Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
John
Topic Author
Posts: 1257
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 1999 10:47 am

The 737-900ER......

Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:42 pm

.....has it been officially launched and will ANA be the launch customer? Haven't read much about this lately....
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2957
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:53 pm

The 737-900ER is a short-to-medium range twinjet that increases the capability of the Next-Generation 737 family. It was launched on July 18, 2005 , with an order for 30 airplanes from Lion Air. The exterior dimensions of the new 737-900ER are identical to the 737-900. Aerodynamic and structural changes allow the 737-900ER to carry more passengers and fly farther than the 737-900. Entry into service is scheduled for the first half of 2007.

Major Changes
An extra pair of exit doors, aft of the wings
A two-position tail skid
A flat rear pressure bulkhead
Wing strengthening changes
Enhancements to the leading and trailing edge flap systems
Up to two optional auxiliary fuel tanks
Optional Blended Winglets
Benefits
Carries 26 more passengers than the 737-900, up to 215 passengers in a single-class configuration
Flies about 500 nautical miles farther, up to 3,200 nm (5,925 km)
Weighs more than 10,000 pounds (4,536 kgs) less than the A321.
Has lower operating costs than the A321; about 7 percent lower per trip, and 5 percent lower per seat.
 
JasperEMA
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 6:59 pm

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:13 am

Yes but how many years of development to get 5-7% efficiency savings? The A321 has been around for years , Boeing launch the 737-900ER, 2 years later Airbus launch the A321X(or whatever) 2 years later Boeing.........Thats Progress folks .
 
flyinghippo
Posts: 769
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:48 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:13 am

Quoting Jumbojet (Reply 1):
It was launched on July 18, 2005 , with an order for 30 airplanes from Lion Air.

Has this order been firmed up? Or is this another Primaris or whatever airline that first ordered 787?
 
Johnny
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:38 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:15 am

"Weighs more than 10,000 pounds (4,536 kgs) less than the A321.
Has lower operating costs than the A321; about 7 percent lower per trip, and 5 percent lower per seat."

...AND WE ALL KNOW WHY: Because the fuselage has a smaller diameter with less comfort and no capability of containers.

also a bad field performance due to its short landing gear.


No real competitor for the A321 and no real replacement for the B752
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30094
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:20 am


1st half 2007 scheduled to enter service.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
SLUAviator
Posts: 292
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:30 pm

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:23 am

Quoting JOHNNY (Reply 6):
also a bad field performance due to its short landing gear.

How does length of landing gear contribute to field performance?
What do I know? I just fly 'em.......
 
Johnny
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:38 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:51 am

@ SLUAviator

because the length of the gear results in a possible angle of rotation of an airplane.And this is indeed the limiting factor of the -900ER.You have to keep the nose down during take-off and landing to avoid tailstrikes.this causes higher speeds which results in a longer required rwy length.

A problem which both the A321 and B752 do not have! The B752 has an additional advantage with 4-wheel main-gears and twice the numbers of main-brakes as the B739ER (ALso available on the A321 as special req. like Indian Airlines have on their A320-200)

Greets,

Johnny
 
sjot
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue May 28, 2002 11:42 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:01 am

Actually, I believe that all future build 739s will be 739ERs ... they will all have the new rear bulkhead AND the extra door although in non-900ER orders that door will be covered by the interior / deactivated / non-certified.

or at least that was the plan at any rate ... may have changed but I would imagine that it hasn't since it would be cheeper to manufacture only one type of -900 fueslage. (probably adds to the ac's residual value as well
 
767-332ER
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 1:20 pm

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:35 am

Quoting Johnny (Reply 7):
because the length of the gear results in a possible angle of rotation of an airplane

Tell either one of these guys they have bad field performance due to their short landing gears.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Chambers



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Torin Wilson

Twinjets...if one fails, work the other one twice as hard!!!
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2957
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 6:51 am

Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 3):
Has this order been firmed up? Or is this another Primaris or whatever airline that first ordered 787?

I got the info from the Boeing site so i would say so
 
WAH64D
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 6:59 am

Quoting 767-332ER (Reply 9):
Tell either one of these guys they have bad field performance due to their short landing gears.

