii flights UA's 739ERs struggle during the winter months and in most cases UA has to block seats during but during the summer the 739ER can handle these routes with no problem. Looking at shorter flights like IAD/ORD/IAH-SFO/LAX/SEA this aircraft has lower operating cost vs a 757 which is an improvement for airlines trying to save money and you can carry the same amount of passenger you find on a 757. However the aircraft struggles into and out of DEN. In the summer when its extremely hot a fully loaded 739ER can take a weight penality and in some cases has to hold off passengers and/or cargo. Whereas in the winter there is an icing accretion penality into DEN that can cause weight restrictions on 739ERs into DEN.

If you look hard enough you can find a few bright spots, but at the same time its hard to overlook its deficiencies.


IMHO, now that you brought up the icing accretion issue and weight penalties out of the DEN hub (not to mention late deployment of tail sticks too), the 739ER was kind of a dud compared to the 757s they replaced at UAL out of the DEN hub especially. There have also been multiple incidents where the 739ER has skid off the runway during landing at ORD during the winter (mainly in snowstorms). And the 739ER has proven to be less than optimal on West Coast to Hawaii on UA, hence why you see the 753 and regular 738 operate it instead.

Personally, I like the configuration and deployment of the 739ER with Delta instead which has used them with more variance to even replace M90 and M88 on some routes.
 
marcogr12
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:36 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:15 pm

Why is it a less optimal choice for flights to HNL,OGG compared to 738?
Flying is breathing..no planes no life..
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 5698
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:42 pm

marcogr12 wrote:
Why is it a less optimal choice for flights to HNL,OGG compared to 738?


The only three airports in Hawaii that can provide a runway long enough for a fully loaded 737-900ER to take off & make it to the mainland, is Hilo, Kona & Honolulu. Even though ITO is capable of the 900ER, UA flies their 800's there.

Both OGG & LIH are flown by 737-800's because of the better field performance off 6,000 foot runways. The 737-900ER takes a lot of runway to get airborne, truly one of the longest take off rolls I've had on a narrowbody was a PDX-HNL flight with AS.
707 717 720 727-1/2 737-1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9 747-1/2/3/4 757-2/3 767-2/3/4 777-2/3 DC8 DC9 MD80/2/7/8 D10-1/3/4 M11 L10-1/2/5 A300/310/320
AA AC AQ AS BA 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 WC WN WP YS 8M
 
jayunited
Posts: 2767
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:01 am

N649DL wrote:
IMHO, now that you brought up the icing accretion issue and weight penalties out of the DEN hub (not to mention late deployment of tail sticks too), the 739ER was kind of a dud compared to the 757s they replaced at UAL out of the DEN hub especially. There have also been multiple incidents where the 739ER has skid off the runway during landing at ORD during the winter (mainly in snowstorms). And the 739ER has proven to be less than optimal on West Coast to Hawaii on UA, hence why you see the 753 and regular 738 operate it instead.

Personally, I like the configuration and deployment of the 739ER with Delta instead which has used them with more variance to even replace M90 and M88 on some routes.


Isn't DL's number of seat on their 739ERs the same as UA's? As more narrowbodies enter the fleet UA is starting to find optimal routes for some of our 739s. However we still have a large number of 739ERs flying into and out of DEN because we have no choice we don't have enough large narrowbody aircraft to replace 739ER flying out of DEN.
I can't speak to DL's network but looking at UA's network the optimal routes for the 739ER are domestic routes from ORD, IAH and IAD to any destination (except for airports like JAC) in the 48 contiguous states. From EWR optimal routes would be any destination up and down the East coast, any destination in the Midwest and Texas.

For the most part UA has cease many winter 739ER Transcon flights from EWR and New England, also UA was in the process of replacing most West Coast - Hawaii 739ER flights with MAX9's. With the MAX still grounded and off the schedule till January 6th (perhaps longer) I think it safe to say the MAX will not be on these route for the winter 2019/2020 season.
 
