737 #8000

bigbird · Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:24 pm

737 number 8000 is LN 4868 United 737-924ER N68821

Cross757 · Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:46 pm

Quoting bigbird (Thread starter):

What stage of construction is it in, or has it even started yet? Congrats to Boeing and UA!

American 767 · Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:07 am

Quoting bigbird (Thread starter):
737-924ER

When this order was placed, was it still Continental? Because 24 used to be CO's customer number at Boeing. Now that UA and CO are flying under a SOC, 22 is the customer number that is supposed to be used when ordering new airplanes from Boeing. I believe that an order of 900ERs was placed after the merger was officially closed, at the same time the MAX were ordered.

Anyway, congrats to Boeing for building the 8000th 737.

Ben Soriano

DualQual · Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:10 am

All the 900ERs staffed by pmUA FAs are 924ERs. They were from a pre-existing CO order that is not completed. No idea when the first 922ER shows up.

[Edited 2014-04-08 17:12:25]

seabosdca · Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:16 am

In the long run customer numbers will be less important anyway. I expect both the 737 MAX and the 777X will follow the 787's lead and ditch them entirely.

Polot · Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:17 am

Quoting American 767 (Reply 2):
When this order was placed, was it still Continental? Because 24 used to be CO's customer number at Boeing. Now that UA and CO are flying under a SOC, 22 is the customer number that is supposed to be used when ordering new airplanes from Boeing. I believe that an order of 900ERs was placed after the merger was officially closed, at the same time the MAX were ordered.

The customer code is not "suppose" to be anything, people here give it way too much weight. It is just an internal designation that Boeing came up with. They can make it whatever they really want it to be- whether that is 24, 22, or some entirely different code (or, as they are doing with the 787, phase them out).

777Jet · Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:19 am

Congrats to Boeing for achieving this milestone and congrats to UA - they have operated the 737 for as long as I can remember

gators312 · Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:47 am

Quoting Cross757 (Reply 1):
What stage of construction is it in, or has it even started yet? Congrats to Boeing and UA!

Looks like it took it's first flight today!

http://boeing-test-flights.blogspot....737-924er-united-first-flight.html

Cross757 · Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:14 am

Quoting gators312 (Reply 7):

Awesome!

Boeing778X · Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:43 am

Congrats to Boeing and UA for such a milestone! Any special markings on her?

FlyHossD · Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:28 pm

Quoting bigbird (Thread starter):
737 number 8000 is LN 4868 United 737-924ER N68821

I rode on #3819 just a few days ago. BTW, I was comfortable enough on the new "Slimline" seats.

Quoting American 767 (Reply 2):
When this order was placed, was it still Continental? Because 24 used to be CO's customer number at Boeing. Now that UA and CO are flying under a SOC, 22 is the customer number that is supposed to be used when ordering new airplanes from Boeing. I believe that an order of 900ERs was placed after the merger was officially closed, at the same time the MAX were ordered.

I did think to check - and the Airworthiness Certicate does show it to be a 737-924.

Quoting Polot (Reply 5):
The customer code is not "suppose" to be anything, people here give it way too much weight.

True enough. However, it is on the Airworthiness Certificate, so it's probably not correct to say that it's meaningless.

Quoting American 767 (Reply 2):
Anyway, congrats to Boeing for building the 8000th 737.

Yes. Today's NG - and tomorrow's MAXs - are a far, far cry from the first 737-100s.

kaitak · Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:37 pm

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 10):
Quoting American 767 (Reply 2):Anyway, congrats to Boeing for building the 8000th 737.
Yes. Today's NG - and tomorrow's MAXs - are a far, far cry from the first 737-100s.

Amazing achievement; when I first became interested in aircraft, in the early 1980s, the 727 was the sales leader, with 1,831 sold (production ended in '82) and the 737 was only running around 4-500 sales, It's regularly sold that many in a year, since.

I really hope Boeing and United make a fuss about it and there is a decal, because it deserves to be celebrated.

SASMD82 · Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:40 pm

Of topic I think but when the 'Max' will enter service, will 'Next Generation' get another name? Next Generation will not be a very smart name as it should be called 'Previous Generation'.

