737-8 MAX takeoff performance

[shaunly]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

I used to work at T.F. Green airport in Providence (KPVD) and I was just reading that Norwegian Air is planning service between Providence and Edinburgh Airport (EGPH) in Scotland utilizing the 737-8 MAX.

To my knowledge, previously the longest non-stop flight out of Providence was a 2000NM leg to Phoenix (KPHX). The airport wanted transcon service, but my understanding was that the US carriers were not interested because of the weight restrictions they would take to depart the 7166' runway with enough fuel to reach the other coast.

Is the takeoff performance of the 737-8 MAX really going to be so much different that Norwegian can use a 7166' runway for a 2700NM leg w/o penalty, or are they just more willing to accept the weight restrictions?

[oceancrosser]

This will be interesting to see. The Boeing software I have for the MAX (not latest Flight test data, but about 2 yr old), shows a Field Limit out of PVD of 83.500 kgs (almost 5.000 kg less than MTOW) at 30°C (summer temps). This does not take into account any obstacles (dunno if PVD has any).
Assuming an OEW of 45.000kgs, 18.900 payload (189 pax w bags) for a ZFW of 63.900 kgs. This leaves 19.600 kgs for fuel. Probably doable, westbound will probably be more of an issue due winds. Also if the actual OEW is higher.

[No Fly Zone]

This Route Does Not Thrill Me

Certainly, the upstart airline wants to fly the route with (one or a pair?) of expected 738 Max aircraft and KPVD wants the route that no US carrier will fly. It looks like the interested carrier and do it and will accept the weight limits. That said, it IS a bit of a stretch for a RWY of that length and yes, they are pushing the 738-Max to the absolute limit. Push that hard and bank on some unexpected and expensive fuel diversions, especially west bound. When/if they rack up more than a few such fuel diversions, they too may quickly lose interest in the route. Such unplanned fuel events can and will affect their bottom line - quickly. That is a difficult position for a supposedly ULCC wishing to retain their operating certificate. Pushing performance to the absolute limits of any variable is simply not smart. Are they sure that they can fly the proposed route, or are they experimenting and fishing? I also note that this carrier may open a new route with genuine ULCC fares, but they quickly migrate up the scale and lose any real claim to ULCC status. IMO, they are experimenting, but without a proven commitment to the trans-con route. As we know, the RWY at KPVD is simply not long enough for a 738-Max at MTOW. They cannot cut fuel, so they will be forced to cut seats and cargo weight. I guess I wish them well, but... Cutting corners on the TO run and/or a couple of west bound landings that turn out to be even a tablespoon under minimum reserves WILL get their route certificate yanked very quickly.

[OntimeexceptACARS]

Why is westbound an issue? I think that EGPH had 30C weather on probably no more than 5 days in the last ten years, plus their departure runway TODA is around 8,400 feet. Surely eastbound is the issue, with temps higher in the summer?

[thetimesreader84]

You need more fuel to fly against the prevailing westerly jet stream, increasing TOM.

[galaxy flyer]

increasing TOM.

Not so much increasing the TOGW, but reaching the structural limit or fuel required against the wind exceeds MTOGW OR enroute diversions OR blocking seats.

[Doors to Automatic]

This is an interesting post as I wondered the same thing having managed to secure a £60 (plus £20 for double leg room) ticket for PVD-EDI in August!

I am guessing they have thought of the runway length before deciding on the route, otherwise it has been nice knowing you all

[oceancrosser]

For that price you get a couple of extra landings. One each way!

[Skyjob]

I think it will all be fine, after all the BBJ serviced for KLM used to fly AMS-IAH with some AUX tanks not even a decade ago.
That was non-stop, nil diversions (due fuel)

[Bobermo]

Different aircraft, different airports and different configuration, so a useless comparison..

[JT8D-17]

DY are saying ORK-NY may not happen next year as they believe fully loaded MAX wont make it because of the runway in Cork. They are waiting to see performance data on this years service but on paper NY unlikely.

Its an extra 250km.

From a different thread.....

How is the landing performance looking for the -8? A full load -800 at around 61-62,000 kgs LW can get interesting on runways less than 2000m. With the Max being a few tonnes heavier, are we expecting a short field performance package to be standard fit to allow unrestricted ops into the shorter runways?

These length runways would be common in my airline and we have a lot of Max's on order!

[shaunly]

Interesting that landing performance could be an issue as well. It strikes me that perhaps some of the operators are envisioning things that the MAX may or may not actually be capable of achieving. No doubt, an all business configuration can do a lot more than a standard two class configuration ... but that doesn't seem to be what some of the operators are planning.