TW870
Posts: 1214
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:01 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:23 am

DarthLobster wrote:
Well this one variant sold nearly half as many frames as the entire 757 line (which according to A.Net was plucked from God’s very chin) and almost ten times as many frames as the initial -900 model. Yup, sounds like a big fat failure to me... :roll:


That is a good point - although not a direct comparison since the industry was much smaller in the early-1980s when the 757 launched versus the much later launch of the 737-900ER. But what I think you raise here is that the 757 was way too much airplane for many domestic narrowbody routes. Yes, it has far better payload performance than a -900ER on BOS-SFO or LAX-HNL - especially in the winter. But those routes are only a piece of what DL and UA and other operators need the airplane to do. On MSP-west coast or ORD-Florida, for example, the -900ER's far lower operating costs make it more desirable than a 757. DL does utilization RONs with -900ERs to places such as MSN, GRR, and FSD out of MSP. The-900ER is far less costly to schedule on such a route than a 757, and that type of flexibility is what makes for a desirable narrowbody fleet in a cost-sensitive 21st century industry. A.net conversations tend to focus on the margins of the industry rather than the center (the A220 is going to fly SEA-SJU!). But DL especially makes its money on 750 mile bounces out of its eastern and midwestern hubs, and a relative underperformer like the -900ER can work well in that context.
 
UPNYGuy
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:14 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:27 am

DarthLobster wrote:
Well this one variant sold nearly half as many frames as the entire 757 line (which according to A.Net was plucked from God’s very chin) and almost ten times as many frames as the initial -900 model. Yup, sounds like a big fat failure to me... :roll:



THANK YOU!!! I swear some members treat the 757 the same way others treat a playboy magazine
 
moyangmm
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:22 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:56 am

No, it was a huge success, especially for US transcon. A321-200 often requires a fuel stop flying west in the winter. 737-900ER can easily do that nonstop. Also, 737-900ER burns less than A321.

In general, 737-900ER is just a superior plane.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:17 am

DarthLobster wrote:
Well this one variant sold nearly half as many frames as the entire 757 line (which according to A.Net was plucked from God’s very chin) and almost ten times as many frames as the initial -900 model. Yup, sounds like a big fat failure to me... :roll:

moyangmm wrote:
No, it was a huge success, especially for US transcon. A321-200 often requires a fuel stop flying west in the winter. 737-900ER can easily do that nonstop. Also, 737-900ER burns less than A321.

In general, 737-900ER is just a superior plane.


I never said "failure". It almost certainly returned a good profit for the R&D that it took to develop. What I said was it a "disappointment". The -900ER had 69% of sales to domestic companies, just as the B752 sold 68% to domestic companies.
The -900ER had 65% of the foreign sales to Lion Air.

The A321ceo sold to 100 different customers.

Deliveries thru Sep 2019
-900ER |Year| A321ceo
22 2019 36
34 2018 99
37 2017 183
52 2016 222
73 2015 184
70 2014 150
67 2013 102
44 2012 83
24 2011 66
15 2010 51
28 2009 87
30 2008 66
9 2007 51
The A321ceo delivered 371 jets before the year 2007.

737-900
2001 21
2002 8
2003 11
2004 6
2005 6

757-200
1982 2
1983 25
1984 18
1985 36
1986 35
1987 35
1988 37
1989 50
1990 69
1991 74
1992 94
1993 66
1994 57
1995 35
1996 37
1997 36
1998 51
1999 58
2000 37
2001 36
2002 14
2003 3
2004 6
2005 2
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:42 am

How can a simple stretch with ~500 sales be viewed as a disappointment or a failure? I'm far from a fan of the -900/-900ER but I'm sure it made Boeing plenty of money.
First to fly the 787-9
 
questions
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:04 am

UPNYGuy wrote:
DarthLobster wrote:
Well this one variant sold nearly half as many frames as the entire 757 line (which according to A.Net was plucked from God’s very chin) and almost ten times as many frames as the initial -900 model. Yup, sounds like a big fat failure to me... :roll:



THANK YOU!!! I swear some members treat the 757 the same way others treat a playboy magazine


Dang! Look at the engines on that babe!
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:05 am

zkojq wrote:
How can a simple stretch with ~500 sales be viewed as a disappointment or a failure? I'm far from a fan of the -900/-900ER but I'm sure it made Boeing plenty of money.


A disappointment is a failure to live up to expectations. My question is did Boeing believe that the -900ER would outsell the A321ceo?

