737-900

[crash_1983]

How many airlines acctually use this type of aircraft i know a few carriers use the 737-700 for longer routes (i spent 7 hours non stop on one!), but how much further does the 737-900 aircraft go, as cabin crew i dont know the technical stuff? whats the pax load on it anyone know?

[panda-k-bear]

Unforutnately not a big success for Boeing - the -900 is too big an aircraft with too low a seating capacity to make a lot of sense. If you want real performance and excellent economics, buy a -800 (less chance of a tailscrape, too!)

[flapsforty]

We have them, and they are roundly despised by all cabin crew. :*
Of course our comp in it's infinite wisdom decided to scrap the extra toilet in the back and to dismantle the in flight entertainment system since the aircraft would ony be used on short haul.
And of course we now use it to the ME with pax forming an endless loo-queu in the sinlge aisle thereby making any kind of meal or drinks service a nightmare for all concerned. Pax endlessly complaining about the lack of space, the lack of toilets and the lack of entertainment.
Can't blame them for complaining; what a pain that aircraft is!

[BoarderDude]

I think it is a bit blunt to judge an aircraft by it's lack of Pax Entertainment and the number of toilets installed, don't you think? ;)

Panda has a point there. The seating capacity is too low compared with the extra length. Our company fills the -800 with 186 pax, no use for the extra length (Suppose it has something to do with doors/evacuation time).

But we DO have a nice Inflight Entertainment sys installed

:ok:

GrTz B.D.

[panda-k-bear]

The problem is that the aircraft still has only 4 type III exits overwing, the same as the -800, so evac. times limit the -900 to 189 pax (as flaps will no doubt know, this is because of the type IIIbis exits which are up and over in design instead of pull in and chuck out onto the wing, else it'd be limited to 180!)

To be honest, flaps has a point. If you're going to operate such birds to the Middle East, you're competing with the likes of Emirates and Gulf Air - pax entertainment is needed (and lovely as the KLM girls are, they aren't entertainmemt enough for all those pax over such a length of flight!)

[Marcel_MPH]

That is exactly the problem KLM has. They operate both 737-800 aircraft as the stretched -900 series. Problem is that they both accomodate 180 passengers against higher operating costs for the -900. Indeed it has something to do with the overwing escape exits.

I heard Alaska airlines will exchange two Boeing 737-900 it has on order, with two 737-800 aircraft. I guess it doesn't have anything to do with the seating capacity though.

Marcel_MPH :cool:

[willfly380]

we have a few, they fly well and are in my opinion a bit easier to land. and boeing is developing a 900X version with an additional door behind the wing to fill in some 218 pax.
range is same as our 700/800

[747FOCAL]

Very sketchy CG like loading a camle on top of a pin.

[4MONU]

We operate a few of them in India, and they are doing very well. Guess our Cabin Crew does so MUCH service, it doesn't give pax a chance to crowd the aisle.

I must agree with 'willfly380' - She does Land very well !!
Think after all streching and yanking - Boeing finally got the geometry of 737 right. She is very stable on approach and the 1st 737 that till now has not 'flown me' !

CG problem - never had one !!
Now if you had only a couple of Economy Pax on your flight - she gonna wanna tip back - but your Airline then got bigger problems at hand with overcapacity than with CG !!

All-in-all A GOOD BIRD.

[Capt Basil Brush]

Only 1 deg difference in Tail Strike Pitch Attitude between the -800 (11.0deg) and -900 (10.0deg).

At Flap 5, both have 51cm Tail Clearance. You need to keep an eye on the new FO's who are too keen on getting airborne!!