Why Doesn't Icelandair Fly 737s?

afcjets · Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:49 pm

It seems like this would be a better aircraft for many markets for them and where they could expand. I think it would be better to have more frequencies during the week with a 737 in some existing markets and it seems they should be able to find more profitable routes by having this aircraft too where it is in range.

[Edited 2015-09-12 13:52:52]

SpaceshipDC10 · Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:59 pm

Unless they have changed their mind, it's going to happen.

Icelandair Firms 737MAX Order (by stlgph Feb 13 2013 in Civil Aviation)

ACDC8 · Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:08 pm

I could be mistaken but I seem to recall FI having B737s back in the 90s - KEF to YHZ seems to pop into my mind being operated by a 737.

SpaceshipDC10 · Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:11 pm

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 2):
I could be mistaken

You are not. I believe they came to replace the 72S.

http://www.planespotters.net/product...ndair&manufacturer=Boeing&type=737

Viscount724 · Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:19 pm

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 3):
Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 2):
I could be mistaken

You are not. I believe they came to replace the 72S.

Yes, 737-400 was used on YHZ-KEF initially before they dropped the route. It was the only way to cross the Atlantic on a 737 then.

mjoelnir · Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:56 pm

Icelandair used the 737-300 and -400. They were replaced with 757-200. The main reason were the limited range of those 737 models.

FI than ordered and bought 737-800, but they never used them for FI, but only for the leasing operation.

FI has now 17 737MAX both -8 and -9 on order.

[Edited 2015-09-12 15:00:55]

GSTBA · Sat Sep 12, 2015 11:15 pm

FI have over the years operated several 737 aircraft. Details below:

737's operated by Icelandair

28APR89 - 04MAY00 - TF-FIA - 737-408
23MAY89 - 30MAR01 - TF-FIB - 737-408
25APR90 - 22DEC98 - TF-FIC - 737-408
19APR91 - 29MAY02 - TF-FID - 737-408
20MAY95 - 02FEB96 - TF-FIE - 737-4S3
01JAN98 - 05MAY04 - TF-FIE - 737-3S3

737's wet leased to oeprate for Icelandair

24MAY91-24AUG91 - OY-MMD - 737-3L9 - Leased from Maersk Air
20OCT97 - 02APR98 - OO-ILK - 737-3Q8 - Leased from Air Belgium

http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Icelandair-history-b737.htm

UsAir737 · Sun Sep 13, 2015 12:30 am

They can't haul enough fish. As we all know only a 757 can haul fish

n797mx · Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:13 am

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Baldur Sveinsson

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Baldur Sveinsson

Cargo also had the -300

EZYAirbus · Sun Sep 13, 2015 7:00 am

Quoting UsAir737 (Reply 7):

Telling me, had 4.5 ton of it come off the Icelandair flight at BHX last thursday, isnt too bad when the 757 has a moving floor!

zkokq · Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:12 am

Dont forget they own the PX fleet as well!

mjoelnir · Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:23 am

Quoting zkokq (Reply 10):
Dont forget they own the PX fleet as well!

only part of it

MEA-707 · Sun Sep 13, 2015 3:33 pm

They used the 734s to Europe in the 1990s but a pure 757 fleet was more efficient. Even while it was a bit big for some European destinations, a 757 could be rostered to Europe at daytime and do a return to America at night so all in all it made sense to use the 757 instead of having a small fleet of 737s which couldn't do much at night due to curfews at most of their European destinations.

mjoelnir · Sun Sep 13, 2015 5:01 pm

Quoting UsAir737 (Reply 7):
They can't haul enough fish. As we all know only a 757 can haul fish

The better freight capabilities were part of the decision to move to the 757 only.

eaa3 · Sun Sep 13, 2015 5:06 pm

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 12):
They used the 734s to Europe in the 1990s but a pure 757 fleet was more efficient. Even while it was a bit big for some European destinations, a 757 could be rostered to Europe at daytime and do a return to America at night so all in all it made sense to use the 757 instead of having a small fleet of 737s which couldn't do much at night due to curfews at most of their European destinations.