That was funny. Seriously though, the B739 is severely limited by its length relative to its height. As far as I remember, it can't rotate beyond about 8 or 9 degrees without risking a tail strike. This coupled with its inability to carry cargo containers makes it a niche aircraft, only really suitable for routes between relatively large airfields with high pax and low/no cargo requirement.

Having said that, it'll be great to see the B739ER. Reminds me a bit of the mega stretched DC-9s/MD-80s.
I AM the No-spotalotacus.
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2392
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:53 am

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 11):
Seriously though, the B739 is severely limited by its length relative to its height. As far as I remember, it can't rotate beyond about 8 or 9 degrees without risking a tail strike. This coupled with its inability to carry cargo containers makes it a niche aircraft, only really suitable for routes between relatively large airfields with high pax and low/no cargo requirement.

Do a.nutters employed at AS and CO agree with this?
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:05 am

A lot depends on that rear bulkhead and whether the certifying authorities are totally happy with it.

The 737-900ER is a substantial departure from anything which has been built before with regard to the flat bulkhead, and Japan in particular could be somewhat twitchy about bulkheads. They (with JAL) learned that lesson the hard way.

A new bulkhead isn't like a new interior. It could be delayed if the agencies aren't totally happy with it and demand further testing to satisfy any concerns about stress fractures over the life of the aircraft.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9306
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:08 am

Quoting JOHNNY (Reply 4):
No real competitor for the A321 and no real replacement for the B752

The 739ER has the same range, same payload, lighter structural weight, and lower cruise SFC. Not a competitor to the A321?

Quoting JOHNNY (Reply 4):
also a bad field performance due to its short landing gear.

The 739ER will be available will a short-runway package that will match the take-off performance of the 738 or A320.

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 11):
This coupled with its inability to carry cargo containers makes it a niche aircraft

That's exactly what the A321 is, as well.

Quoting JOHNNY (Reply 4):
...AND WE ALL KNOW WHY: Because the fuselage has a smaller diameter with less comfort and no capability of containers.

Yes... the always convincing comfort/container argument  Yeah sure

Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 3):
Has this order been firmed up? Or is this another Primaris or whatever airline that first ordered 787?

Launch customer is LionAir with an order of twenty. The 739ER is a minor derrivitive, and Boeing has past said the amortization point is approx 30 frames.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:15 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
The 739ER is a minor derrivitive

no it isn't. A major, critical component has been completely redesigned. One as critical as the engines or wings, as it can cause a catastrophic accident if it were to fail.

You cannot just brush it aside as a 'minor' change. It was not a minor component failure that killed all those Japanese passengers.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
User avatar
ptharris
Posts: 265
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:58 pm

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:57 am

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 12):
Quoting WAH64D (Reply 11):
Seriously though, the B739 is severely limited by its length relative to its height. As far as I remember, it can't rotate beyond about 8 or 9 degrees without risking a tail strike. This coupled with its inability to carry cargo containers makes it a niche aircraft, only really suitable for routes between relatively large airfields with high pax and low/no cargo requirement.

Do a.nutters employed at AS and CO agree with this?

Well, I don't currently work for AS, but having worked for them I know they'll most likely be all over this aircraft. Alaska has expanded greatly in the last 5 years and I think they'll continue. Doing so would mean you would need fleet flexability. They've stretched their legs with the 738... I'm sure the 739ER would be the next step for AS, in my opinion. As far as it being a niche aircraft, no way. The 737 series has far proven itself a workhorse in the North American air market. WN wouldn't keep trudging itself along with the 73-series if it weren't a viable aircraft, as an example. Big grin

[Edited 2006-01-26 00:59:19]
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving isn't for you.
 
