Rumor Brian Znotins No Longer With United
10-05-2016, 07:36 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 862
Yeah right......weight restrictions causing 30-40 seats to be blocked off are all too common in my experience. Flying empty seats....not efficient.
10-05-2016, 07:40 AM
#42
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,609
Originally Posted by Knotcher
737-900 carries the same amount of passengers at a lighter weight, burning less fuel, and with lower costs.
Looks great on paper, right? No brainer from an economic perspective, right?
Of course, that all ignores the operational and performance limitations of such an airframe...which can have a very real downside impact on that otherwise no-brainer economic decision.
10-05-2016, 07:43 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,159
The Boeing marketers and salespeople did a great job of pushing that airplane on us, but the 737, even on paper-best case; can't do what a 757 can do. Sure, the 737 is lighter, but the 757's takeoff and climb performance is in-matched by the guppy, even with the heaviest of payloads.
I wonder why Fed Ex didn't buy the 737-900 ..... Heck, it's lighter and cheaper.
10-05-2016, 08:44 AM
#44
Pilot Response
Joined APC: May 2011
Position: A320 Captain
Posts: 479
I'm basically neutral in this; i.e. not on the airplane and have flown both the -300/500 and the Airbus.
The most interesting fact to me is that Southwest does not fly the -900. The consensus of rumor is that WN was a proponent of the 757's demise, yet when its pseudo"replacement" hit the streets with its common type rating they didn't get it.
Again, not really taking sides.
Thoughts?
The most interesting fact to me is that Southwest does not fly the -900. The consensus of rumor is that WN was a proponent of the 757's demise, yet when its pseudo"replacement" hit the streets with its common type rating they didn't get it.
Again, not really taking sides.
Thoughts?
10-05-2016, 09:02 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
I'm basically neutral in this; i.e. not on the airplane and have flown both the -300/500 and the Airbus.
The most interesting fact to me is that Southwest does not fly the -900. The consensus of rumor is that WN was a proponent of the 757's demise, yet when its pseudo"replacement" hit the streets with its common type rating they didn't get it.
Again, not really taking sides.
Thoughts?
The most interesting fact to me is that Southwest does not fly the -900. The consensus of rumor is that WN was a proponent of the 757's demise, yet when its pseudo"replacement" hit the streets with its common type rating they didn't get it.
Again, not really taking sides.
Thoughts?
I'm not so sure SWA was an active proponent of the 757s demise but rather more interested in keeping themselves to one "type". By all accounts Boeing had designed a modern cockpit for the NG but that was shot down when it became apparent that the FAA would not sign off on it as a "common" type for SWA without additional pilot training and currency requirements.
For all the aforementioned reasons in this thread, plus insanely long turn times, I can easily see why they didn't get any 900s.
10-05-2016, 10:23 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,244
I don't blame the company for buying them, rumors are prices were so low they couldn't put it in writing. The LCAL way of stretching an airplane to failure though has gotta stop. The 900 is a great as a shuttle up and down the east coast or hub to hub.
10-05-2016, 10:42 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 695
I don't get the point of these arguments about whether the 73-900 is awesome or garbage like our future is inextricably tied to one particular length of one particular Boeing. We're not SWA or Spirit or Frontier. We have the infrastructure presently in place to support large numbers of Airbus and Boeing as they fit our needs. If the 737-700s and -800s fit a niche well and the 321NEO is the closest thing to a 757 replacement then I don't understand why our future orders don't follow that logic. Did we just miss the boat earlier and now are just too far down the order queue for it to make sense?
10-05-2016, 10:57 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,244
If we're not second guessing their decisions, that'll eliminate 90% of this forum.
10-05-2016, 12:11 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2012
Posts: 510
How many 737-900's are doing trans-atlantic routes? How many going into high density altitude airports doing the "job."
The Boeing marketers and salespeople did a great job of pushing that airplane on us, but the 737, even on paper-best case; can't do what a 757 can do. Sure, the 737 is lighter, but the 757's takeoff and climb performance is in-matched by the guppy, even with the heaviest of payloads.
I wonder why Fed Ex didn't buy the 737-900 ..... Heck, it's lighter and cheaper.
The Boeing marketers and salespeople did a great job of pushing that airplane on us, but the 737, even on paper-best case; can't do what a 757 can do. Sure, the 737 is lighter, but the 757's takeoff and climb performance is in-matched by the guppy, even with the heaviest of payloads.
I wonder why Fed Ex didn't buy the 737-900 ..... Heck, it's lighter and cheaper.
Are we trying to do transatlantic routes with the 73?? No, we got other planes for that.
Thats NOT what we are talking about here. We are talking Fort Lauderdale to Chicago...you don't need super duper runway STOL capabilities to fly this. This is what the 737 is for.
If you guys had your way we would be flying 757s from every single domestic route and probably losing our a$$ flying an airplane with capabilities we don't need on most routes.
And give it a rest with the 30-40 blocked seats. Might happen on a fraction of the thousands of flights we fly...have never seen anything like that, worst was 10 seats out of UIO. Just a lot of watercooler stories...
Yea cargo is a lot heavier that people and FEDEX needs the capabilities, we don't. Uhh, my head hurts..
Last edited by Knotcher; 10-05-2016 at 12:22 PM.
10-05-2016, 12:16 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2012
Posts: 510
Carries zero cargo, I've personally had one day where we bought off passengers to the tune of $40k.. In just one day. In just two flights. Multiple BOS-SFO fuel stops. Many more HI flights that were revenue cargo or pax weight restricted. The airplane is garbage, it is not even close to a 757 replacement. Never mind you'll never see a 900 in STT/SNA/JAC etc, some place the 757 will happily operate out of all day long. Nothing like landing our 737-700 in STT and parking next to 6 AA/DAL 757's.
I don't blame the company for buying them, rumors are prices were so low they couldn't put it in writing. The LCAL way of stretching an airplane to failure though has gotta stop. The 900 is a great as a shuttle up and down the east coast or hub to hub.
I don't blame the company for buying them, rumors are prices were so low they couldn't put it in writing. The LCAL way of stretching an airplane to failure though has gotta stop. The 900 is a great as a shuttle up and down the east coast or hub to hub.
Again, the majority of domestic flying is right up the 737s alley, and does it cheaper than the 75. Guys are so emotionally attached to the great 75, I get it. I love it too. But it has a much more limited role now and should only be used where its truly needed.
Last edited by Knotcher; 10-05-2016 at 12:27 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
