737-8 MAX takeoff performance
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: ISSAQUAH, wa
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737-8 MAX takeoff performance
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?
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?
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Or-E-Gun, USA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
increasing TOM.
Last edited by galaxy flyer; 13th Mar 2017 at 15:47.
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
I am guessing they have thought of the runway length before deciding on the route, otherwise it has been nice knowing you all
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Wherever LNAV Goes...
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Its an extra 250km.
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: ISSAQUAH, wa
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Some hotel
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Or-E-Gun, USA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!