DeltaMD11
Posts: 1680
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 4:56 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:14 am

Quoting Johnny (Reply 7):
The B752 has an additional advantage with 4-wheel main-gears and twice the numbers of main-brakes as the B739ER (ALso available on the A321 as special req. like Indian Airlines have on their A320-200)

The 757 is a significantly heavier aircraft than the 739ER will be, so it takes a larger gear to support the weight and additionally more braking power to slow the aircraft down. As far as the 4 tire landing gear option on the A320 series, other than the Indian Airlines aircraft nobody else has opted for this because of the fact that the 2 tire setup is just fine for the weights that these aircraft operate at. I believe the reasoning behind Indian Airlines choosing the 4 tire option was the potential need for their A320's to operate off of unprepared/dodgy runways, thus a greater spread of weight and a heavier landing gear to absorb more impact.
Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
 
CalAir
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:15 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:56 am

If I am right in thinking that there is no abundant supply of 2nd hand 757's out there, which is the the vibe ive gotten from some posts on A.Net, would the 739-ER be a suitable replacement for the IT market airlines such as BY and MON? I know it carries 20 odd pax less but the range must be similar and the lack of cargo space wouldnt make that much difference to an IT operator. I would think it may be too large for FR though.
British Caledonian...we never forget, you have a choice
 
PADSpot
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 11:42 am

Quoting 767-332ER (Reply 9):
Tell either one of these guys they have bad field performance due to their short landing gears.

They certainly don't have limited field performance. But these planes are especially made for that purpose, having a chamfered tail and a better lift/weight ratio than commercial airliners ...

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
The 739ER will be available will a short-runway package that will match the take-off performance of the 738 or A320.

But that package will leave the landing gear unchanged and instead employ a more extreme flap setting for example ...

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
That's exactly what the A321 is, as well.

Well, it sold pretty strong for being a niche product, in fact much better than the 739. And it can accept containers as WAH64D pointed out ...

Quoting DeltaMD11 (Reply 17):
As far as the 4 tire landing gear option on the A320 series, other than the Indian Airlines aircraft nobody else has opted for this because of the fact that the 2 tire setup is just fine for the weights that these aircraft operate at.

Well, it is not that they employ the larger gear to accommodate the weight of the airplane. The 4-wheel landing gear is aimed at enabling the A32X to land on "softer" runways. It's less a strain to the runway and can better handle potholes for instance ...
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 11:50 am

Quoting JOHNNY (Reply 4):
also a bad field performance due to its short landing gear.

Because, you know, the A321 can really get up and go on a hot summer day in Denver...

Quoting Johnny (Reply 7):
because the length of the gear results in a possible angle of rotation of an airplane.And this is indeed the limiting factor of the -900ER.You have to keep the nose down during take-off and landing to avoid tailstrikes.this causes higher speeds which results in a longer required rwy length.

The nose will stay down, but the engines are strong enough that the nose isn't going to stay down as long as an A321's nose will stay up wilst it's wheelying down the runway. Landing gear means nothing compared to an underpowered airplane.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9306
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:42 pm

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 15):
You cannot just brush it aside as a 'minor' change. It was not a minor component failure that killed all those Japanese passengers.

First, that's a incredibly cheap shot on par with saying the A300 rudder is "flimsy" and AA will never opperate aircraft with a high degree of carbon fiber content.

The 739ER development cost and timetable are low in the grand scheme of the commercial aircraft sector. I don't see how an >18-month project with a development cost almost fully amortized by the single launch order constitutes a major product.

Certification is the same hurdle for any other variant.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 19):
Well, it sold pretty strong for being a niche product, in fact much better than the 739.

About 500 orders in 15 years? Compared to the sales of the 73G/738 and A319/A320, that's hardly setting the world on fire.

The A318/A321 are perfect examples of a niche aircraft, likewise 736/739

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 19):
But that package will leave the landing gear unchanged and instead employ a more extreme flap setting for example ...

... and? It gets the plane off the ground with less real estate, doesn't it?

Quoting JOHNNY (Reply 4):
No real competitor for the A321 and no real replacement for the B752

The 757 is also way more aircraft than many carriers use. It was long seen as "too much aircraft" in its early years. On short/medium domestic sectors, the 739ER will do very well against the 752.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
ChiGB1973
Posts: 1394
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:39 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:50 pm

Quoting Johnny (Reply 7):
A321 as special req. like Indian Airlines have on their A320-200)


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt - AirTeamImages



Wow, that's neat. As much as I have been on here, I never knew.