Ironically, the same logic applies for the B737-9

MEA-707 · Sun Sep 13, 2015 5:15 pm

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 14):
Ironically, the same logic applies for the B737-9

True, although their network has grown fivefold since the 1990s and there's now more room for a dedicated people mover to Europe, say LHR, CPH and AMS, if KEF doesn't have a night curfew they can also depart 2 am to these destinations (arriving 5-6am) and offer an extra bank of connections. Also as the 739 MAX should have longer legs then the old 737-400s so it can probably be used to BOS, YYZ, JFK and such as well. Still I think they should have gotten the 321LR to reach Denver, Seattle and Calgary and such.

eaa3 · Sun Sep 13, 2015 5:26 pm

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 15):
True, although their network has grown fivefold since the 1990s and there's now more room for a dedicated people mover to Europe, say LHR, CPH and AMS, if KEF doesn't have a night curfew they can also depart 2 am to these destinations (arriving 5-6am) and offer an extra bank of connections. Also as the 739 MAX should have longer legs then the old 737-400s so it can probably be used to BOS, YYZ, JFK and such as well. Still I think they should have gotten the 321LR to reach Denver, Seattle and Calgary and such.

I actually even doubt that they'll reach BOS, YYZ, JFK without having to be weight restricted. The B737-9's lackluster take-off performance probably prohibits a full load out of most airports, incl. KEF. Its a strange choice to not go for the A321LR when it costs about the same, uses the same amount of fuel, takes a little bit higher load but can serve all your destinations.

I don't think the B737-9 will be a part of their future because eventually they will have to order the A321LR as its the aircraft that can best replace their current fleet of B757's (with less cargo though. The A321LR is techincally a smaller aircraft). It make zero sense to operate the B737-9 and A321LR together at a small to medium sized airline. And it makes no sense to operate an A321LR and the B737-8 when you could operate the A320NEO and have almost 100% commonality.

The fact that Icelandair does carry a lot of cargo is a hurdle for swapping the B757 with the A321LR. However, they are already adding the B767, which can carry lots of cargo. With a combination of the A321LR, A320NEO and some wide-bodies, I'm sure they have more than enough cargo carrying capability.

One of the big sources of flexability at Icelandair, having only one type, is that their crew can operate any aircraft and they can swap easily.

diverted · Sun Sep 13, 2015 5:46 pm

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 16):
I actually even doubt that they'll reach BOS, YYZ, JFK without having to be weight restricted. The B737-9's lackluster take-off performance probably prohibits a full load out of most airports, incl. KEF. Its a strange choice to not go for the A321LR when it costs about the same, uses the same amount of fuel, takes a little bit higher load but can serve all your destinations.

I don't think the B737-9 will be a part of their future because eventually they will have to order the A321LR as its the aircraft that can best replace their current fleet of B757's (with less cargo though. The A321LR is techincally a smaller aircraft). It make zero sense to operate the B737-9 and A321LR together at a small to medium sized airline. And it makes no sense to operate an A321LR and the B737-8 when you could operate the A320NEO and have almost 100% commonality.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Max 9's ordered pretty early on in the program? Prior to Airbus announcing the 321LR?

mjoelnir · Sun Sep 13, 2015 6:23 pm

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 16):

If there is an airport were the 737-9MAX will be able to operate at MTOW , than it is KEF. Long enough runways, only a little above sea level and never hot. They will be able to do the east coast of NA and Europe.
They intend to keep the 757 for a while.

I do not imagine the A321neo or A321LR at Icelandair. They have been a Boeing only airline for quite a while, and that also in their wet leasing and MRO operation. And at Icelandair the A321neo or LR does not really replace the 757-200 at this point in time. The reason is the limited cargo capabilities of the A321neo or LR.

If either Boeing or even Airbus brings the small twin or big single aisle with 5,000 nm I think Icelandair would jump on it.

The 17 737MAX ordered will only be an addition to the fleet and we will see the 757 and 767 at least a decade more at Icelandair.

The 767-300ER Icelandair bought the other day is now leased to Saudi Arabian airlines. Icelandair seems to move away from PW to GE on their 767, the newer 767 at Niugini is also GE.

Bluebird191 · Sun Sep 13, 2015 7:25 pm

Quoting zkokq (Reply 10):
Dont forget they own the PX fleet as well!

Including the Fokker F100's, Dash-8's and 737's PX have? I distinctly recall PX ordering Q400's a few years back in their own right and not having them leased. It's only their 767's for clarification, unless their 737's are leased from Icelandair too?

mjoelnir · Sun Sep 13, 2015 7:35 pm

Quoting Bluebird191 (Reply 19):
Including the Fokker F100's, Dash-8's and 737's PX have? I distinctly recall PX ordering Q400's a few years back in their own right and not having them leased. It's only their 767's for clarification, unless their 737's are leased from Icelandair too?