The same question could be asked about the 787-8. With 364 filled orders and 61 unfilled, the jet is certainly not a failure, but I suspect it may be somewhat of a disappointment given the rash of orders early in the program and the huger number of 787-9 orders/deliveries.

order year del
33 2004 0
131 2005 0
61 2006 0
78 2007 0
7 2008 0
13 2009 0
3 2010 0
6 2011 3
5 2012 46
34 2013 65
1 2014 104
10 2015 71
5 2016 35
11 2017 26
26 2018 10
1 2019 4
425 total 364
 
Babyshark
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:31 am

moyangmm wrote:
No, it was a huge success, especially for US transcon. A321-200 often requires a fuel stop flying west in the winter. 737-900ER can easily do that nonstop. Also, 737-900ER burns less than A321.

In general, 737-900ER is just a superior plane.


At least for me at Delta we use the 321 for trans cons out of atl in the winter to the west coast with no issues and cruise higher than the 900s at the outset. I know, I bid those trips. The NEO will be used for all west coast bases to Hawaii and then we will have the ones with delta one seats used for New York transcons in place of the 757s.

The 737 cabin is not superior and the cockpit sure as hell isnt superior... and the 321 doesn’t need a tail stand at the gate.
 
User avatar
afterburner
Posts: 1449
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:38 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:35 am

questions wrote:
If the 757 were still around, what updates may have been included in a next gen 757-4, 757-5, etc to make it a more competitive and flexible aircraft for today’s market?

A.net really needs a separate forum specifically for 757 discussions.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6602
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:40 am

Babyshark wrote:
moyangmm wrote:
No, it was a huge success, especially for US transcon. A321-200 often requires a fuel stop flying west in the winter. 737-900ER can easily do that nonstop. Also, 737-900ER burns less than A321.

In general, 737-900ER is just a superior plane.


At least for me at Delta we use the 321 for trans cons out of atl in the winter to the west coast with no issues and cruise higher than the 900s at the outset. I know, I bid those trips. The NEO will be used for all west coast bases to Hawaii and then we will have the ones with delta one seats used for New York transcons in place of the 757s.

The 737 cabin is not superior and the cockpit sure as hell isnt superior... and the 321 doesn’t need a tail stand at the gate.


Sharklets addressed any remaining range weakness with the A321ceo. The neo has longer range than any mainstream 737 (not counting BBJs or 737-700ERs).
 
questions
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:43 am

afterburner wrote:
questions wrote:
If the 757 were still around, what updates may have been included in a next gen 757-4, 757-5, etc to make it a more competitive and flexible aircraft for today’s market?

A.net really needs a separate forum specifically for 757 discussions.


Thanks.

My point was in comparison to the 737-900ER, a 737 derivative redesigned and updated through the decades vs the 757, to which it was being compared and did not go through near as many updates.
 
User avatar
usxguy
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:28 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:03 am

I recall the A321 was also quite the slow seller. It wasn't until USAirways Stephen Wolf largest aircraft order in the world back in 1998 or 1999 that the A321 was about to become a sizeable portion of an airlines' fleet.
xx
 
EWRamp
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:23 am

PacoMartin wrote:
Stitch wrote:
The 737-900 was the true disappointment.

Frankly, I thought they needed more orders than that to launch a program
Korean Air 16
Alaska Airlines 12
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES 12
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 5
Shenzhen Airlines 5
Jet Airways 2

08 AUGUST, 2006 SOURCE: FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL LOS ANGELES
Boeing claims the 737-900ER, which replaces the 757, will have up to 9% lower operating costs per trip and 7% lower operating costs per seat than the Airbus A321.


The A321ceo had made 371 deliveries through 2006. I know that companies are always optimistic to the media, but it sounds like that Boeing thought the -900ER would have comparable sales to the A321.


Fixed that typo for you
 
Scarebus34
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:45 am

jayunited wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
Did Boeing management view the 737-900ER as a disappointment, or were expectations modest at the beginning? Did they view it as a relatively low cost way to wring an extra $40-$50 billion out of the B737 Next Generation Program.

