Apparently DJ are about to sign an order for upto 11 737-900s for delivery next year. Apparently a number of slots have become available with the worldwide downturn.

'why' they are struggling now with too much domestic capacity now, they have defered the remained of the EMB's and 737 are heading over to pacific....

with Sydney slots being at a premium, and as a number of the earlier -700's are coming off the lease - it makes a lot of sense to get -900ER's. More pax - same endorsement. Just don't smack that tail!!

I hope they get the carbon brakes!

with Sydney slots being at a premium, and as a number of the earlier -700's are coming off the lease - it makes a lot of sense to get -900ER's. More pax - same endorsement. Just don't smack that tail!!

With the current market as it is, VA running behind schedule and costing them $$$$ with a weak share price and 'low' profit compared to other years would it be wise to buy new equipment at this stage.

Plus the conversion between AUD / US is taking a huge hit

Maybe it's a combination of 700s out of lease, and some very good terms from Boeing for the late 777 deliveries? Think back to the great deal QF got on 737s in the last downturn..

DJ doesnt look like its getting compensation from the 777 delays as its been covered before, its industrial action which is written into the contract.

QF got a good deal of american for the 738's as production were too far down the line and american were going to lose their deposit.

Have heard this 900's rumour a couple of times before, the last time quite a number of months ago and many things have since changed, but it was apparently a definate thing, with a number of the 700's going and the 900's coming.

Do all the 900's have the extra door behind the wings? This would mean extra crew then required...?

DJCC

737-900ERs have floor level emergency exits aft of the wing in addition to the 4 overwing hatches and 4 doors of the -800. These doors and the redesigned concave aft pressure bulkhead allow the 900ER to carry a greater load than the original 900 was certified (max 189) and thus attractive to LCCs.

In A VB configuration they are likely to carry over 200 pax so a 5th crew member would be necessary.

What the?

How the hell can they afford it, where in the hell will they fly them. Share price of 35c and a Australian_Global economic slowdown???:ugh:Total crap.

A Low Share price does not mean that an airline can't finance aircraft. Especially if these are the Lion air planes that Boeing are looking at moving. I would expect that they would be quite cheap relatively speaking. As long as the Airline is making a profit it won't go broke even if the share price is at 1 cent. It would be interesting to know if they are flying full or empty that would be more important.

In and out of SYD. The lack of gates in SYD at times has aircraft sitting on taxiways and 07/25 for 20- 30 mins, and it's going to get worse as more E-jets come on line. DJ need a larger aircraft and the -900ER suits them.

There will be no increase in B737 numbers, as the older -700's will be handed back which will be a great relief for crews and ops who have to deal with the payload problems on these 20k aircraft.

In a 1 class config the -900ER can carry 215 pax.

Also remember reading in an ASX statement that there were a handful of 737-800's due for delivery next year (which are to replace the 700's on lease). Maybe with the slots freeing up, VB will convert those 800's into 900's and as there are still quite a number of airlines wanting the 800...those slots won't be too hard to fill.

VB do need the capacity on the SY-ML, SY-BN sectors during peak periods. As it stands there are flights leaving every 15 minutes for those sectors around 8am/9am and with increasing delays in/out of Sydney it does makes sense.

VB do not need a capacity increase in the already crowded Australian skies.
Good rumour - think not! (I hope).
On the other hand I have heard that the -700 are to be extended, with potentially a couple more?

rescue 1,

These are the facts:
VB are taking delivery of some 800's in 2009 (can't remember exact number)...remember these have already been signed up/paid for.
Some 700's are going back after lease expiry in 2009 (again no numbers)
Sydney slots are at a premium and as it stands flights to ML/BN run at every 15 mins during peak periods.

The rumour is:
900's offered in place of the 800's due next year as slots have freed up.

As you can see, there won't be an increase (or very little anyway) of 737 airframes in the sky but rather increased capacity coming from the 900's which is desperately needed.

