Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
fpetrutiu
Topic Author
Posts: 752
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:37 am

I was wondering why the 737-900 is not more popular, especially with low-cost airlines. It seems that it is a very well performing frame, good CASM, excellent overall performance. It seems that it could be a real winner.
Florin
Orlando, FL
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 5967
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:43 am

Quoting fpetrutiu (Thread starter):
I was wondering why the 737-900 is not more popular, especially with low-cost airlines. It seems that it is a very well performing frame, good CASM, excellent overall performance. It seems that it could be a real winner.

I know many LCCs operating all 737 fleets in one-class configurations don't want to add a fifth FA. It took many years for WN to approve the 738, which requires four FAs instead of three like on the 733/735/73G. However, this doesn't seem to be an issue with LCCs operating A32x aircraft, as several LCCs operate A321s. As for why I am not sure.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:03 am

The 737-900ER isn't doing too shabby now that they have the exits figured out. The A321 has a similar seat advantage over the 739 that the 737-8 has over the A320. I think it will see more sales now that the NSA has been pushed back

A321 had to contend with the 757. It's a solid machine.

tortugamon
 
as739x
Posts: 5248
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:23 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:08 am

The 737-900ER seems do be doing pretty well in my opinion. More and more orders are coming in and this month alone we saw DL and LY take their first.

In reference to the LCC, remember the 5th exit row door is built for them. So those carriers willing to deal with the extra FA issue, it's a solid product.
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
 
questions
Posts: 2337
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:13 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 2):
The 737-900ER isn't doing too shabby now that they have the exits figured out.

What does this mean?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 2):
I think it will see more sales now that the NSA has been pushed back

What is NSA?
 
Max Q
Posts: 8910
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:14 am

Quoting fpetrutiu (Thread starter):
t seems that it is a very well performing frame

It really isn't and that's why it's not doing well.


It is presented as a B757 replacement but, even for domestic use it doesn't come close and is often payload restricted and/ or has to make a stop on transcontinental flights, even eastbound !


It's a stretch too far.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
timpdx
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:54 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:25 am

NSA refers to New Small Aircraft. The eventual successor to the entire 737 family coming after the MAX line-up is retired.

never heard of the 9ER having problems eastbound transcon.

Its really a high cap arframe for trunk routes rather than transcon. DFW-ORD, ATL-JFK, LAX-SEA, MIA-JFK...those sorts of routes. Its certianly not an optimal 757 replacement.
Flown 2018: LAX, ARN, DXB, ALA, TAS, UCG, ASB, MYP, GYD, TBS, KUT, BER, TLS, SVO, CCF, DUB, LGW, MEX, BUR, PDX, ORD, SLC, SNA
Upcoming 2018: STL, MIA, BZE, IAH, BHM, LHR, DFW, PHX
 
N243NW
Posts: 1599
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:29 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:26 am

The 739ER is somewhat hindered by its long fuselage and short landing gear, too. It has to therefore takeoff and land at a very high speed relative to other narrowbodies in order to maintain a safe tail clearance. Required runway lengths at MTOW are often very long, even at sea level. The A321 isn't quite as bad due to its taller gear.
B-52s don't take off. They scare the ground away.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22139
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:58 am

Quoting N243NW (Reply 7):
The 739ER is somewhat hindered by its long fuselage and short landing gear, too. It has to therefore takeoff and land at a very high speed relative to other narrowbodies in order to maintain a safe tail clearance. Required runway lengths at MTOW are often very long, even at sea level. The A321 isn't quite as bad due to its taller gear.

   The hot/high performance of the A321 leaves room for improvement and the 739ER is far worse.

For others, compare pages 6.12 through 6.15 for the body contact risk (tail strike) happens for the 739ER at a mere 8 degrees angle of attack:
http://www.flightdeck737.be/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/B738W-FCTM.pdf

Some of the 739ER's issues is the added 6 tons of weight needed for a TCON at takeoff:
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/com...orts/faqs/arcandapproachspeeds.pdf

And then let's compare runway lengths:
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/737sec3.pdf

Compare the 738 on page 151 (hot day takeoff) at 4,000ft elevation with the -900ER on pg. 159.
The 738 could takeoff at MTOW with a 12,500' long runway. The -900ER isn't.