737-900ER: 447 orders from 4 primary customers
79 Alaska
136 United Airlines
130 Delta Air Lines
102 Lion Air
58 Total from minor customers

A321ceo: 749 orders from 9 primary customers (5 from USA)
127 DELTA AIR LINES UNITED STATES
121 US AIRWAYS UNITED STATES
91 ILFC UNITED STATES
77 CHINA SOUTHERN AIRLINES CHINA
72 CHINA EASTERN AIRLINES CHINA
71 AMERICAN AIRLINES UNITED STATES
65 TURKISH AIRLINES TURKEY
64 LUFTHANSA GERMANY
61 JETBLUE AIRWAYS UNITED STATES
1050 Total from minor customers


From a sales point of view yes it was a failure especially when compared to the A321ceo.

From a performance point of view it a mixed bag. On Transcons from the North East/New England and West Coast-Hawaii flights UA's 739ERs struggle during the winter months and in most cases UA has to block seats during but during the summer the 739ER can handle these routes with no problem. Looking at shorter flights like IAD/ORD/IAH-SFO/LAX/SEA this aircraft has lower operating cost vs a 757 which is an improvement for airlines trying to save money and you can carry the same amount of passenger you find on a 757. However the aircraft struggles into and out of DEN. In the summer when its extremely hot a fully loaded 739ER can take a weight penality and in some cases has to hold off passengers and/or cargo. Whereas in the winter there is an icing accretion penality into DEN that can cause weight restrictions on 739ERs into DEN.

If you look hard enough you can find a few bright spots, but at the same time its hard to overlook its deficiencies.


It's no longer much of an issue in DEN ... sure there can be an occasional weight restriction (mostly when departing during the summer to the NE) however, with the approved Flaps 5 go-around procedure the weight penalties landing in DEN during icing events are now few and far between.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:48 am

afterburner wrote:
A.net really needs a separate forum specifically for 757 discussions.


Some Boeing models were primarily sold domestically. The 787-8 sold 18% of jets to the USA, while the 757-200 sold 68%.

The 757-200 and 737-900ER had an outsize impact on the USA market and hence are of a great deal of interest to a forum primarily composed of American bloggers talking about Boeing jets. If we were in Asia, a thread about the decision to discontinue the B757 would hardly raise a comment.


OVER 250 Worldwide Sales (Cumulative 81% of all Boeing jets sold) By deliveries, not orders
% USA sales | total worldwide | model | first delivery
73% 407 727-100 29. Oct. 1963
69% 505 737-900ER 27. Apr. 2007
68% 913 757-200 22. Dec. 1982
65% 1245 727-200 11. Dec. 1967
60% 1128 737-700 17. Dec. 1997
54% 1113 737-300 28. Nov. 1984
48% 337 707-320C 2. May. 1963
43% 389 737-500 28. Feb. 1990
39% 583 767-300ER 19. Feb. 1988
39% 991 737-200 29. Dec. 1967
38% 422 777-200ER 6. Feb. 1997
33% 486 737-400 15. Sep. 1988
33% 4982 737-800 22. Apr. 1998
30% 387 737 MAX 16. May. 2017
28% 492 787-9 30. Jun. 2014
18% 811 777-300ER 29. Apr. 2004
18% 364 787-8 25. Sep. 2011
17% 442 747-400 26. Jan. 1989

The envy felt in Europe over the international sales of the B747-400 was so strong that was the primary motivation for the A380-800 program.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:51 am

seabosdca wrote:
My reading was that the A321-200, which launched before 737NG EIS but after the 737NG variants were defined, took Boeing a bit by surprise. The 737-900A was a lower-cost way of competing with the A321-100; it leveraged the 737-800's advantages to allow a straight stretch instead of having a revised wing and separate engine variants like the A321. But it couldn't compete with the A321-200, and couldn't fly US transcon missions.



The first flight of an Airbus A321-231 was 12 Dec 1996 almost 11 months before the launch of the B737-900 on 10. Nov. 1997. It's too bad a year is not enough time to react.


seabosdca wrote:
The 737-900ER was a way to get one more row of seating and enough range to compete with the pre-sharklet A321-200. And, sure enough, it proved attractive to US operators for transcon service. I doubt Boeing expected it to set the world on fire, because it was always clear that the 737-800 was a more versatile product for most operators. The full potential of the A321 (late sharket ceo and especially neo) didn't become clear until years after the 737-900ER was in service.


Actually now that you point that out you can see it in the order timeline.