It is the two 767, but two of the 5 Dash 8 Q400 still operating + one already in Iceland have been bought by FI.

eaa3 · Sun Sep 13, 2015 10:17 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 18):
If there is an airport were the 737-9MAX will be able to operate at MTOW , than it is KEF. Long enough runways, only a little above sea level and never hot. They will be able to do the east coast of NA and Europe.

Two problems:

1: It does get hot at their North American airports and you might have 30 degree days where the B737-9 would suffer ridiculously on the return flight to Iceland.

2:More importantly, the runways at KEF are 10,056 ft. long and it doesn't get particularly warm. Even with those factors, the B737-9 would not be able to take-off fully loaded. It's obvious by looking at the runway length requirements for B737-900ER and keeping in mind that the B737-9 is heavier, has the same wings and has the same thrust.

What I'm saying is that I don't think the B737-9 will be able to be dispatched to North America with any reliability and if it is then it will be weight restricted. I have not seen any evidence to the contrary but I have seen evidence that show's that I'm right.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 18):
I do not imagine the A321neo or A321LR at Icelandair. They have been a Boeing only airline for quite a while, and that also in their wet leasing and MRO operation. And at Icelandair the A321neo or LR does not really replace the 757-200 at this point in time. The reason is the limited cargo capabilities of the A321neo or LR.

WE GET IT. Please stop making this point. You've stubbornly made it hundreds of times on here. The B757 and the A321LR are not the same aircraft. The B757 can carry more cargo. Those are the facts. But there is no other option that will replace the A321LR. So they're going to have to move in that direction.

As a matter of fact, you've been so stubborn in pointing out that the A321LR can't carry as much cargo as the B757 that it's become a running joke on here that only B757's can carry cargo. You do realize that they're making fun of your stubbornness.

Also, companies don't make decision like what aircraft to buy because "They have been a Boeing only airline for quite a while". If they do then the people that make those decisions should be fired. Companies make decisions based on what's the most logical thing to do.

mjoelnir · Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:09 pm

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 21):
Two problems:

1: It does get hot at their North American airports and you might have 30 degree days where the B737-9 would suffer ridiculously on the return flight to Iceland.

2:More importantly, the runways at KEF are 10,056 ft. long and it doesn't get particularly warm. Even with those factors, the B737-9 would not be able to take-off fully loaded. It's obvious by looking at the runway length requirements for B737-900ER and keeping in mind that the B737-9 is heavier, has the same wings and has the same thrust.

What I'm saying is that I don't think the B737-9 will be able to be dispatched to North America with any reliability and if it is then it will be weight restricted. I have not seen any evidence to the contrary but I have seen evidence that show's that I'm right.

I assume that the needed runway length for a 737-9MAX at MTOW will not exeed that for a 737-900ER and that is at sea level and under 25° C 9,850 feet. The 737-9MAX will have a slightly higher MTOW, but also engines that are supposed to have slightly more thrust. That is on the way west out to NA. On the way back going east the needed fuel is usually less, than on the way west.
I assume also that FI has discussed this points with Boeing and that the contracts regarding the purchase of those 737 include performance guaranty's.

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 21):
WE GET IT. Please stop making this point. You've stubbornly made it hundreds of times on here. The B757 and the A321LR are not the same aircraft. The B757 can carry more cargo. Those are the facts. But there is no other option that will replace the A321LR. So they're going to have to move in that direction.

You do not get it!!!!! Icelandair has just moved the training of 757 pilots home to Iceland and invested in a brand new 757 simulator, including a new building that you pass on the left side driving through Hafnarfjörður on the way to Keflavík before you pass on the right side the aluminium smelter of Ísál. It is very difficult to imagine, that that investment is done if FI will stop flying the 757 soon.

And I am getting tired of this A321LR BS about being as capable as a 757-200. It is not. Yes most airlines do not use their narrow bodies for belly freight and than the A321 is OK, but FI does and it is not a small part of their business model.

[Edited 2015-09-13 16:16:10]

[Edited 2015-09-13 16:17:14]

eaa3 · Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:26 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 22):
You do not get it!!!!! Icelandair has just moved the training of 757 pilots home to Iceland and invested in a brand new 757 simulator, including a new building that you pass on the left side driving through Hafnarfjörður on the way to Keflavík before you pass on the right side the aluminium smelter of Ísál. It is very difficult to imagine, that that investment is done if FI will stop flying the 757 soon.