Natflyer · Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:45 pm

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 12):

Call it Nearly Geriatric? A FLUF by any other name is still a FLUF.

kaitak · Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:37 pm

H

Quoting gators312 (Reply 7):
Looks like it took it's first flight today!

http://boeing-test-flights.blogspot....737-924er-united-first-flight.html

And it is also a very important annivesary: today is the 47th anniversary of the first 737, back in 1967!

American 767 · Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:42 am

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 10):
Yes. Today's NG - and tomorrow's MAXs - are a far, far cry from the first 737-100s.

I know the 737 has already reached 10000 orders in total since the 100 was introduced 47 years ago like you say, but do you or does anyone else know if it will eventually beat the DC-3? What is also interesting to speculate about is if by 2067 there will still be an airworthy 737MAX somewhere in the world, because by then the 737 will be one century old! I don't think that's a nonsense scenario to think about because I'm sure that today (2014) there is till at least one airworthy 737-200 somewhere in the world.

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 12):
Next Generation will not be a very smart name as it should be called 'Previous Generation'.

I agree with you. The Next Generation 737 of today, the 7/8/900, is already current generation. I don't mention the 600 because it wasn't very successful and Boeing is no longer offering it, because they know no airline wants them. In a few years from now the current 7/8/900 variants will be seen as Classic models when the MAX comes, like the 3/4/500 are currently seen as Classics. Remember back in the 80s and the first half of the 90s when the 3/4/500 were brand new, if you called them "Classic" during that time, you would be looked at strange.

Ben Soriano

bfiguy · Thu Apr 10, 2014 3:15 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 9):
Congrats to Boeing and UA for such a milestone! Any special markings on her?

Yes but you better have your magnifying glass out.
Left & right hand sides/front door.

UA444 · Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:11 am

They're 924s because that model is already certified. They'd have to recertify the plane as a 922 and while I wish they would because I'm sick of all the CO stuff still lingering, I doubt they will. If the MAX uses the customer codes, they'll be 922s.

Boeing778X · Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:32 am

Quoting bfiguy (Reply 16):
Yes but you better have your magnifying glass out.
Left & right hand sides/front door.

Special markings, nevertheless

Thanks!

Anyone have a photo?

DualQual · Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:23 am

Quoting UA444 (Reply 17):

Certification has nothing to do with it. They were ordered by CO so they are 924s. They could be sold tomorrow to anyone else and they will still be 924s. They are 924s until they're beer cans.

Further it's a merger. CO stuff will linger as will UA stuff. Deal with it.

[Edited 2014-04-09 22:25:37]

FlyHossD · Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:56 am

Quoting UA444 (Reply 17):
They'd have to recertify the plane as a 922 and while I wish they would because I'm sick of all the CO stuff still lingering,

Dude, get over it. Besides, the merged airline's name is United (not Continental).

canoecarrier · Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:05 am

I take my kid to the Museum of Flight a few times a year. Kind of cool to see the "Baby Boeing" prototype on display there that started it all. I wish they'd open it for tours though.

Big milestone for Boeing.

UA444 · Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:19 am

Quoting DualQual (Reply 19):

No, it does have something to do with it. It's the same reason why KLM's 737NGs are not 737-806. They've ordered several 737NGs, but all of theirs are 737-7K2, etc. To make a 737-706, it would technically be a minor amendment to the TC and it likely isn't worth it for the airline's expense. There already is a 737-924 certified, so they'd just build them to that standard until the MAX shows up. Those planes should very well be 922s, since the airline is United and that's UA's code.

And FWIW, there is a precedent for changing the codes of a plane already built. And speak of the devil, it involved an ex-CO 747-124 that had its code changed to something else, dropping the "24". Don't know the registration.

[Edited 2014-04-09 23:20:07]

DualQual · Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:11 pm

Quoting UA444 (Reply 22):

Ok fine, even if there's precedent why waste money on that? Delta had plenty of 47 aircraft from Western. I'm guessing 51 will be around from NW over there too. Personally whatever money would be wasted on that would be better spent on finishing the remaining contracts and actually merging the airline.