737-900ER orders
conversions from 737-900
1998 1
2000 1
2001 14
....
2005 35
2006 61
2007 38
2008 22
2009 4
2010 20
2011 137
2012 76
2013 21 ------------ 09 Sept 2013 first A321 with sharklets delivered
2014 16
2015 35
2016 10
2017 14 ---------- May 2017 first A321neo delivered, Aug. 2017 final B737-900ER delivered
 
RalXWB
Posts: 499
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:36 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:38 am

According to Randy, Airbus only tried to catch up to the 739 with the 321...
 
RalXWB
Posts: 499
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:36 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:39 am

moyangmm wrote:
No, it was a huge success, especially for US transcon. A321-200 often requires a fuel stop flying west in the winter. 737-900ER can easily do that nonstop. Also, 737-900ER burns less than A321.

In general, 737-900ER is just a superior plane.


You win the Internet today!
 
shamrock137
Posts: 367
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 11:57 am

N649DL wrote:

IMHO, now that you brought up the icing accretion issue and weight penalties out of the DEN hub (not to mention late deployment of tail sticks too)


What was the issue with icing on the ER's?
Time to spare? Go by air!
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:59 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
-900ER should have been the original -900. Probably would have sold more if it was available from the beginning.


Since the first A321ceo with Sharklets was not delivered until September 2013, they might have managed well over a 1000 orders before that point.

Order/Delivery times combined -900 and -900ER
ord   year   del
  8   1997   NA
 33   1998   NA
  3   1999   NA
  2   2000   B737-900
  0   2001   21
 16   2002   8
  6   2003   11
  0   2004   6
 35   2005   6
 61   2006   B737-900ER
 38   2007   9
 22   2008   30
  4   2009   28
 20   2010   15
137   2011   24
 76   2012   44
 21   2013   67
 16   2014   70
 35   2015   73
 10   2016   52
 14   2017   37
  0   2018   34
  0   2019   22
 
 
johns624
Posts: 2702
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:29 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
Stitch wrote:
The 737-900 was the true disappointment.

Frankly, I thought they needed more orders than that to launch a program
Korean Air 16
Alaska Airlines 12
United Airlines 12
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 5
Shenzhen Airlines 5
Jet Airways 2

Look at which airlines they were, though. If the plane was any good, do you think that large customers like United, Alaska and the rest wouldn't come back for repeat orders?
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:33 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
-900ER should have been the original -900. Probably would have sold more if it was available from the beginning.


Most agree with that sentiment. If Boeing does launch the 737-MAX9ER, I wonder if we will see a similar repeat (boost in sales over the MAX9)?
learning never stops.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1746
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:43 pm

For starters, from a financial perspective, comparing it to the A321 sales doesn't add anything. The 737-900ER has 400+ orders in a family of thousands, that is the beauty and reason A and B iterate off their platforms. Boeing has been making record money and airlines are on the record as the plane being very efficient to fly. It certainly is making/made Boeing and the airlines money.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:15 pm

airzona11 wrote:
For starters, from a financial perspective, comparing it to the A321 sales doesn't add anything. The 737-900ER has 400+ orders in a family of thousands, that is the beauty and reason A and B iterate off their platforms. Boeing has been making record money and airlines are on the record as the plane being very efficient to fly. It certainly is making/made Boeing and the airlines money.


I did read one pundit who said that Boeing wasted 23 years on the B737-900 and -900ER when the RDT&E money could have been spent developing a New Single Aisle jet that was true competitor to the A321.

The question has resurrected with the next generation as slow sales of the -7 and -9 make some pundits question the wisdom.
MAX 7,8,9,10: (116 ft 8 in) (129 ft 8 in) (138 ft 4 in) (143 ft 8 in)
737 MAX 7 $99.7
737 MAX 8 $121.6
737 MAX 200 $124.8
737 MAX 9 $128.9
737 MAX 10 $134.9
 
airzona11
Posts: 1746
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:17 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
For starters, from a financial perspective, comparing it to the A321 sales doesn't add anything. The 737-900ER has 400+ orders in a family of thousands, that is the beauty and reason A and B iterate off their platforms. Boeing has been making record money and airlines are on the record as the plane being very efficient to fly. It certainly is making/made Boeing and the airlines money.