M
 
subkk
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:57 pm

Quoting DeltaMD11 (Reply 17):
I believe the reasoning behind Indian Airlines choosing the 4 tire option was the potential need for their A320's to operate off of unprepared/dodgy runways, thus a greater spread of weight and a heavier landing gear to absorb more impact.

I dont think Indian Operates A 320's to any unprepared runways. In fact they operate most A320s to station which take larger aircraft like A300 or B777 or B747s. There may be 6 or 7 stations of the 50 odd that they service with A 320's where A320 would be the largest aircraft
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:59 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 21):
First, that's a incredibly cheap shot on par with saying the A300 rudder is "flimsy" and AA will never opperate aircraft with a high degree of carbon fiber content.

The 739ER development cost and timetable are low in the grand scheme of the commercial aircraft sector. I don't see how an >18-month project with a development cost almost fully amortized by the single launch order constitutes a major product.

and that is an incredibly stupid reply.

Why are you dancing round the issue I raised? Namely that what you describe as a 'minor' change (your word) is nothing of the sort?

A300 tails are not pressurised body parts or bulkheads. So that's one of your dishonest shots taken out. Next, costs are not an issue. What IS an issue is a major structural change to the 737, namely a CF bulkhead which is a nonstandard shape for th industry. A damaged bulkhead brought down a JAL flight, which I used to demonstrate that brushing off the CF issue as 'minor' is both dishonest and potentially dangerous.

Or are you saying that major design changes are not important to the FAA?

You need to drink less kool-aid. And next time you accuse me of a 'cheap shot', look at your own even cheaper reply first.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
PADSpot
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 4:33 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 21):


Quoting PADSpot,reply=19:
But that package will leave the landing gear unchanged and instead employ a more extreme flap setting for example ...

... and? It gets the plane off the ground with less real estate, doesn't it?

Sure it does, but we and especially JOHNNY whose post your originally referred to were talking about the landing gear as the reason for the 739's bad field performance and high tail-strike risk.

Apart from that I ask myself how many airports with a 200-220 seat market are out there not having a long enough runway ... so this might not be the major argument for airlines.

Boeing's Problem was that strong 757-sales cannibalized the 739-market to a size of a niche product and that Airbus had a headstart with their A32X series. Therefore for operators of large A32X-fleets (which already existed when the 739 was introduced!) the A321 was a much cheaper aircraft than the 739. Additionally many operators of big 737-fleets also had 757s, making it less obvious for them to integrate the 739. Finally the success of the A321 was a matter of good timing.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 21):
About 500 orders in 15 years? Compared to the sales of the 73G/738 and A319/A320, that's hardly setting the world on fire.

The A321 might be twice as old as the 739, but it accumulated a little more than 6times the amount of orders (519 : 85) (for above reasons!). And a market of 604 frames IS NOT A NICHE! ... The A318/B736 hardly got 200 orders all together, which qualifies them as niche products, no doubt ..
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30094
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:45 pm

Quoting ChiGB1973 (Reply 22):
Wow, that's neat. As much as I have been on here, I never knew.

All the new replacements & Leased Aircraft have the Convential Two tyre gear.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15763
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:51 pm

Quoting Ptharris (Reply 16):
Well, I don't currently work for AS, but having worked for them I know they'll most likely be all over this aircraft.

As much as I'd love to see the 739ER on the property, the 738 is the future of Alaska Airlines.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
RedDragon
Posts: 1096
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 2:24 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:12 pm

What a thread to get back onto Anet with...

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 24):
A300 tails are not pressurised body parts or bulkheads. So that's one of your dishonest shots taken out. Next, costs are not an issue. What IS an issue is a major structural change to the 737, namely a CF bulkhead which is a nonstandard shape for th industry. A damaged bulkhead brought down a JAL flight, which I used to demonstrate that brushing off the CF issue as 'minor' is both dishonest and potentially dangerous.