Heck, the -900ER cannot take off at MTOW on a 85F day at 2,000ft elevation!

Look at pg. 160 for its *very* poor +45C day takeoff performance. The -900ER has the same MTOW limits as the 738, which means fewer passengers due to the higher OEW. This means fewer missions.

It was also that the 739ER was offered late (the 739 non-ER never sold well). Thus airlines doing 'top off' orders were just buying more 738s. There are routes the 739ER will do very well (e.g., from LAX, JFK, PHL, and other Sealevel airports that never get too hot). But the 739ER is going to be too limited from PHX, LAS, DEN, and SLC. It will fly some routes, but some should be on the 738 due to hot/high performance.

Its not that the A321 is an ideal hot/high performer. It isn't. See page 3-3-2.
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...data/AC/Airbus-AC-A321-Jun2012.pdf

The A321 was out early enough with enough range to appeal to enough customers. (e.g., European airlines)

Now, both are benefiting from Sharklets and the 2nd generation 737NG winglets.

Lightsaber
6 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8645
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 5:13 am

Quoting questions (Reply 4):
What does this mean?

The original exit configuration of the [non ER] 737-900 mean that it was only certified to the same number of passengers as the 737-800 (189 IIRC). Given that LCCs such as FR already have that many seats in their 73Hs, there was no need for them to purchase the 739. Now that the 739ER has two additional [optional] exits, it is certified to carry more passengers (215?) which makes its additional size much more attractive to LCCs.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 5:18 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 9):
Look at pg. 160 for its *very* poor +45C day takeoff performance. The -900ER has the same MTOW limits as the 738, which means fewer passengers due to the higher OEW. This means fewer missions.

Hmm, the 900ER has a 6.1Ton MTOW advantage over the 738. I do agree with everything else though, plus I believe the first iteration in the form of the 900 having a max seating capacity as the 738 and absymal range in comparison where major factors as to its poor perfomance at the start. Plus the LCC's are trying to capitalise on the 1 FA to 50 seat rule which favours the 738 at 4 vs 5 for the 739.

It has however sold ok in recent times and the Max-9 will do much better.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
MEA-707
Posts: 3844
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 1999 4:51 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:38 am

Some reasons are mentioned already above.
One reason not discussed so far is that it's not so popular because it's not so popular. I mean with this; 738s are so widely used that if you buy some, you don't have to worry for resale value or placing it again after a lease. Nothing worse then having invested in a fleet and then finding out nobody wants your 2nd hand examples when you can't afford or want to fly them no longer, the reason why 736s, 73Gs and even some early 777s get scrapped already and that the big lessor companies like GECAS, ALC invest in 738s mainly.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
 
columba
Posts: 5256
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:48 am

It took a while for the -900ER gaining orders, many airlines already had opted for the A321s others in the US still had very large 757 fleets. Other than with the current generation of the 737 I believe the 737-8Max and -9Max will be the best selling variants. 737-7Max will only play a minor role.
Air Berlin - gone but not forgotten
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:52 am

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 12):
One reason not discussed so far is that it's not so popular because it's not so popular.

This is a great point. Competitive lease rates were not available when production rates were low. An often overlooked but solid point.

tortugamon
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:42 am

Quoting waly777 (Reply 11):
Plus the LCC's are trying to capitalise on the 1 FA to 50 seat rule which favours the 738 at 4 vs 5 for the 739.

Wait... what? A 738 can carry 189 passengers, maximum. A 737-900ER can carry a maximum of 215. So even if you add just 11 seats over the max of a 737-800, you're maximising passenger:FA ratios on the one-for-every-50-pax basis. Yes more weight to fly around, but depending how you're configured, more revenue.