I did read one pundit who said that Boeing wasted 23 years on the B737-900 and -900ER when the RDT&E money could have been spent developing a New Single Aisle jet that was true competitor to the A321.

The question has resurrected with the next generation as slow sales of the -7 and -9 make some pundits question the wisdom.
MAX 7,8,9,10: (116 ft 8 in) (129 ft 8 in) (138 ft 4 in) (143 ft 8 in)
737 MAX 7 $99.7
737 MAX 8 $121.6
737 MAX 200 $124.8
737 MAX 9 $128.9
737 MAX 10 $134.9


There is no way the 737900/ER working capital/investment was substantial enough to kick NSA down the road. Airbus's decision of NEO and the duopoly of A and B are the reason that there is no NSA. The 900/-7/-9 are not stand-alone frames, they are part of the family, dev costs are marginal and they earn a premium over the 738. The economics are the exact same on the A321 in the family. The 737, MAX current situation aside (and that is not a plane economics issue), is a cash cow for Boeing. Boeing does not publish by type numbers, however, I would state the question in reverse. The pundits would be asking why are you not building/selling the -9 when you have the family to spread the cost over and minimal R/D to get it in the air. Then there is the opportunity cost to Boeing. AS/UA/DL with their hundreds of 900ERs, set profit aside, that cash flow alone has been worth it to Boeing.
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:40 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
I never said "failure". .......... What I said was it a "disappointment".


PacoMartin wrote:
A disappointment is a failure to live up to expectations.


So which is it? What answer are you looking for?
 
N649DL
Posts: 923
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:40 pm

shamrock137 wrote:
N649DL wrote:

IMHO, now that you brought up the icing accretion issue and weight penalties out of the DEN hub (not to mention late deployment of tail sticks too)


What was the issue with icing on the ER's?


IDK it just sounds like a Denver thing for a plane like that because of it's insane weather changes. I'm no expert but it's fairly common knowledge that the thing is pig on wheels and even humans can act weird at high altitude with dry air & drastic weather changes (having lived in DEN for a bit myself.)

However back in the old days, those old UA 757s didn't flinch at all & weren't nearly as sensitive to the weather in DEN. Hence why they'd operate as long as DEN-HNL and as short as DEN-OMA, very versatile aircraft for the altitude and weather changes.

Something perhaps comparable to the 739ER with UA at DEN: There was something I read a while ago about how the AA A306's had issues performing between humid and sticky Caribbean / LATAM destinations and would glitch out once they got back to frigid cold JFK or BOS hubs in the late 2000s once they got older in the wintertime. Anecdotal, but I still believe that both aircraft types are unique in the fact they could have issues like this compared to the Boeing 757-200.

johns624 wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
Stitch wrote:
The 737-900 was the true disappointment.

Frankly, I thought they needed more orders than that to launch a program
Korean Air 16
Alaska Airlines 12
United Airlines 12
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 5
Shenzhen Airlines 5
Jet Airways 2

Look at which airlines they were, though. If the plane was any good, do you think that large customers like United, Alaska and the rest wouldn't come back for repeat orders?


Early 739 (non-ERs) were ordered by Continental, not UAL, and VERY early with deliveries taking place in 2002-2003. In fact, CO regulated them to mainly EWR-Florida routes because of range issues.

It seems like with CO and AS, Boeing was offering the non-ER variant of the 739 as a entry level trial run of some sort. The 739ER at CO didn't really get popular until nearly half a decade after that and with additional top off orders to replace the UA 757s in the mid-2010s. The 739ER was one of the first new aircraft deliveries to accommodate Pre-Merger UA F/A's and Pilots as former CO orders, IIRC as they use CO-based registration numbers (if I'm wrong about this please forgive me haha.)

Major difference was the 739 was an early entry level variant in the early 2000s. Then it was followed by the ER variant Boeing to be a replacement for 757s almost a decade later after stopping production of the 757. To this day, the latter ER offering as far as the verdict to fully replacing the 757 is still out there. Hence why you see so much demand for the Airbus NEOs.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27089
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:58 pm

The 737-900 was used by carriers who operated the frames in a two class configuration (domestic First/Business at 2+2 and Economy at 3+3). As such, the Exit Limit being the same as the 737-800 was not an issue because the total passenger count was at or under it.