Linking this discussion to VB flying to Bali, 737-900ERs have very good range (on paper). Range is shown on Boeing sites, as about 3200 miles.

These aircraft would be very good for Transcons, and range would be good for SYD/MEL to DPS as well.

Over in America, Continental are using these planes with 20 Business Class seats, 153 Economy Seats, so these aircraft could let DJ offer quite a good Y+ service on big time business markets.

B737-900's will work well for a low cost carrier who uses both forward and aft doors for embarkation and disembarkation, thus keeping the transit times reasonable. Airlines offering premium service require the pax to use only the forward door so that caterers can access the rear galley to resupply the aircraft in a reasonable timeframe. The extra time taken if only the forward door is used adds 10-15mins to each transit which results in one less sector being flown by the aircraft each day and thus makes the economics of the B737-900 not suitable for a premium airline. Qantas' research found that 180 seats is the max single aisle configuration that allows a reasonable transit time - if a larger capacity is required then the B767 becomes more efficient and, some time in the future, the B787-8's (which will be used domestically after Jetstar re-equips with B787-9's) will be significantly cheaper.

The big decision for Virgin Blue to make is, are they going to stay a LCC or are they going to morph into a premium airline. If their future is as a premium airline, then I believe that the B737-900ER is the wrong way to go.

My Theory,

VB currently wants F/O's to take commands at PB on PB T & C's as they believe the company has too many pilots. They are going to ramp up this operation and base pilots in Australia on PB T and C's to operate to Bali, Port Morsby and the like, maybe even domestic in Australia. If these 900's are painted in PB colours its all over for the VB pilots, as PB will crew them on International routes via Domestic ports (Virgin name cannot be used on International Ops). These pilots will operate these 900's under a new business based in Australia operating for PB, ala a wet lease type of set up. VB boys, your in for a blue, look at VAus contracts. HR manager has stated that this is the way VB wants to proceed in the future, private contracts.

PB will become Virgins Jetstar. Its already been a sleeping giant for awhile now. Time to wake to ogar!:yuk::yuk::yuk:

Just read the annual report to the ASX, there are 19 more 737's on order, seems reasonable that they convert them to -900's if possible... And VB is doing quite well, with reasonable loads. Even JP Morgan senario required oil to sustain US$150/ barrel before VB would struggle if they didn't raise fairs. Vb has raised fairs and oil is around US$76/ barrel today....i.e. half...Sounds like VB might be in a strong position.

Vb has raised fairs and oil is around US$76/ barrel today

Unfortunately, VB have hedged at a higher rate...
The risk of hedging can be to save money or spend it. In this case it's spend.

you can still buy fuel at spot prices, hedged fuel only needs to be used before contract expires. Hence the strategy of hedging a percentage of your fuel, this averages the highs and lows, but more so protects against massive blowouts.

Airlines offering premium service require the pax to use only the forward door so that caterers can access the rear galley to resupply the aircraft in a reasonable timeframe.
I beg to differ, I have catered QF aircraft (737's) with both front & rear doors active for disembarkation! Normally we would use one truck to do both front and rear galleys, but if a flight was running late we would use two, in most cases the aircraft would be fully catered before the last passenger had disembarked.

The number of doors used has more to do with the facilities available rather than the level of service!

How many flight attendants does VB have on the Embraer 170/190 ?
Please..:suspect:

Both the 170 and 190 carry 3 FAs.

If rumour is correct my guess would be PB will use some of these are on APW and DPS flightd as these are restricted to 140pax currently.

How many VB F/O's do you think will take command? Will many be interested in the NZ conditions?

None I hope. Blatant and ham-fisted attempt by management to undercut conditions and try to prop up failing recruitment at PB. If they don't have any upgradable FOs there, then either bring T & C s up to VB level or roll everything into VB crewing. It is of really no issue to pilots what call sign or paint scheme is used.

