hi, why should airlines buy the 737-900 instead of the 737-800?
here some facts;
738: cost 61,000,000. 189 seats. 450 mph. range 3,337 ml. turntime 35 min. cost $2,478/hr. 1998-current. deliverd every 2 weeks. fuel low; min 18.000 max 21.000. rwy lenght; max 6,248
739: cost 65,000,000. 189 seats. 460 mph. range 2,745 ml. turntime 40 min. cost $3,138/hr. 2000-current. deliverd every 2 weeks. fuel low; min 20,000 max 21,000. rwy lenght; max 6,700
so the 739 is more expensive, less range, longer turntime, more fuel low, longer rwy lenght. The only thing of the 739 thats better than the 739 is the speed. the -900 flies 10mph faster.
why should you buy the 737-900? i cant imagine for that 10mph faster..
738 vs 739
Started by raraoul, Feb 17 2011 09:00 AM
#1
Posted 17 February 2011 - 09:00 AM
#2
Posted 17 February 2011 - 09:42 AM
There isn't really a reason- the 739's limiting factor is that it kept the 738s operating certificate- that limited the maximum pax number... however, (and maybe this is a suggestion for AE) it carries more pax in a 2 class configuration, - because it has a larger fuselage.
Thats one reason the 739 was a huge flop...
Thats one reason the 739 was a huge flop...
Porn in spoiler:
Spoiler
#3
Posted 17 February 2011 - 05:09 PM
i never said, and heard that the 739 is a big flop. i know a lot airlines which flies with the 739
KLM, EL AL , alaska airlines, korean air, continental.
but i read wikipedia, and what i understand; the 737-9 is better than the 737-8 in a 2 class configuration.
so, i agree with you bolli; this is a good suggestion for AE.
but what you said bolli 'the 739's limiting factor is that it kept the 738s operating certificate- that limited the maximum pax number'
this part i dont understand (i am european, but my english is not very good. sorry)
what do you mean here?
KLM, EL AL , alaska airlines, korean air, continental.
but i read wikipedia, and what i understand; the 737-9 is better than the 737-8 in a 2 class configuration.
so, i agree with you bolli; this is a good suggestion for AE.
but what you said bolli 'the 739's limiting factor is that it kept the 738s operating certificate- that limited the maximum pax number'
this part i dont understand (i am european, but my english is not very good. sorry)
what do you mean here?
#4
Guest_Speed Bird_*
Posted 17 February 2011 - 05:24 PM
The 739 (not the -900ER, which is a completely different aircraft), is only certified to accomodate 189 passengers, due to the number of exits on board the aircraft; this is the same as the 738. The basic 739 also retained the same fuel capacity and MTOW as the 738. Essentially therefore it was just a 738 with a longer fuselage, though, as Bolli suggested, this could be used in configurations with more Business/Premium Economy seating, or simply greater leg room and seat pitch. Of course, this does mean the 739 has a far greater CASM than the 738, though it could well be made up for with the added premium seating revenue. The 737-900ER however was given another exit, greater fuel capacity and also blended winglets, which incidentally, the basic 739, like the 736, is not certified to have.
#5
Posted 17 February 2011 - 09:54 PM
It's cooler because ryanair don't use them
#6
Posted 18 February 2011 - 07:15 AM
Boeing no longer produces the straight 739, and I'd propose AE fix that.
Anyhow, you can call it a "flop" from sales standpoint, but it was really just a technological stopgap until they ramped up their efforts as the 757 was phased out of production. They then made the neccasary adjustments and the standard model, the -900ER, has been a good sell.
Anyhow, you can call it a "flop" from sales standpoint, but it was really just a technological stopgap until they ramped up their efforts as the 757 was phased out of production. They then made the neccasary adjustments and the standard model, the -900ER, has been a good sell.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users