The 737-900ER added the extra exits to raise the Exit Limit from the 189 of the 737-900 to 220 which made the plane desirable for single-class (all Economy) operators who could now take advantage of the extra length for 3+3 seating.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 11:12 pm

A321
-111 = CFM56-5B1
-112 = CFM56-5B2
-131 = IAEV2530-A5
-211 = CFM56-5B3/P
-212 = CFM56-5B1 or CFM565B1/2
-213 = CFM56-5B2
-231 = IAEV2533-A5
-232 = IAEV2530-A5

Airbus took over 4 years to transition completely from A321-131 to the A321-231.
First Flight
original Airbus A321-231 12 Dec 1996
final Airbus A321-131 10 May 2001

Model Thrust
CFM56-5B1 30,000 lbf
CFM56-5B2 31,000 lbf
CFM56-5B3 33,000 lbf
IAE V2530-A5 30,000 lbf
IAE V2533-A5 33,000 lbf


mham001 wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
I never said "failure". .......... What I said was it a "disappointment".

PacoMartin wrote:
A disappointment is a failure to live up to expectations.

So which is it? What answer are you looking for?


Boeing had made it pretty clear that they expect the NMA to sell well over 2000 jets. I would say if they sell only 1500 that would be a "disappointment"..
My question was did Boeing executives believe the B737-900ER would be more competitive with the A321 in the international market.

Stitch wrote:
The 737-900ER added the extra exits to raise the Exit Limit from the 189 of the 737-900 to 220 which made the plane desirable for single-class (all Economy) operators who could now take advantage of the extra length for 3+3 seating.


Primary customer was Lion Air which configured the jet with 215 seats.
 
PacificWest
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 3:52 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:28 am

Uhh...

Does the A321 even have 'wheelie mode' and come with a free butt-crutch like the 737-900ER does? Didn't think so...

Airbus is no match for Boeing's innovative company culture

Image
 
questions
Posts: 2338
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:58 am

No, the B737-900ER is not a disappointment. In fact Boeing should receive kudos for taking the aviation equivalent of the AMC Pacer and selling it for 50+ years! The 739ER variant is only a disappointment to av geeks who want a new single aisle aircraft from Boeing.
 
EBT
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:04 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:32 am

PacoMartin wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
For starters, from a financial perspective, comparing it to the A321 sales doesn't add anything. The 737-900ER has 400+ orders in a family of thousands, that is the beauty and reason A and B iterate off their platforms. Boeing has been making record money and airlines are on the record as the plane being very efficient to fly. It certainly is making/made Boeing and the airlines money.


I did read one pundit who said that Boeing wasted 23 years on the B737-900 and -900ER when the RDT&E money could have been spent developing a New Single Aisle jet that was true competitor to the A321.

The question has resurrected with the next generation as slow sales of the -7 and -9 make some pundits question the wisdom.
MAX 7,8,9,10: (116 ft 8 in) (129 ft 8 in) (138 ft 4 in) (143 ft 8 in)
737 MAX 7 $99.7
737 MAX 8 $121.6
737 MAX 200 $124.8
737 MAX 9 $128.9
737 MAX 10 $134.9


I think it's an overstretch to say that 23 years were "wasted" on -900/-900ER as the R&D on it was pretty minimal, although the exact figures we will never know. The exit door limit issue of the -900 meant that to get any traction in a world turning to LCCs they had to do something, and the -900ER is, arguably, what they should have done in the first place.

If you look at both sides of the fence, there has been a general drift towards larger narrowbody aircraft - so airlines that once operated 737-300s upgraded to -800s and now are mostly looking at the Max 8 and 10. Similarly, carriers that built their fleets on A319s are moving to A320s and A321s. With the neo, the economics of the A321 are much more compelling over the smaller models, and its range is now much more useful, so unless there is a compelling reason in the business model to go with a smaller platform, it tends to win, hands down.

I think that, in hindsight, Boeing should have skipped the Max 9 and just gone straight to the 10. Yes it trades off range compared to the 9, but most airlines are happy with something that offers the higher capacity and lower unit economics but can reliably do most routes that a -800/Max 8 can.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:49 am

questions wrote:
No, the B737-900ER is not a disappointment. In fact Boeing should receive kudos for taking the aviation equivalent of the AMC Pacer and selling it for 50+ years! The 739ER variant is only a disappointment to av geeks who want a new single aisle aircraft from Boeing.