[Doors to Automatic]

Originally Posted by Skyjob

I think it will all be fine, after all the BBJ serviced for KLM used to fly AMS-IAH with some AUX tanks not even a decade ago.
That was non-stop, nil diversions (due fuel)

AMS and IAH have 12000ft runways so this is an irrelevant comparison.

[The Range]

And how would a B-757 fare for this route?

[DogSpew]

Originally Posted by No Fly Zone

Certainly, the upstart airline wants to fly the route with (one or a pair?) of expected 738 Max aircraft and KPVD wants the route that no US carrier will fly. It looks like the interested carrier and do it and will accept the weight limits. That said, it IS a bit of a stretch for a RWY of that length and yes, they are pushing the 738-Max to the absolute limit. Push that hard and bank on some unexpected and expensive fuel diversions, especially west bound. When/if they rack up more than a few such fuel diversions, they too may quickly lose interest in the route. Such unplanned fuel events can and will affect their bottom line - quickly. That is a difficult position for a supposedly ULCC wishing to retain their operating certificate. Pushing performance to the absolute limits of any variable is simply not smart. Are they sure that they can fly the proposed route, or are they experimenting and fishing? I also note that this carrier may open a new route with genuine ULCC fares, but they quickly migrate up the scale and lose any real claim to ULCC status. IMO, they are experimenting, but without a proven commitment to the trans-con route. As we know, the RWY at KPVD is simply not long enough for a 738-Max at MTOW. They cannot cut fuel, so they will be forced to cut seats and cargo weight. I guess I wish them well, but... Cutting corners on the TO run and/or a couple of west bound landings that turn out to be even a tablespoon under minimum reserves WILL get their route certificate yanked very quickly.

Whoa! Hold on people. Are we basing this assumption on 2 year old data from Oceancrosser? Surely not!

"As we know, the RWY at KPVD is simply not long enough for a 738-Max at MTOW." Do you have the latest 737-8(MAX) performance data? If so, please share with the FAA and EASA.

Norwegian Air International is bound by EASA and IAA regulations and I can assure you there would be no 'fudging' of any performance requirements. Having worked for 2 airlines under an Irish AOC, I can assure you that the IAA are extremely 'anal' with their route approvals, auditing and compliance monitoring.

'Cutting corners on the TO run' Please explain this one to me? Might happen in some regions of the 'Third World' where there is poor regulatory oversight, but I can assure you that the FAA and EASA (IAA) would never allow this to happen.

Norwegian is heavily investing in new airplanes and routes. I would assume they've done their homework (and some) before selling tickets. Sure seems like a commitment to the trans-con route to me.

[Refuellerman]

Bfs to us flights are expected to start as b737-8 untill the max arrives so will get even more interesting lol😣

[SR-22]

Originally Posted by oceancrosser

This will be interesting to see. The Boeing software I have for the MAX (not latest Flight test data, but about 2 yr old), shows a Field Limit out of PVD of 83.500 kgs (almost 5.000 kg less than MTOW) at 30°C (summer temps). This does not take into account any obstacles (dunno if PVD has any).
Assuming an OEW of 45.000kgs, 18.900 payload (189 pax w bags) for a ZFW of 63.900 kgs. This leaves 19.600 kgs for fuel. Probably doable, westbound will probably be more of an issue due winds. Also if the actual OEW is higher.

According to Boeing the MTOW for a B737-8 MAX will be 82.121kg structural. Doing Mach .79 on average winds would give in the region of 5-5:30 of flight time eastbound. Burning slightly less fuel than an NG although a higher DOW I cannot see why this shouldn't be possible. A 738NG would need about 16-17tons of fuel max

[SR-22]

Originally Posted by The Range

And how would a B-757 fare for this route?

Very easily

[rog747]

will the new 737max be able to op into GIB ?

GIB is one of Monarch's good routes -
the 738 does not go there nor does or can the A321

only Boeing types 732/733 and 734 ever operated there then the 757 and that had an expensive nose wheel prang once G-MONC

apparently Enter Air put a 738 there recently on a charter but it was a one - off

BA/Comair with new 738's have given up trying to get into the new St Helena airport which has similar wind windshear and crosswind issues to GIB and FNC which make the 738 a no go and out of limits for ST Helena

sorry to bang the bleedin obvious drum but why would MON/OM Jeopardise the GIB route with a seemingly unsuitable new a/c unless it sells it off

[No Fly Zone]

MTOW/MLW operations on short RWYs and/or imperfect weather conditions trouble me. Yes, the B738 for example can do great things, but only under ideal conditions. Load imperfectly or make a calculation error and one may have a major problem. Miss an important wind report: same thing. Most excellent pilots can do this, most of the time. Is that good enough? If it does not look good, will they wait or GA? For some, ego gets in the way and others should not be flying such routes. There are places I won't fly and that's why. Even the best may not pull it off EVERY time. No thanks!