I hope the F/Os see this for what it is and keep their powder dry so to speak. PB are the brand for international expansion regionally but due to poor terms & conditions relative to other regional operators they have retention problems - ALL OF THEIR OWN MAKING.

I beg to differ, I have catered QF aircraft (737's) with both front & rear doors active for disembarkation! Normally we would use one truck to do both front and rear galleys, but if a flight was running late we would use two, in most cases the aircraft would be fully catered before the last passenger had disembarked.

Fair enough Howard, but I know that QF looked at the B737-900ERs and decided against ordering them because of the excessive transit times.

The "ditching" scenario on the -900 would be interesting in that the rear doors are unusable (because the tail sits too low in the water (like the -800)) and therefore there is a very large number of people from the rear section scrambling forward to the overwing exits. Could become very chaotic.

Getting 900's makes perfect sense. Wave goodbye to the 700's.
Load factors on some sectors are consistantly high, higher than the poor 800's can take.
So many pax want to fly and it seems QF and JQ are not the airline of choice.
The 900's may fly over water or domestically it doesn't matter, though I'd watch for an increase in PB destinations.

The ditching evacuation of all 737 series precludes the use of the rear doors as they are underwater. Not an issue, it's been certified as it meets the required evac rqmts.

Greenslopes said
The ditching evacuation of all 737 series precludes the use of the rear doors as they are underwater. Not an issue, it's been certified as it meets the required evac rqmts.

No it does not for all the B737 series, the front and rear doors are still the primary exits for the 300 in a ditching.

I would not worry about the ditching discussion as VB sees it unecessary to carry liferafts despite the expiry of the CASA dispensation which rolls on by consent - [refer also CC manuals with overprinted notation]

As for catering both doors before/while pax are disembarking 'when an a/c is running late' .................... all I can say is that is the single most absurd and arrogant and unecessary risk if the a/c had to evac'd. [have a look at the China Air 737 fire - BTW they had six CC]

To 'recater' a 737 takes minimal time - there is no justifiable reason to reduce primary door exits by 50% just to preserve the B.S. obession with 20 minute turnarounds.

This is the sort of arrogant nonsense that only proves that the self governing regulatory environment is both ineffective and myopic and the operator has a demonstrated ineffectual understanding of risk process.

Any crew that allows this kind of breech needs their collective ar*ses kicked -

no justifiable reason to reduce primary door exits by 50%

forgive me but I thought in addition to unforseen occurences, this was the reason evac procedures are required to demonstrate 90 sec or less full evac of all pax with 50% exits rendered unusable.

Whether that is because of fire, or smoke, or obstruction (said obstruction could reasonably be, a catering truck, or the fact a fuel truck or baggage tug is parked where the slide would land.)

Just a thought. I don't like to see it myself (catering via both fwd & rear doors that is) but as crew that is what we are taught to do, take into account those things, I know I've stood many a time thinking, okay, if the crap hits the fan right now we send them out the other side, or get the overwings done, or tell the truck to get the heck away asap... i assume it's in their procedures as well if they see slides coming, get the eff away!! :}

Sorry I digress but just wanted to point out even with 50% of exits gone it should be able to be done anyway.... and yes, i know that 50% of those half could be unusable anyway.... let's not go there, just asking for it!!
We don't live in an ideal world, as much as many of us would like to.

As for catering both doors before/while pax are disembarking 'when an a/c is running late'

Airtags not sure where you've gotten that from. VB catering comes up the rear stairs (L2 door) when the pax have disembarked. If the scissor truck (R2 door) is used then it is done after the pax have disembarked and is all over before boarding has commenced.
Never have used or will use catering at both doors because it just ain't the way its done at VB.

The Air China example is a pretty long bow as well.

Are all the VB bashers in here just QF marketing people with nothing better to do?