Yes, A300 vertical fins are not pressurised body parts. This doesn't mean that they're any less a safety-critical part though, does it? Am I missing something in your analysis, or are aircraft tails less likely to cause a catastrophic accident upon failure than rear pressure bulkheads...?

For what it's worth, I believe that Airbus no longer offers the four-wheel gear as an option on the A320 series. I'd imagine they discontinued its availability a fair few years ago. Does anyone know if anything has changed over the life of the product with regard to the undercarriage?

Rich
 
sulman
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:09 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:31 pm

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 20):
The nose will stay down, but the engines are strong enough

Really nothing in it. Similar powerplant on both. 321 isn't a bad performer by any means.


Cheers


James
It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:32 pm

Will this flat bulkhead be available for the other 737NG members later on?

It will be interesting to see if the oldest 757 with the big US airlines will be replaced by the smaller 739ER when they have the financially capability to order new planes. Downsizing seems to be a trend over there.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:38 pm

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 24):
and that is an incredibly stupid reply.

Why are you dancing round the issue I raised? Namely that what you describe as a 'minor' change (your word) is nothing of the sort?

A300 tails are not pressurised body parts or bulkheads. So that's one of your dishonest shots taken out. Next, costs are not an issue. What IS an issue is a major structural change to the 737, namely a CF bulkhead which is a nonstandard shape for th industry. A damaged bulkhead brought down a JAL flight, which I used to demonstrate that brushing off the CF issue as 'minor' is both dishonest and potentially dangerous.

Or are you saying that major design changes are not important to the FAA?

You need to drink less kool-aid. And next time you accuse me of a 'cheap shot', look at your own even cheaper reply first.

I believe that the effect of the pressure bulkhead failure has been fixed, meaning the loss of hydraulic control shouldn't happen in the future. The failure of the bulkhead itself didn't cause the airplane to crash, but the effect, which was the pressurized air entering the tail.

By the way, the 737 doesn't require hydraulics to move the elevators (unlike the 747), and maual reversion flight tests are a requiement

I don't think that the 737-9ER is a major program, and Boeing does have a lot of expereince and data with fatigue from pressure cycles.

Cheers
 
DeltaMD11
Posts: 1680
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 4:56 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:30 pm

Quoting Subkk (Reply 23):
I dont think Indian Operates A 320's to any unprepared runways.

If you read what I said you would have noticed that the word 'potential' comes before unprepared strips. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that was the reason behind them ordering the A320 with this option correct?
Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
 
Derik737
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:53 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:33 pm

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 13):
The 737-900ER is a substantial departure from anything which has been built before with regard to the flat bulkhead

Hmm, I seem to remember another Boeing product with a flat REAR bulkhead which also included a door...the 727.
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2392
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:38 pm

Doesnt't all aircraft with rear-mounted engines have a flat pressure bulkhead? Like DC9-MD80-MD90, B727, ERJ, CRJ, F70-F100...
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
WAH64D
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:55 pm

Quoting Ptharris (Reply 16):
WN wouldn't keep trudging itself along with the 73-series if it weren't a viable aircraft, as an example.

I didn't suggest that the 737 series wasn't viable. Far from it, the 737 series is a massive revenue generator for airlines. What I am saying is that the B739 can't be compared to its smaller siblings. WN don't operate the B739 and for good reason. It truly is a niche aircraft. I think it will fit with AS very well as their route structure is perfect for it. High pax to US west coast and very little cargo.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14):
That's exactly what the A321 is, as well.

If you're going to compare B739 to A321, you might as well compare it to B752. A321 is a very capable aircraft, while it doesn't have the cargo capacity of the B752, it has a hell of a lot more than the B739 and most importantly it can accommodate containers, something no pax variant 737 can do. Your response that A321 is a niche aircraft has little credibility in my eyes as its operated by a wide variety of airlines. The B739 in contrast is operated by 2 or 3.
I AM the No-spotalotacus.
 
KROC
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: The 737-900ER......

Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:51 pm

All threads that end up degenerating into an A vs. B war or are well on their way to having that happen will be locked or removed. This thread is a casualty.

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