Adding 11 more seats but maintaining existing FA/pax ratios makes a lot more sense than, for example, Easyjet adding just 6 seats for a whole other FA.

This doesn't account for a whole heap of other factors, but I think the FA-reasoning needs to be put to bed.

And from what I've heard, Boeing has been pretty mean on -900ER pricing. If true, that probably plays a significant role.
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:57 am

I asked our Director of Flight Ops if the airline I work for could get the B739ER and fly them with 200 seats so that we would only need 4 FAs like on the B738 and use the 9ER on our longest routes. He replied that the main reason we don't want the 9ER is because it is not suitable for too many airports in our network as it needs more runway on most occasions than the B738, making aircraft substitutions difficult and often take weight restrictions. But Flight Ops did seriously look at the 9ER before dismissing it.
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
mauriceb
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 2:50 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:13 am

For a plane with 530+ orders since its launch in 2005, while the A321/737-800 where already there, its actually doing quite good..

If u compare it to the 737-900, which didn't sell well at all, the modifications can be called a succes i think!
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:07 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 15):
Wait... what? A 738 can carry 189 passengers, maximum. A 737-900ER can carry a maximum of 215. So even if you add just 11 seats over the max of a 737-800, you're maximising passenger:FA ratios on the one-for-every-50-pax basis. Yes more weight to fly around, but depending how you're configured, more revenue.

Adding 11 more seats but maintaining existing FA/pax ratios makes a lot more sense than, for example, Easyjet adding just 6 seats for a whole other FA.

This doesn't account for a whole heap of other factors, but I think the FA-reasoning needs to be put to bed.

And from what I've heard, Boeing has been pretty mean on -900ER pricing. If true, that probably plays a significant role.

You can tell this to Ryanair who are currently trying to get Boeing to increase the exit limit for the 738 to about 199 or so. Buying a larger, heavier & less capable aircraft to add 11 seats is hardly justifiable when a CBA is carried out....add to this that you will be wasting potential revenue space by increasing the seat pitch as you cannot utilise the full space of the aircraft if you're trying to keep the FA number to 4.....thus throwing away 15 seats so to speak for each flight. This raises the cost per seat for the 739 quite significantly I may add and hence why the 738 has remained the optimal choice though the 739 is picking up on routes where significant capacity is required by the FSC's. However, I believe Lionair and Spicejet are the only LCC's with 739's.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:19 pm

Realistic comfortable single class seating (32") for a 738 is 175. Realistic comfortable single class seating for the 739ER is 192 (32"). It's that the 900ER gives up more space for exit row seating, doesnt push the rows forward enough and leaves space by the rear galleys. You'd think you could get something like 195-198 seats at 32" pitch, but apparently not.

Regardless, you stuck with a real world delta between the planes of 17 seats. If you can't sell those 17 seats you are left with a heavy plane with all of the operational disadvantages.

The carriers that really make the 739ER work are those that compress the pitch to achieve seating greater than 200 in single class... or those that fly a dual class, where they have an 18 seat delta (800vs900ER).

Perhaps with the -9Max we will see something in the way of slimline seats and space saving lavs that gets the plane right up to 199pax single class capacity at 31/32" pitch.

[Edited 2013-10-11 09:23:31]
learning never stops.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2176
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:16 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 5):
It really isn't and that's why it's not doing well.


It is presented as a B757 replacement but, even for domestic use it doesn't come close and is often payload restricted and/ or has to make a stop on transcontinental flights, even eastbound !


It's a stretch too far.

By "doing well," do we mean sales or aircraft performance?

Max Q, I both agree and disagree with your comments. You're right, that the 739ERs are being used as 757 replacements and for the most part, they do that well. For DEN to SEA, for example, the 739ERs do fine and at a lower seat mile cost that the 757s (UAL's choice. On the other hand, the 738 is a better trans-con airplane that the 739ERs.

I flew the 738s, 739s - including the 739ERs - and 757s. 757s were my personal favorite, but given the seat mile cost advantage of the 739ERS and that 757s are getting old, I can see why UA and DL are switching to the 739s.