Polot · Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:33 pm

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 10):
True enough. However, it is on the Airworthiness Certificate, so it's probably not correct to say that it's meaningless.

Its on the Airworthiness Certificate because of the paperwork Boeing submitted however. When I said it was meaningless, I meant more how Boeing comes up with the numbers. Obviously with -24 already on the certificate it is likely that all UA 737s are going to continue to use that code just for cost and ease of certification, but the choice of codes is not govern by law.

Boeing came up with the customer codes, not the FAA. There is no rule that says because airline X and Y have merged onto Y's certificate Y's customer code must be used from now on. There is no rule that airplanes must have customer codes. Boeing makes the decision themselves on what the code should be (probably after discussions with the airline about what would be easier from a certification/technical/fleet management point of view), not the FAA. That is something that many people here (not necessarily you) don't seem to understand.

With today's electronic databases and far less customization in new builds customer codes are not as important as they once were, hence why Boeing is getting rid of them starting with the 787 in the first place.

kanban · Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:35 pm

Quoting UA444 (Reply 22):
No, it does have something to do with it. It's the same reason why KLM's 737NGs are not 737-806. They've ordered several 737NGs, but all of theirs are 737-7K2, etc. To make a 737-706, it would technically be a minor amendment to the TC and it likely isn't worth it for the airline's expense. There already is a 737-924 certified, so they'd just build them to that standard until the MAX shows up. Those planes should very well be 922s, since the airline is United and that's UA's code.

The last two numbers (or sometimes letters) are an internal Boeing code for parts allocation and stocking. They generally define customer unique hardware. however each code is not FAA certified, it merely appears on the paper for tracking purposes.

They are useless outside the internal processes unless someone needs something to obsess about. There are plenty of other plane identifiers for the minutia compiler.

FlyHossD · Thu Apr 10, 2014 9:20 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 24):
Boeing came up with the customer codes, not the FAA. There is no rule that says because airline X and Y have merged onto Y's certificate Y's customer code must be used from now on.

I never said otherwise, did I?

The written form of communication, including blogs, certainly isn't the most efficient. I simply thought it was interesting and remembered to look when I was UA ship 3819 last week. Clearly, the code has some meaning; would it be on the Airworthiness Certificate otherwise? That is, why not show it on the A.C. as a 737-900?

To me, it's not a big deal, not at all. But being the airplane geek that I am, I was curious enough to look.

CALTECH · Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:15 pm

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 9):
Congrats to Boeing and UA for such a milestone! Any special markings on her?

Should be, they marked Aircraft # 806 with

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 10):
I rode on #3819 just a few days ago. BTW, I was comfortable enough on the new "Slimline" seats.

All the new United 737-924ERs are coming that way. All the 800 number 737s also still have this on them, guess because Continental changed it's name to United. Two Varney siblings finally joined together.

EA CO AS · Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:20 pm

Quoting UA444 (Reply 22):
Those planes should very well be 922s, since the airline is United and that's UA's code.

And they're using CO's operating certificate. UA's was retired. They're -924s.

817Dreamliiner · Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:44 pm

And here's #8000:

Number 8000 by Stiggy84, on Flickr

UA444 · Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:06 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 28):

And they're using UA's maintenance certificate. Operating certificate means nothing to the customer code and CO is a dead airline now and when the MAX arrives, if codes are used at all, they'll be 22s since the airline is still United Airlines.

[Edited 2014-04-11 19:10:07]

EA CO AS · Sat Apr 12, 2014 2:40 am

Quoting UA444 (Reply 30):
Operating certificate means nothing to the customer code

You sure about that?

Quoting UA444 (Reply 30):
CO is a dead airline now

So then why are you UA guys all worked up about the livery?

UA444 · Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:03 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 31):

The operating certificate is FAA, customer codes are Boeing's own internal code and is unrelated to the FAA. UA could have DL's operating certificate and it wouldn't matter in Boeing's eyes.

CALTECH · Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:09 pm

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 31):
You sure about that?