I know they have. And I realize that they plan to fly their B757´s for a while. I´m not suggesting otherwise. But according to their own statements, they do intend to fly the B737-9 to America. I'm saying that that is a problem.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 22):
And I am getting tired of this A321LR BS about being as capable as a 757-200.

NO ONE IS SAYING THIS. It will be able to carry less cargo. It is also a smaller aircraft.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 22):
I assume that the needed runway length for a 737-9MAX at MTOW will not exeed that for a 737-900ER and that is at sea level and under 25° C 9,850 feet.

If you look at the aircraft planning, then the 9.850 feet take-off distance for the B737-900ER is for a standard day, 15 degree Celsius. The B737-900ER has at most a 27,300 pound thrust engine. The B737-9 is at most a 28,000 pound thrust engine. In other words, it has 2.5% more thrust. However, the B737-900ER has a MTOW of 85,130 kg. whereas the B737-9 is 88,314 kg. or 3.7% higher. I sincerely doubt that the aircraft will be able to take off on a runway of 10,056 feet.

mjoelnir · Mon Sep 14, 2015 12:05 am

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 23):
If you look at the aircraft planning, then the 9.850 feet take-off distance for the B737-900ER is for a standard day, 15 degree Celsius. The B737-900ER has at most a 27,300 pound thrust engine. The B737-9 is at most a 28,000 pound thrust engine. In other words, it has 2.5% more thrust. However, the B737-900ER has a MTOW of 85,130 kg. whereas the B737-9 is 88,314 kg. or 3.7% higher. I sincerely doubt that the aircraft will be able to take off on a runway of 10,056 feet.

The 737-900ER is used on SEA-HNL flights. That is 2326 nm.

KEF-YUL is 2018nm
KEF-BOS is 2079nm
KEF-JFK is 2253nm
KEF-YYZ is 2258nm
KEF-IAD is 2432nm
KEF-MSP is 2559nm
KEF-ORD is 2558

I think these are all in range.

eaa3 · Mon Sep 14, 2015 12:15 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 24):
The 737-900ER is used on SEA-HNL flights. That is 2326 nm.

I didn't say that they couldn't make it. I said that they would be weight restricted and couldn't go out at MTOW.

But then at Seattle there is an 11,901 foot runway. 1,900 foot longer than at KEF
At Honolulu there's a 12,312 foot runway. 2312 feet longer than at KEF.

The B737-900ER can do these things.... but it needs a very long runway.

mjoelnir · Mon Sep 14, 2015 12:46 am

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 25):
But then at Seattle there is an 11,901 foot runway. 1,900 foot longer than at KEF
At Honolulu there's a 12,312 foot runway. 2312 feet longer than at KEF.

Both see far higher temperatures than KEF ever does, at 30°C you need 10° more runway than at 20°. And let us not forget that KEF offers runways in four directions 90 degrees on each other and has usually some wind. Every knot of wind speed reduces take off roll by about 1°. So you would have to find very unusual condition, that you find only during summer and than only on very few days, to not be able to take off at MTOW and on those days I would not expect very heavy headwinds going west.

eaa3 · Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:09 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 26):
Both see far higher temperatures than KEF ever does, at 30°C you need 10° more runway than at 20°. And let us not forget that KEF offers runways in four directions 90 degrees on each other and has usually some wind. Every knot of wind speed reduces take off roll by about 1°. So you would have to find very unusual condition, that you find only during summer and than only on very few days, to not be able to take off at MTOW and on those days I would not expect very heavy headwinds going west.

What's your point? My point was that SEA-HNL is not a good example of the runway performance of the B737-900ER as the runways are really long. The fact that the temperature might contribute to the B737-900ER needing a longer runway doesn't mean that it could take off on 10,000 ft at MTOW.

You still haven't made any case for the B737-9 being able to operate at MTOW from KEF. You can't rely on the wind because the runway is too short!

prebennorholm · Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:46 am

Why all this talk about 737MAX-9 limitations?

FI has seven MAX-9 on order, plus nine MAX-8.

The MAX-9 is just perfect for all those European destinations 1000 to 1300nm away. LHR, CDG, AMS, CPH and such all have long, low and cold runways, and they are the really busy FI destinations.

Pretty soon FI will have a fleet of MAX-8, MAX-9, 752, 753 and 763. They will of course use those planes where they are fit for purpose.

And of course the MAX-9 isn't fit for purpose when tonnes of fish and a full cabin is gonna be hauled 2000+ nm to hot, high or shortish runways.

zkokq · Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:26 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 20):
It is the two 767, but two of the 5 Dash 8 Q400 still operating + one already in Iceland have been bought by FI.

