US Airways Taking RFB for 737-900ER

[JetMonkey]

The B737-900ER has the range for Transcon, and PHX to Hawaii.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family...f_900ERtech.htm

Regards
DC

I was refering to the 321.

 

[320tech]

The 321 can never replace a 757 it is gutless. they really should be looking into wide bodies (767's or 330's) that is the only plane that can replace the 757 for etops flights and can be brought into the fleet fast.

 

[BuffaloJoe]

Why not just add a couple of wing pods that you could either add drop fuel tanks to it or if necessary sidewinders (national security).

Remember US flies into DCA. It may be too tempting for someone to fire it off.

 

[FWAAA]

I agree that the Airbus is easier and better to work for a FA. However, I am not a fan of the 321 because it is underpowered for it's mission. From the airline's perspective, I think the 737-900ER is a better choice. However, I don't think it could reliably fly BOS-LAX non-stop in the winter. 2600nm trip and 3200 nm max range, and I don't think the 3200 nm includes any reserves on top.

Oops! BOS-LAX is 2600 statute miles, but that's only 2269nm; with a 3200nm range, the 739ER would have no difficulty flying BOS-LAX nonstop in the winter. Much longer legs than the short-legged A320/321.

I'd be very surprised if US went ahead and ordered any new narrowbodies prior to the launch of the new NGSA airplanes by Airbus and Boeing. As for Boeing, it is widely expected to eventually announce a carbon-fibre fuselage 787-style 737 replacement. Gotta figure that Airbus is eventually gonna do the same thing. Why spend billions on 20th Century technology if waiting a couple years allows the airline to jump to state of the art?

 

[SpinDoc]

Having flown extensively on Airbii and more recently 737NG, I would think all things considered the 737 would be the choice. I have heard from many that Airbus is cheaper to purchase, but the cost of ownership (read maintenance) is higher. I also think the 737 interior is somewhat nicer and the aircraft does appear to be more quiet (both engine noise and slipstream).

I certainly hope there are no more 321's--already performance challenged, and will get worse once the ill advised reconfig is done.

Art:

9-11 and the marketplace killed the 757. Airlines stopped purchasing the 757 because Boeing stretched the 737 to match the seating capacity at a much lower initial ownership cost, specifically with the -900 series. A new 757-200 in 2004 cost approximately $65 million list, and a 737-900 was $42 million.

The problem is, the 737-900 doesn't have the same operating specs as the 757-200. The range is lower, and the performance is not as good. The 757-200 was an excellent plane for the mission it was created for, but for some reason, it was pulled from the lineup.

The A321 is a dog compared to the 757 when it comes to performance. The A321 is also a maintenance queen compared to the 757, and total cost of ownership is much higher. The 321 can't fly transcon without a fuel stop when headwinds are high, unless the capacity is restricted. The engines just can't get the aircraft to the optimum altitude without burning too much fuel. The 757 has a much better climb to cruise ratio which allows it to travel much further without refueling.

 

[CLT-Douglas]

If US has the $ and some guts they could replace the 737's with A320/21's, convert the A350 order to a A340's if they are serious about China. They wouldn't need more then ten so what ever is left over they could put toward the narrow body planes. Then buy 40 to 50 787-8's or A330-200's to replace the 757's and 767's. Sure it's a lot more range then needed but I don't think capacity is that much more. They could then fly them to any destination the 757/767's currently serves from any one of it's hubs. Domestic transcon's would be much improved over a single isle 737 or airbus, not to mention much more cargo room. There would be no restriction on getting to Hawaii even from the east coast, plus they could cover some transatlantic that doesn't warrent the higher capacity of the A330-300's. They could open up more routes that the A330 can't reach or don't need a A340 for. In order to keep their cycles low they could rotate the fleet around the system. Anyway, just a pipe dream but it seems a waste to replace aircraft that have the same or less capibilities then what they currently have.