Some are just bitter about the merger to this day. It's done and Continental does live on, just changed it's name to United.

And United lives on. Funny how Continental received all these customer awards before the merger, now it doesn't after merging with United and changing it's name. But seeing some of the lingering bitterness, it is no wonder. Always will defend CAL and UAL, and in that order.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 31):
So then why are you UA guys all worked up about the livery?

Think that keeping the United name and the HQ in Siberian Chicago would be enough for some of these bitter ones.

As far out as can be seen, the 737-900ERs being delivered to United Airlines are all 737-924ERs.

STT757 · Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:32 pm

Congratulations to Boeing! The 737 has proved to be a remarkable platform, it's changed it's role several times. It began with the 737-100 and 737-200s as short regional type of mainline aircraft. Then they morphed into the 733s and 734s which add substantial range abilities, CO used to fly 733s nonstop from IAD-LAX when they had the IAD hub. US was also flying CLT-West Coast with 733s and 734s. Then came the huge leap to the NG's, 737-700s that could operate nonstop IAH-AMS, 738s that regularly fly Trans-Cons and West Coast-Hawaii and the 737-900ERs which now with slimline seats match the seating capacity of the 757-200s. And now they're plowing the Skies over the Oceans for the Navy.

I've personally flown on:

CO 737-100s
Piedmont, PeoplExpress, CO 737-200s
CO, NY Air 737-300s
CO 737-500s
CO 737-700s
CO 737-800s
CO 737-900s
CO 737-900ERs

I've only missed flying the 737-400 and 737-600s.

American 767 · Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:27 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 34):
CO 737-100s

Those came from People Express. I believe they were originally built as 737-130s and operated by Lufthansa for a while. Remember, Lufthansa was the very first airline to fly a 737 back in the late 60s. It is interesting that United, which was the first airline to fly the 200 variant also in the late 60s, absorbed CO which itself flew the early built 100s. Not many 100s were built.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 34):
I've only missed flying the 737-400 and 737-600s.

It sounds like the 737s you've flown were only with Continental. Because the 400 and the 600 are the two variants they never flew. I believe however that at some point they considered buying the 600 when the NG variants came out in the late 90s.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 34):
US was also flying CLT-West Coast with 733s and 734s.

PIT - West Coast also. Remember US used to have a hub in PIT during the 90s. PHL - West Coast was flown with 757 equipment.

Boeing778X · Sat Apr 12, 2014 5:29 pm

Quoting UA444 (Reply 30):
CO is a dead airline now

......

AVENSAB727 · Sat Apr 12, 2014 5:49 pm

Which delivery flight will this special one fly?

Viscount724 · Sun Apr 13, 2014 12:49 am

Quoting American 767 (Reply 35):
Remember, Lufthansa was the very first airline to fly a 737 back in the late 60s. It is interesting that United, which was the first airline to fly the 200 variant also in the late 60s

UA's first 737-200 was delivered one day after LH's first 737-100.

Quoting American 767 (Reply 15):
I know the 737 has already reached 10000 orders in total since the 100 was introduced 47 years ago like you say, but do you or does anyone else know if it will eventually beat the DC-3?

Comparing the 737 with the DC-3 isn't very logical since the vast majority (at least 90% I believe) of DC-3s were built as C-47s for military purposes. Had WWII not occurred, total DC-3 production would have been much lower.

CALTECH · Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:20 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 36):
Quoting UA444 (Reply 30):
CO is a dead airline now

......

Actually, it lives on. Just changed it's name to United.

AVENSAB727 · Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:30 am

And IAH is it's largest passenger carrying hub.

rwy04lga · Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:40 am

Quoting DualQual (Reply 23):
I'm guessing 51 will be around from NW over there too.

And nothing pleases me more than flying on a Delta 747-451 and 757-351. Thank you, NW.

Boeing778X · Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:59 am

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 27):

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 29):

Great shots! A very nice surprise for customers to see.
A brand new UA 739ER always lifts my spirits! Mmm! That Blue and Gold!

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 39):
Actually, it lives on. Just changed it's name to United

That's helps a little to hear that. Thanks

UA444 · Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:52 am

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 39):

Nope. Acquired by UAL Corporation in 2010.