Boeing only sold 3,132 B737 original and class jets and that actually took 34 years to deliver. It's been 31.5 years since the first A320 was delivered and in those last three decades Airbus seems to have taken the innovation lead on most aspects of single aisle twin engine aviation.

I doubt anyone in the mid 1980s believed that aviation manufacturers would take orders for over 30K single aisle twin engine commercial jets.

We all know that Boeing's real bottom line is driven by dual aisle 747, 767, 777, and 787, a dominance which Airbus has never been able to seriously challenge.

So in the executive boardrooms they simply may not care that the A321 has been running roughshod of Boeing competition.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Topic Author
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:05 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
Boeing only sold 3,132 B737 original and classic jets and that actually took 34 years to deliver. .


Original jets are B737-100/200, Classic are B737-300/400/500.

Delivered at an average of less than 100 per year.
1967 4
1968 105
1969 114
1970 37
1971 29
1972 22
1973 23
1974 55
1975 51
1976 41
1977 25
1978 40
1979 77
1980 92
1981 108
1982 95
1983 82
1984 67 |28. Nov. 1984 first B737-300 delivered
1985 115
1986 141
1987 161
1988 165 | 28. Mar. 1988 first A320 delivered |15. Sep. 1988 first B737-400 delivered
1989 146
1990 174 | 28. Feb. 1990 first B737-500 delivered
1991 215
1992 218
1993 152
1994 121
1995 89
1996 76
1997 132 |17. Dec. 1997 First B737/Next Generation delivered
1998 116
1999 42
2000 2
total 3,132
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:39 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
questions wrote:
No, the B737-900ER is not a disappointment. In fact Boeing should receive kudos for taking the aviation equivalent of the AMC Pacer and selling it for 50+ years! The 739ER variant is only a disappointment to av geeks who want a new single aisle aircraft from Boeing.


Boeing only sold 3,132 B737 original and class jets and that actually took 34 years to deliver. It's been 31.5 years since the first A320 was delivered and in those last three decades Airbus seems to have taken the innovation lead on most aspects of single aisle twin engine aviation.

I doubt anyone in the mid 1980s believed that aviation manufacturers would take orders for over 30K single aisle twin engine commercial jets.

We all know that Boeing's real bottom line is driven by dual aisle 747, 767, 777, and 787, a dominance which Airbus has never been able to seriously challenge.

So in the executive boardrooms they simply may not care that the A321 has been running roughshod of Boeing competition.


We do not all know that the real bottom line at Boeing is driven by dual aisle sale. I personally believe it is a myth. AFAIK the single aisle frames are a bigger part of the revenue at Boeing, than the dual aisle frame, not so big a part as at Airbus, but big enough.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1282
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:55 pm

There hasn't really been much to be excited about since the 737 pioneered the twinjet under-the-wings configuration for narrow-bodies over the past 50 years. FBW wound up very good for Airbus (even today I think it averages a slightly lower dispatch availability though), but really it's just frame stretches and new engines/lavatory configurations to pack more people in per 3x3 configurations allowances.

I suspect if one took the Boeing NG product planners notes they'd probably be surprised how many 900 and 900ER's sold. I don't think it really matters much, however.

A.nutters tend to get very excited/emotional about this comparison/metrics but really it's quite dull; 737 is a bit lighter, and less capable. A320 is newer and a bit more spacious/heavier/capable, had more room for growth. The end.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27089
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Was B737-900ER a disappointment?

Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:46 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
We all know that Boeing's real bottom line is driven by dual aisle 747, 767, 777, and 787, a dominance which Airbus has never been able to seriously challenge. So in the executive boardrooms they simply may not care that the A321 has been running roughshod of Boeing competition.


Boeing makes more money per frame from the widebodies, but they deliver so many more 737s per year that is where the majority (if a simple one) of Boeing's delivery revenues come from. The much larger installed base of 737s also generates significantly more ancillary sales (training, spares, PiPs, etc.) and those are generally higher-margin products.

So overall, the 737 family is very important to Boeing Commercial's revenues and profits.

Who is online

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