To 'recater' a 737 takes minimal time - there is no justifiable reason to reduce primary door exits by 50% just to preserve the B.S. obession with 20 minute turnarounds.
Normally 31 minute turnarounds actually, 16 minutes for catering (single truck) and not a LCC either!:rolleyes:

Any crew that allows this kind of breech needs their collective ar*ses kicked -
Never once questioned in 2 years by any crew!:eek:

PS: As a contractor, two trucks were requested by the customer airline!

Just a comment on the ditching

I think it is all a load of crap, until a large aircraft(737 or above) can prove that it can ditch as designed I think they should nt worry about rafts and lifejackets etc.

I don't know of any successful ditching but I am open to be proven wrong.
As far as I am aware the manufactures all say that you can ditch and the aircraft will float but I want then to prove it.

Maybe get a mothballed airliner and remote control it for a ditching.

thanks for the intell wirgen - glad to hear
I was picking up on Howard's earlier posts re catering access while pax disembark - and a few of the posts in relation to the thread topic re VB's lease options on the 9's.

On record I actually support VB as an LCC and am a semi-regular occupant of those last minute seats down the back -however like with my own and other airlines, a few of the SOP's, attitudes and cultures are a worry. (Please don't feel its a VB hunt as Q has more than its share of questionable ones)

On topic however, I personally think the 9's are a commercially wise decision - provided they are adequetly crewed and equipped and operated under Australian standards. My position is that with any new a/c type acquisition, we all should not allow the regulatory or safety environments to be diluted (or in the case of some FAOC's) bypassed without protest.

Realities suggest that all operators will look to a new a/c as an opportunity to start messing about with T&C's - cutting corners (such as making a CC member operate two doors) and time/cost rationalisation. Let's hope that this will not be the case with 9's.

There have been a few successful ditchings of jet aircraft, one off Cuba many years ago, the raft eneded up being deployed in the front vestibule of the a/c causing many problems. Also the hijack ditching that was recorded on handicam; an Ethiopian B767 from memory, would have been a good ditching except the hijacker started throttling the pilot as he was landing; most survived. Re the B737; rear doors remain closed in a ditching and evacuate through overwing and fwd doors.

the B737; rear doors remain closed in a ditching and evacuate through overwing and fwd doors.

As said previously, not on all variants. Earlier models were shorter and therefore it was tested that the rear doors were not under water level. -300 and -400 models use fwd & rear doors in a ditch. Later ones such as the - 700 and -800 do not use rear doors. Guessing the same with - 900s as they are longer still.

I noticed in photos that not all - 900s have the extra exit rear of the wing. Is this an optional thing, and is there a crew member seated there, or is it a 'pax briefed/operated' exit, like the o/wings??

Murdoch I know there have been unsuccessful ditchings, but the picture on the safety card shows a nicely floating jetliner in calm seas. In reality it has never happened so all the airlines should stop peddling this pipe dream.

I will hop off my soap box now. Sorry for the thread drift

The extra doors you see are on the -900ER. the plain -900 is limited to around 185 pax due lack of exits ( all my un-educated understanding) hence its no good for single class configs (unless its in a super premium economy :} )
Hence the extra door. As to the layout at that door, I have no idea.
Talks about it on wikipedia..

I don't know of any successful ditching but I am open to be proven wrong.
As far as I am aware the manufactures all say that you can ditch and the aircraft will float but I want then to prove it.


Japan Airlines a DC8-62 flight 8032 on 22/11/68 hit San Francisco Bay 2.5 miles short of the runway.

No injuries to crew or pax, aircraft was fished out of the water after 55 hrs and was repaired and re-entered service.

With six doors and a load of 215 I'm guessing VB would look to have the dispensation they have on the 800 to extend to the 900. That is a CC ratio of 1 to 50. However as they are proper door exits I think it would be wrong of CASA to let them use that ratio. I think 1 to 36 should apply and therefore they would need 6 crew (1 per door exit).

Anyway are these planes really worth it? With load factors around 80% on average and a much better schedule these days for the MEL-SYD-BNE triangle do you really need a longer plane?