There's no doubt that in terms of runway requirements, the 757 is a better airplane.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 18641
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:50 pm

Quoting MauriceB (Reply 16):
For a plane with 530+ orders since its launch in 2005, while the A321/737-800 where already there, its actually doing quite good..

   Yeah I'm confused as to how popular it should be with a replacement/refresher already coming down the road 
I don't take responsibility at all
 
LJ
Posts: 5463
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:32 pm

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 18):
Realistic comfortable single class seating (32") for a 738 is 175. Realistic comfortable single class seating for the 739ER is 192 (32"). It's that the 900ER gives up more space for exit row seating, doesnt push the rows forward enough and leaves space by the rear galleys. You'd think you could get something like 195-198 seats at 32" pitch, but apparently not.

I don't think LCCs and many other airlines are interested in confortable seating for its pax. It's getting as much pax in your plane against the same costs.

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 18):
Regardless, you stuck with a real world delta between the planes of 17 seats. If you can't sell those 17 seats you are left with a heavy plane with all of the operational disadvantages.

This argument only holds if the extra revenue will pay for the extra FA. If it's filled against the low fares, then it won't be able to cover the cost of the extra FA.
 
User avatar
N62NA
Posts: 4516
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:35 pm

Quoting timpdx (Reply 6):
NSA refers to New Small Aircraft. The eventual successor to the entire 737 family coming after the MAX line-up is retired.

But that won't be until the 2030s at least. 
 
CO777DAL
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:01 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:49 pm

The 737-900ER sure seems really popular on the flights I'm on. Honestly, I have lost track on how many times I have been on a 737-900ER. If "m flying mainline, there is a 90% chance I'm on a 738 or a 739. I should add I have been flying CO and now UA and they seem to have no shortage of 737-900s. I wonder if they have the largest fleet of 739s and 739ERs?
Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
 
CONTACREW
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:13 pm

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 23):
I wonder if they have the largest fleet of 739s and 739ERs?

I believe we do 12 standard 739s and 70 739ERs so far for a total of 82. With more 739ERs on the way.
Flight Attendants prepare doors for departure, cross check verify straps standby for all call
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:26 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 8):
Lightsaber

Thanks Lightsaber. I assume this applies to the 737 Max as well. The MAX 9 represents 12% of the backlog versus 20% for the A321neo, which could be explained by your summary.

http://www.pdxlight.com/neomax.htm

[Edited 2013-10-11 16:34:58]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
CO777DAL
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:01 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:55 am

Quoting CONTACREW (Reply 24):
I believe we do 12 standard 739s and 70 739ERs so far for a total of 82. With more 739ERs on the way.

Thanks for the numbers. I knew you all have a lot of them.
Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:48 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 2):

The 737-900ER isn't doing too shabby now that they have the exits figured out.

So okay, I want to point out that almost nobody really uses those exits, and the US majors plug them up. Lion might... but that's it.

The 737-900 was a terrible airplane from an uplift capacity and it could barely get off runways. The 737-900ER's improvements include a lot of capability improvements, including flaps revisions and a tail strike setting - as well as tankage that it couldn't carry before.

So, now that's done, it was pretty much too late for the plane to be super successful. United, Lion, and Delta all have amassed pretty decent fleets - but now the 737-9 is going to obsolete it pretty soon.

The A321, on the other hand, started pretty early and captured good market share in Europe - and then ALSO had the exit doors at a time the Euro IT carriers wanted. Then, in response to US Airways request, they made it a very capable plane.

So all things told, timing wasn't great for the plane to begin with, and the changes were too late in its lifecycle.

NS
 
Max Q
Posts: 8910
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:53 am

Can a standard -900 be converted to an -ER ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:58 am

Not even a little bit, no.

The actual pressure bulkhead is different in the back of the plane, not to mention the place where the extra doors would actually go, and the wings are strengthened for the mtow increase. That can't be changed.