737's are leased from Iceland air as well.

Sorry I should have said the 737/767 fleet

fallap · Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:40 am

Why have FI decided to reacquire two B767?

kelvin933 · Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:49 am

Quoting Fallap (Reply 30):
Why have FI decided to reacquire two B767?

The cost of slots at LHR, when SAS sold their slots at LHR, FI was one of the airlines interested in obtaining additional slots at LHR.
The price of the slots however proved to be to high to make any economic sense for FI.
Their solution was to use larger aicraft on KEF-LHR and add the KEF-LGW route.

SRQKEF · Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:34 pm

Quoting Fallap (Reply 30):

Kelvin933 stated one reason.

Another factor is that FI's network has multiplied in recent years, which gives the airline room to add larger aircraft. Back in 2005, FI only had ca 7 destinations in the US and around 25 in total. Now that number is 16 for N-America and well over 40 in total. That boosts up the passenger numbers for all pre-existing routes, making larger aircraft feasible on bread and butter routes such as JFK, LHR etc.

Last but not least, last time out FI only had one 767 (TF-FIB). Due to that, dispatch reliability wasn't nearly good enough and every time the aircraft went tech in SFO it had a bad effect on the whole network as all the other aircraft were smaller. The management team then repeatedly stated that they wouldn't add larger aircraft again until the network justified 2-4 airframes or more. I, for one, hope 2 767s is only the beginning.

Quoting diverted (Reply 17):

You're correct on this, back when FI placed the MAX order nobody outside TLS even knew the 321LR idea existed. It may well be that if that platform had arrived a year earlier FI would've gone down a different path with their order.

Regards!
Sveinn

mjoelnir · Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:46 pm

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 27):
You still haven't made any case for the B737-9 being able to operate at MTOW from KEF. You can't rely on the wind because the runway is too short!

You have conditions influencing the needed length of runway, for example high or low altitude, high or low air temperatures and WIND, you need less runway starting against wind.

Apart from everything else, I do not believe that the 737-9MAX will need more than 10,000 feet runway at MTOW, it will be designed to not exceed that.

IADCA · Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:15 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 33):
Apart from everything else, I do not believe that the 737-9MAX will need more than 10,000 feet runway at MTOW, it will be designed to not exceed that.

That's all fine and dandy (you may be right or wrong), but the technical possibility of doing something doesn't make it commercially viable or advisable in the face of alternatives. Indeed, assuming you're right, you could do some or all of those routes on a 739NG (based on your comparison with SEA-HNL, which for previously-stated reasons and cargo limitations is not a good comp with NA operations out of KEF). Yet nobody does it. There are reasons for that.

bmacleod · Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:21 pm

It all relates to Iceland's geography in the middle of the Atlantic; until the 737MAX arrives, the 757 has the range needed to connect Iceland to North America and Europe.

prebennorholm · Tue Sep 15, 2015 12:32 am

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 35):
...until the 737MAX arrives, the 757 has the range needed to connect Iceland to North America...

What about AFTER the 737MAXs arrive? Won't the 757 still have the same range?

It is not like FI has ordered 737MAXs nearly enough to replace their 757 fleet. And besides, the last 737MAX on FI order is scheduled to arrive in 2022.

Many FI 757s are quite new and can easily soldier on well beyond 2025. So what will replace them, that's something only God knows.

Just forget about any FI 737MAX to America, except Halifax and such. It's the wrong plane, it just can do it. It may have the nominal range, but nominal range is based on ful pax cabin and NO cargo.

FI's business is based on pax and cargo. Export (fish) and import (everything else but fish) and mail. Every ton cargo means one ton less fuel and range reduced accordingly.

Those 737MAX are just perfect for the routes from KEF to UK and continental Europe where they will gradually replace the older 757s in the FI fleet.

eaa3 · Tue Sep 15, 2015 1:12 am

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 36):
Those 737MAX are just perfect for the routes from KEF to UK and continental Europe where they will gradually replace the older 757s in the FI fleet.

They´re good for that. Problem is that one of the big reasons why they got rid of them in the first place, in around 2000, was that they couldn't do North American flights which meant that they would generally get way worse usage out of them i.e. they would do perhaps 2 flights to Europe a day. The trick to efficiency at Icelandair is to have aircraft that can fly both to Europe and N.A.. Therefore, the choice between A321LR and the B737-9 should be an obvious one.

mjoelnir · Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:00 am

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 37):
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 36):
Those 737MAX are just perfect for the routes from KEF to UK and continental Europe where they will gradually replace the older 757s in the FI fleet.