 

[Flying Titan]

If US has the $ and some guts they could replace the 737's with A320/21's, convert the A350 order to a A340's if they are serious about China. They wouldn't need more then ten so what ever is left over they could put toward the narrow body planes. Then buy 40 to 50 787-8's or A330-200's to replace the 757's and 767's. Sure it's a lot more range then needed but I don't think capacity is that much more. They could then fly them to any destination the 757/767's currently serves from any one of it's hubs. Domestic transcon's would be much improved over a single isle 737 or airbus, not to mention much more cargo room. There would be no restriction on getting to Hawaii even from the east coast, plus they could cover some transatlantic that doesn't warrent the higher capacity of the A330-300's. They could open up more routes that the A330 can't reach or don't need a A340 for. In order to keep their cycles low they could rotate the fleet around the system. Anyway, just a pipe dream but it seems a waste to replace aircraft that have the same or less capibilities then what they currently have.

Neat idea, except for the costs. Even a highly efficient widebody, like the 787, will burn more fuel than a narrowbody like the 739, for example, and you would have many more seats to fill. This means US either reduces transcon frequency - and thereby becomes less competitive for many business travelers - or gets hurt on load factors. Either scenario is probably a money loser.

The other big issue with this is acquisition cost. A B787/A350 costs a whole lot more than a B739/A321. Note that a 739 lists for $70M-$80M while the 787 family lists from $138M - $188M.

Boeing Price List

 

[exB717Flyer]

Though I fly the Bus I don't consider myself a fan. But without a doubt the Bus is more comfortable both in the cockpit and the cabin. I can never forgive Boeing for not coming up with a clean-sheet replacement for the 737 instead of the re-hashed '60s design we see.

 

[AtlanticBeach]

3. A321 - Reduce the F cabin to 16 as planned but use the A/C only on east coast to FL & Carribean routes and LAS. Don't need 26 F/C seats on those routes. Do more point to point flying.

Many of your ideas are practical and cost-effective, so they probably won't see the light of day.

The most glaring technical issue relates to certain Carribean destinations, specifically STT and SXM. The 757 and pre-2007 320s could make it non-stop back to PHL and CLT. The 734 EOWs from STT had to stop in STX or SJU for fuel due to take-off weight restrictions.

Don't know if there is enough performance in a 321 to safely serve those airports.

 

[hp_fa]

Oops! BOS-LAX is 2600 statute miles, but that's only 2269nm; with a 3200nm range, the 739ER would have no difficulty flying BOS-LAX nonstop in the winter. Much longer legs than the short-legged A320/321.

Yikes...sorry about that.

 

[BuffaloJoe]

OK, all you airplane experts tell me if this makes sense. First let me see if I have my facts correct.

Boeing 737-900 can handle Trans Cons alomst as well as the 757's

321 struggles on trans cons due to being underpowered.

Bob, CO and AS both have range issues with the 739's. That is why AS ordered the 800's so that range issue wasn't a problem. When the 900ER's come out that should fill in the gap. But they are no 757. In SJC all northbounds and eastbounds take-offs have to do a "Loop" to get over a certain altitude to be over the SFO approach area. Only the 757 could eliminate doing the loop that by its powerful climb. As for the A321, it can't take off to the west in LAS due to its climb, has to do a downwind take off. What does that tell you? Also look at the extra time waiting so that ATC can clear the incomings. If they order the A321's, they will be showing their commitment of not being a decent carrier. Hands down the 739ER is the answer on this.

 

[UpAllNight]

For the record, we're not giving up the 757's, the leasing companys are taking them back. They have found higher paying contracts for the planes. But we are keeping a few of them and all of the e-tops 57's.

My money is on Airbus for replacement A/C, they're hurting right now with the cancelation of all the 380 freighter versions and are looking for buyers for anything.

 

[nycbusdriver]

The A321 is a dog compared to the 757 when it comes to performance.

I wholeheartedly agree.

The A321 is also a maintenance queen compared to the 757, and total cost of ownership is much higher.

I couldn't disagree more. I have had more writeups, orange MEL stickers and MX delays/cnx in my 6 months on the 757 than I had in my previous 7 years on the little Airbus (this includes the relatively newer non-EAL airplanes and the ATA airplanes.) I could discern no difference in problems that I had with the 321 over the other two models. The Airbuses, at least so far, are not maintenance queens.

The 321 can't fly transcon without a fuel stop when headwinds are high, unless the capacity is restricted. The engines just can't get the aircraft to the optimum altitude without burning too much fuel. The 757 has a much better climb to cruise ratio which allows it to travel much further without refueling.

I agree. But you can't fault Airbus for USAirways' insistence on placing the 321 on routes it really is not designed for.