The leading and trailing edges are also different, and the tailskid is different - those are now offered on the 73G and 738, and they were offered after the 739ER build spec - so I don't know if they can be retrofitted.

NS
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2741
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:12 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 28):

Can a standard -900 be converted to an -ER ?

In theory yes, you can rebuild a -900 to an ER.

In practice, Its far far cheaper to sell your 900 and buy a new 900ER off the line.
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:06 am

Quoting LJ (Reply 21):
This argument only holds if the extra revenue will pay for the extra FA. If it's filled against the low fares, then it won't be able to cover the cost of the extra FA.

Going from 175pax to 192pax does not require adding an additional flight attendent... It is still 4.
learning never stops.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:28 am

It is a runway hog with lacking power for many demanding routes it is put on. Its like putting a cow in a horse race.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:49 am

Quoting waly777 (Reply 17):
Buying a larger, heavier & less capable aircraft to add 11 seats is hardly justifiable when a CBA is carried out....add to this that you will be wasting potential revenue space by increasing the seat pitch as you cannot utilise the full space of the aircraft if you're trying to keep the FA number to 4.....thus throwing away 15 seats so to speak for each flight.

But it's entirely dependent on what value those extra passengers bring. If you can offer more pitch and charge a premium, or your route is sufficiently in demand that you can charge a premium, then it will probably be worthwhile. And ontop of that you squeeze more efficiency per FA. You can't just assume that every airline is an LCC here.

And like I said, seems a lot more sensible than Easyjet's approach of adding an additional FA for just 6 more potential seats. I also doubt FR will get what they want from Boeing - they're just scrimping on paying a bit more for a 739.
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:20 pm

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 33):
But it's entirely dependent on what value those extra passengers bring. If you can offer more pitch and charge a premium, or your route is sufficiently in demand that you can charge a premium, then it will probably be worthwhile. And ontop of that you squeeze more efficiency per FA. You can't just assume that every airline is an LCC here.

And like I said, seems a lot more sensible than Easyjet's approach of adding an additional FA for just 6 more potential seats. I also doubt FR will get what they want from Boeing - they're just scrimping on paying a bit more for a 739.

However, my comment was specifically referring to LCC's in particular. Yes if those are F passengers and the demand is there then maybe, however i'm still yet to see any airline justify a larger aircraft for 11 seats in Y with the aim of keeping the FA numbers the same. When the finances are calculated, the 738 will come out tops in that scenario as a result of the lower CASM due to the higher seat count per floor space. Yes there will be marginally higher revenue, however the yield per seat of that aircraft will come off worse as you cannot charge a premium for the 739 over the 738 in your fleet. To put it simply, if the airline is not planning to use the extra capacity the 739 offers to the max, you will not see them purchasing it.You only need to look @ the seat count difference btw the 739 and 738 for airlines that do have it. 11 seats simply cannot justify a bigger aircraft.

Ryanair isn't scrimping on buying the 739...they just how much more it will cost them to add 11 seats to a bigger, heavier plane and it does not make financial sense particularly since they already operate with very low yields and rely on volume. Hence that volume per cost has to be as optimised as possible. If the 739 offered 230+ seats for instance, RYR will have purchased some.

Easyjet operates under a diff model to RYR, almost a hybrid in that they target Biz pax, hence they fly to pri airports etc. In other words they operate with a higher yield per pax than RYR. Though you take a look at their current orders and future fleet, it is all 320 and 320 NEO @ 180 seats which would imply they intend on maximising that last FA too.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:01 pm

Quoting sweair (Reply 32):
It is a runway hog with lacking power for many demanding routes it is put on. Its like putting a cow in a horse race.

I've never heard the 900ER referred to as lacking power. Do you have a source or some examples where this is a factor?
 
yeelep
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:53 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:59 pm

Quoting gigneil (Reply 27):
So okay, I want to point out that almost nobody really uses those exits, and the US majors plug them up. Lion might... but that's it.