They´re good for that. Problem is that one of the big reasons why they got rid of them in the first place, in around 2000, was that they couldn't do North American flights which meant that they would generally get way worse usage out of them i.e. they would do perhaps 2 flights to Europe a day. The trick to efficiency at Icelandair is to have aircraft that can fly both to Europe and N.A.. Therefore, the choice between A321LR and the B737-9 should be an obvious one.

The 737-400 and the 737-9MAX are hardly comparable in range. The -400 had 2,270 nm, the -9 will have 3,595 nm. The -9 should be good for around 2,500 nm real world range and that is good enough for quite a few East coast NA destinations from KEF. The -400 managed Halifax only. For the rest FI keeps the 757.

jfk777 · Tue Sep 15, 2015 1:46 pm

Seems the "perfect" for Icelandair is the 757neo or whatever plane Boeing is talking about building for 200 passengers and 3,000 to 4,000 miles range. But is there enough demand for such a bird when the A321 and 737-9 do almost 757 flights, even Hawaii, except for the European flights.

IADCA · Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:12 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 39):
But is there enough demand for such a bird when the A321 and 737-9 do almost 757 flights, even Hawaii, except for the European flights.

There would be if, and only if, that plane were superior to the 739 and A321NEO on more than just the extreme long end of the range envelope. However, Boeing has in the past shown some reluctance to have models competing with each other, except where one is the clear successor to the other (e.g., 773ER vs 744 and the unfortunate result of the MDD merger), so there might be some reticence to build a plane that overlaps the 738/9MAX unless those models are getting hammered by the competition.

mjoelnir · Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:17 pm

Quoting IADCA (Reply 40):
There would be if, and only if, that plane were superior to the 739 and A321NEO on more than just the extreme long end of the range envelope. However, Boeing has in the past shown some reluctance to have models competing with each other, except where one is the clear successor to the other (e.g., 773ER vs 744 and the unfortunate result of the MDD merger), so there might be some reticence to build a plane that overlaps the 738/9MAX unless those models are getting hammered by the competition.

The 737-9MAX is getting hammered by the competition.

lightsaber · Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:53 pm

Quoting UsAir737 (Reply 7):
They can't haul enough fish. As we all know only a 757 can haul fish

It is all about the fish. We NEED a fish "Smilie!"

and Popcorn.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 22):
And I am getting tired of this A321LR BS about being as capable as a 757-200. It is not.

Its all about the fish.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 41):
The 737-9MAX is getting hammered by the competition.

Yet Icelandair has ordered 7. For closer in higher demand markets, it is wise for them to have several gauges of aircraft.

Due to cargo needs, Icelandair is a prime candidate for the new MOM airframe. The added 1000nm of range would come in handy.

MOM="Middle of market" The proposed 757 replacement:
http://www.businessinsider.com/boein...-the-paris-air-show-buzzing-2015-6

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 39):
Seems the "perfect" for Icelandair is the 757neo or whatever plane Boeing is talking about building for 200 passengers and 3,000 to 4,000 miles range.

The 757 has too heavy of maintenance to compete. Boeing must go with a new aircraft (MOM) which allows a new wing. Personally, I see an application for folding wingtips. Perhaps a 757 size plane that fits into 738 gates?

Lightsaber

mjoelnir · Tue Sep 15, 2015 8:04 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 42):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 41):
The 737-9MAX is getting hammered by the competition.

Yet Icelandair has ordered 7. For closer in higher demand markets, it is wise for them to have several gauges of aircraft.

That was in regard to the reply:

Quoting IADCA (Reply 40):
Boeing has in the past shown some reluctance to have models competing with each other, except where one is the clear successor to the other (e.g., 773ER vs 744 and the unfortunate result of the MDD merger), so there might be some reticence to build a plane that overlaps the 738/9MAX unless those models are getting hammered by the competition.

Anyway, the frame FI is looking for, takes 200 pax + freight and reaches all of Canada and the USA from KEF and doing that economically. I imagine the 787-8 was too big, but the frame they would be looking for is not in sight yet. Icelandair would prefer to find such a frame at Boeing.

N1120A · Tue Sep 15, 2015 11:21 pm

In addition to fish hauling, the 757's range and ability to get out of basically any international airport makes it very well suited to their unique operation.

Quoting UsAir737 (Reply 7):
They can't haul enough fish. As we all know only a 757 can haul fish

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net