FriendlySkies · Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:26 am

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 27):

Not to jump into the CO vs UA spat, but why are these "operated by" stickers still required? There's only one OC, and United Airlines is listed on it, so these stickers seem pretty pointless. Why aren't they on any of the 787s or sUA aircraft if it's an issue?

SASMD82 · Sun Apr 13, 2014 5:53 am

Quoting STT757 (Reply 34):
I've only missed flying the 737-400 and 737-600s.

Come to AMS, we have both BA 737-400 service to LGW and SK service to CPH/ARN/OSL with B737-600.

CALTECH · Sun Apr 13, 2014 5:53 am

Quoting UA444 (Reply 43):
Nope. Acquired by UAL Corporation in 2010.

So sorry, wrong misinformation.

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/130403/ual8-k.html

"providing for the merger of United with and into Continental (the "Merger"). On March 31, 2013, United merged with and into Continental, with Continental continuing as the surviving corporation of the Merger and as a wholly-owned subsidiary of UAL. Upon the closing of the Merger on March 31, 2013, Continental's name was changed to "United Airlines, Inc." (the "Survivor"). "

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 44):
Not to jump into the CO vs UA spat, but why are these "operated by" stickers still required? There's only one OC, and United Airlines is listed on it, so these stickers seem pretty pointless. Why aren't they on any of the 787s or sUA aircraft if it's an issue?

Think it is because our name is United but the sCAL aircraft are operated under the Continental Certificates and Registrations.

UA444 · Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:10 am

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 46):

Eh no, you are wrong. Yet again. UAL Corporation acquired Continental Airlines, Inc, on October 1, 2010. UAL Corp changed their name to United Continental Holdings, but is legally the same company and if you don't believe me, feel free to look at the SEC filings. CO's shareholders had their shares bought out and replaced with those for UAL. UA is the survivor. That is a 100% fact and will never change.

[Edited 2014-04-12 23:14:08]

CALTECH · Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:36 am

Quoting STT757 (Reply 34):
I've personally flown on:

CO 737-100s
Piedmont, PeoplExpress, CO 737-200s
CO, NY Air 737-300s
CO 737-500s
CO 737-700s
CO 737-800s
CO 737-900s
CO 737-900ERs

I've only missed flying the 737-400 and 737-600s.

Have flown and worked on all the FLUFF variants except for the -400/-600 too. Loved the 737-200 with those cigar tubes. When the -300 first appeared, some of the takeoffs were pretty spectacular out of Albuquerque compared to the 737-200s. Those CFMs were beasts back then, looked great especially with their pointed rather than the rounded engine spinners of today. IIRC, the -100s Continental had, were equipped with fwd and aft airstairs. The 727 was a favorite, the 737 did grow on me.

Quoting UA444 (Reply 47):
Eh no, you are wrong. Yet again. UAL Corporation acquired Continental Airlines, Inc, on October 1, 2010. UAL Corp changed their name to United Continental Holdings, but is legally the same company and if you don't believe me, feel free to look at the SEC filings. CO's shareholders had their shares bought out and replaced with those for UAL. UA is the survivor. That is a 100% fact and will never change.

Sorry, the SEC filing of 2010 OCT 1st was superceded by the SEC filing of 2013 MAR 31st. Just making things up does not make them so.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 46):
"providing for the merger of United with and into Continental (the "Merger"). On March 31, 2013, United merged with and into Continental, with Continental continuing as the surviving corporation of the Merger and as a wholly-owned subsidiary of UAL. Upon the closing of the Merger on March 31, 2013, Continental's name was changed to "United Airlines, Inc." (the "Survivor"). "

Sorry, but according to the filing, Continental is the 'survivor', and that is the fact and will never change.

UA444 · Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:59 am

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 48):

You really have no clue how business works. UAL Corporation acquired Continental and in your own post, the one from 2013, it even says it is a subsidiary of UAL. United Continental Holdings is UAL Corporation. UAL Corporation acquired Continental. United is the surviving corporation. This discussion is over.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net