Airlines with plugs: United, Alaska, Turkish, Delta and Korean. With doors: Spicejet, Jet Airways, Lion, Batik, Sky, Malindo, Ukraine Int. and Samon. Those with doors may or may not be activated.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 29):
The leading and trailing edges are also different, and the tailskid is different - those are now offered on the 73G and 738, and they were offered after the 739ER build spec - so I don't know if they can be retrofitted.

The leading and trailing edges are the same, the point that the L/E moves from extend to full extend relative to the T/E is different. The extendable tailskid is an option to the SFP option but standard on the ER. Other differences are T/E load relief settings, flight spoilers and inboard ground spoilers deploy further during ground ops and a bunch of computer/software changes.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:25 pm

Quoting gigneil (Reply 27):

All very true. But when the low cost carriers started buying the aircraft the production rates went up and the leasing rates went down which helped the US majors with acquisition pricing. I am not sure how many will use the doors but the fact that it is an option doesn't end the conversation. You raise solid arguments though.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 35):
I've never heard the 900ER referred to as lacking power.

Actually, there is a lot of evidence out there on that. It has enough for trans-continental so it does fine but it isn't doesn't have a lot of room to spare and we won't be seeing too many at DEN. The max 9 should solve it though.

tortugamon
 
questions
Posts: 2337
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:39 pm

Sounds like the 737-900ER is a bit of a dog with narrow use forced to fit a niche. Perhaps Boeing needs a real replacement for the 757.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:56 pm

The 737-900 is the plane I dislike most of all Boeings aircraft, its just a turd no matter how you polish it   It´s a joke compared to the 752 on the routes its put on sometimes.

Same engines as the 738 with a heavier frame..same short MLG..

It eats as much runway at MTOW as the 788 at MTOW iirc.
 
CO777DAL
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:01 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:39 am

All of this talk about the 737-900 being a cow and slow etc. How many actually flew on one? Well one of the steepest take-off I ever had in my life was on a 737-900. I have two videos below of 737-900 take-offs. In one it was screaming down the runway and the other we had to be well over 1,000 feet before reaching the airport perimeter fence. I have lost count how many times I have been in 737-900.

IAH HD Roar Continental Airlines 737-900 Take-Off First Class Houston Boeing CFM Engine
http://youtu.be/Te6vk5u4Hig

In this video you can hear how this plane was roaring down the runway. 737s usually are not this loud!



IAH HD Steep Continental Airlines 737-900 Take Off First Class Houston Intercontinental Boeing
http://youtu.be/sADnrRUCw3w

At 1:00 in the video is the where the take-off roll start. Just watch how high we climb right off the runway. This was a full flight. You will see nothing sluggish about the 737-900. It is amazing to see how high we were before even reaching the end of the runway. We had to be well over a 1,000 feet before the perimeter fence. You compare from the first video, and you will see how steep the climb on this video is.

The photo shows how high we were at the end of the runway! From the above video.


[Edited 2013-10-12 18:41:12]

[Edited 2013-10-12 18:42:27]
Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
 
phatfarmlines
Posts: 1847
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:50 am

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 40):
All of this talk about the 737-900 being a cow and slow etc. How many actually flew on one?

I flew on one of the non-ER 739's back in 2003, and I concur with others that takeoff is slower. It's the new 727-200 as far as takeoff performance.

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 40):
IAH HD Roar Continental Airlines 737-900 Take-Off First Class Houston Boeing CFM Engine

I counted ~47 seconds the roll lasted in that video, when the typical 737-700/800 flights I have been on lasted less than 30 seconds, assuming the airport is not hot and high.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2176
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:03 am

Quoting phatfarmlines (Reply 41):
counted ~47 seconds the roll lasted in that video, when the typical 737-700/800 flights I have been on lasted less than 30 seconds, assuming the airport is not hot and high.

I sure see plenty of 737-900ERs in DEN these days.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
BestWestern
Posts: 8371
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:19 am

Nothing could be as bad taking off than an A340. If the earth wasn't curved it would stay on the ground...

