Atl 737-800
12-16-2008, 04:27 PM
#11
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: DAL 7ER F/O
Posts: 92
Soup
12-16-2008, 04:34 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 757 Left
Posts: 1,308
You can thank SWA for that overhead. The 73NG could have had a 757 nose (much quieter) and 76-400 type avionics and systems.
12-24-2008, 06:53 AM
#13
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
The overhead is a minor annoyance but the noise level in the cockpit is far and away the bigger drawback to the 737. The trips on Delta's 737s are sweet with all the Caribbean flying but its tempting to bid the Maddog or 767 just to save my hearing.
Its a wonder the SWA guys aren't all deaf by the end of their careers.
03-24-2010, 03:03 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: ATL717A
Posts: 890
Because it was never was supposed to happen with the 737NG. At one time, Boeing toyed with the idea of re-nosing the 737-300 with a 757 nose, but due to massive cost and recertification issues, the design was scrapped. Southwest had nothing to do with this decision.
Interestingly enough, the 757 was designed to have a 727 nose, but went with the current design to match production design of the 767, as well as increase cockpit space and reduce noise.
Interestingly enough, the 757 was designed to have a 727 nose, but went with the current design to match production design of the 767, as well as increase cockpit space and reduce noise.
03-24-2010, 05:55 AM
#17
No one's home
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,091
The 757 and 767 were/are very easy airplanes to fly. Throttles to idle at 50ft on the 767 and 30ft on the 757. The rule was the 757 was the airplane to be seen flying. The 767 was the better handling of the two.
03-25-2010, 04:29 AM
#19
No one's home
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,091
The 727-300 never made it beyond paper and there were various efforts including two concepts which did away with the FE. One incorporated many ideas including automatic reconfiguring of air and bleed for engine starts and air conditioning packs, an electrical heirachy like the DC-9/MD-80 along with other improvements. The other essentially moved switches and lights to the front just increasing workload. And neither moved beyond engineering mockups.
03-26-2010, 04:40 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: ATL717A
Posts: 890
I never flew the 75/76 - looks really nice and I hope to get there someday.
To answer the OP question, the trips on the -800 are, for the most part, really nice if you're in the top third. Lots o' long haul domestic and Latin America stuff. Great layovers. Like every other fleet at every airline, trips can be really bad if you're junior. My most unpleasant memory of an -800 trip was BOS-LAX - 7+10 flying time...felt like I'd been kicked really hard in the head by the time we got there. I never really knew how bad the airplane made me feel until I got off it - noisy and cramped - not a lot of creature comforts...flew the -200 and -800 for ten years in ignornant bliss, uncomfortably numb.
I'm in the minority here I know, but I love the MD88. Quiet and short legs. Something for everybody, I guess.
To answer the OP question, the trips on the -800 are, for the most part, really nice if you're in the top third. Lots o' long haul domestic and Latin America stuff. Great layovers. Like every other fleet at every airline, trips can be really bad if you're junior. My most unpleasant memory of an -800 trip was BOS-LAX - 7+10 flying time...felt like I'd been kicked really hard in the head by the time we got there. I never really knew how bad the airplane made me feel until I got off it - noisy and cramped - not a lot of creature comforts...flew the -200 and -800 for ten years in ignornant bliss, uncomfortably numb.
I'm in the minority here I know, but I love the MD88. Quiet and short legs. Something for everybody, I guess.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