Anyway, back to reality - Take off is down to aircraft loading and power settings.
Greetings from Hong Kong.... a subsidiary of China Inc.
 
9v-svc
Posts: 1703
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:23 am

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 40):
All of this talk about the 737-900 being a cow and slow etc. How many actually flew on one?

I flew on Lion Airlines's 737-900ER before and I also agree that the take-off is underwhelming.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 43):
Nothing could be as bad taking off than an A340. If the earth wasn't curved it would stay on the ground..

739ER is worse than A340, I feel.
Airliners is the wings of my life.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:30 am

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 40):
How many actually flew on one?

I flew on one in Turkey last year and just last week I was on one from EWR-SFO. Very slow roll much like your videos. I counted 40+ seconds on each of them. Similar with my experience. I enjoy the aircraft as long as I am in the front.

tortugamon
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2176
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sun Oct 13, 2013 4:41 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 45):
I flew on one in Turkey last year and just last week I was on one from EWR-SFO.

What!? A 737-900ER successfully completed a trans-con flight...? According to the posters above, this is an uncommon feat.

Granted, it's not the strong performer that a 757-200 is, but it's my understanding that the seat mile cost advantage belongs to the 739ER. The other reason 752s are being replaced is that they're getting old.

I've flown 738s, 739s, 739ERs and 752s. If it was strictly a choice of personal preference, I'd choose the 752, but there are reasons that UA and DL are replacing 752s with 739ERs.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8910
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sun Oct 13, 2013 4:51 am

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 40):


All of this talk about the 737-900 being a cow and slow etc. How many actually flew on one? Well one of the steepest take-off I ever had in my life was on a 737-900. I have two videos below of 737-900 take-offs. In one it was screaming down the runway and the other we had to be well over 1,000 feet before reaching the airport perimeter fence. I have lost count how many times I have been in 737-900.

IAH HD Roar Continental Airlines 737-900 Take-Off First Class Houston Boeing CFM Engine
http://youtu.be/Te6vk5u4Hig

In this video you can hear how this plane was roaring down the runway. 737s usually are not this loud!



IAH HD Steep Continental Airlines 737-900 Take Off First Class Houston Intercontinental Boeing
http://youtu.be/sADnrRUCw3w

At 1:00 in the video is the where the take-off roll start. Just watch how high we climb right off the runway. This was a full flight. You will see nothing sluggish about the 737-900. It is amazing to see how high we were before even reaching the end of the runway. We had to be well over a 1,000 feet before the perimeter fence. You compare from the first video, and you will see how steep the climb on this video is.

The photo shows how high we were at the end of the runway! From the above video.

Ok, how far were you going ?



You simply can't measure performance this way. Seeing as you were departing from Houston it can't be that far and the Aircraft was not even close to max weight.


Wadrs my Camry will go fast off a cliff  
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
CO777DAL
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:01 am

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:35 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 47):
Ok, how far were you going ?



You simply can't measure performance this way. Seeing as you were departing from Houston it can't be that far and the Aircraft was not even close to max weight.


Wadrs my Camry will go fast off a cliff

LOL at your Camry joke.

The first flight was Houston to Sacramento.

The second flight was Houston to Portland, OR.
Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Isn't The B737-900ER More Popular?

Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:52 pm

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 43):
Nothing could be as bad taking off than an A340. If the earth wasn't curved it would stay on the ground...

Why do you consider that "bad"? The A340 also has better performance with an engine out from hot-and-high airports and where terrain clearance after an engine failure is an issue, which is why the A340 is still seen on some of those routes.

Takeoffs on A340s are very similar to 707s, DC-8s and other 4-engine types.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: al2637, Baidu [Spider], BCN, ben7x, BrianDromey, CWL757, Deltran757, EA CO AS, EI320, eicvd, flyer56, Google [Bot], Hinkley, Ishrion, jimmy9irons, LH779, mark1484, MEA-707, pugman211, SaschaYHZ, speedygonzales, Strato2, trees, xwb777 and 224 guests

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