Today's LUAL SLI Presentation?
06-03-2013, 07:50 AM
#491
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,575
Originally Posted by Airhoss
Sounds like the 900 is a very nostalgic airplane. It performs like and has about the same flight envelope as an old straight pipe 707or the short wing DC-8-61. Boeing should be proud of themselves for putting a microwave in the cave and reintroducing the performance joys of jet flying crica 1962. As a good friend of mine who is now back in the left seat of the 747-400 after three fun filled years sitting in the right seat of the 737 over at L-CAL describes the 900. The things has no go, and it's got no stop and has ref and V-speeds that are made artificially WAY fast because you need the extra smash to avoid a tail strike on take off and landing.
With well over 3,000 hours of737-200,300 and 500 time I can promise you that those versions of the 737 didn't have these issues. Even the small engine 200, it was a dog on a hot day but it had a pretty good wing.
I realize the 900 is our ride now. But that doesn't mean it's not an over stretched over done little POS. The Bus has it's issues but it doesn't have near the performance issues that the 900 has. Plain and simple the 900 is NOT a 757-200 replacement and it never will be. The 757-200 is one of the nicest flying, best performing airplanes ever built.
With well over 3,000 hours of737-200,300 and 500 time I can promise you that those versions of the 737 didn't have these issues. Even the small engine 200, it was a dog on a hot day but it had a pretty good wing.
I realize the 900 is our ride now. But that doesn't mean it's not an over stretched over done little POS. The Bus has it's issues but it doesn't have near the performance issues that the 900 has. Plain and simple the 900 is NOT a 757-200 replacement and it never will be. The 757-200 is one of the nicest flying, best performing airplanes ever built.
06-03-2013, 08:09 AM
#492
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,709
Why? Money. It costs less to operate. Plus, you can actually go out and buy a new one. The company makes the business decisions, I just fly.
Does the 900 really cost less to operate when you are leaving 30 to 40 pax on the dock on temperature and distance challenged days? Like I said it is what it is, but that doesn't make the 900 a good airplane, it just makes it the under performing little POS that we're stuck with. It seems that all things in the post modern world we live in are getting worse not better.
Boeing really needed to pull it's head out of it's rear end and do a compete redesign on the 737 program a while back. The 737 airframe has been retrofitted into dysfunction. Time to wipe the slate clean and start over. I never thought I'd say this but the A-320 is a superior airframe to the modern 737.
Both Jeff and McNerney have me on speed dial. I'm sure they'll be calling me soon and get my $.02 on the subject.
06-03-2013, 08:12 AM
#493
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Originally Posted by Ottopilot
The 737 was not designed as a 757 replacement, but it IS replacing them none-the-less.
Originally Posted by Ottopilot
The company makes the business decisions, I just fly.
06-03-2013, 09:02 AM
#494
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by Airhoss
Sounds like the 900 is a very nostalgic airplane. It performs like and has about the same flight envelope as an old straight pipe 707or the short wing DC-8-61. Boeing should be proud of themselves for putting a microwave in the cave and reintroducing the performance joys of jet flying crica 1962. As a good friend of mine who is now back in the left seat of the 747-400 after three fun filled years sitting in the right seat of the 737 over at L-CAL describes the 900. The things has no go, and it's got no stop and has ref and V-speeds that are made artificially WAY fast because you need the extra smash to avoid a tail strike on take off and landing.
With well over 3,000 hours of737-200,300 and 500 time I can promise you that those versions of the 737 didn't have these issues. Even the small engine 200, it was a dog on a hot day but it had a pretty good wing.
I realize the 900 is our ride now. But that doesn't mean it's not an over stretched over done little POS. The Bus has it's issues but it doesn't have near the performance issues that the 900 has. Plain and simple the 900 is NOT a 757-200 replacement and it never will be. The 757-200 is one of the nicest flying, best performing airplanes ever built.
With well over 3,000 hours of737-200,300 and 500 time I can promise you that those versions of the 737 didn't have these issues. Even the small engine 200, it was a dog on a hot day but it had a pretty good wing.
I realize the 900 is our ride now. But that doesn't mean it's not an over stretched over done little POS. The Bus has it's issues but it doesn't have near the performance issues that the 900 has. Plain and simple the 900 is NOT a 757-200 replacement and it never will be. The 757-200 is one of the nicest flying, best performing airplanes ever built.
Also, with the stalls, if your at the top of your limits in wave or storm topping there are other issues and it's not with the plane!! Go lower or go around, not that hard!!!
06-03-2013, 10:21 AM
#495
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2012
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by Airhoss
You mean Jeffy doesn't have you on speed dial? I'm shocked that he doesn't get your input on these decisions.
Does the 900 really cost less to operate when you are leaving 30 to 40 pax on the dock on temperature and distance challenged days? Like I said it is what it is, but that doesn't make the 900 a good airplane, it just makes it the under performing little POS that we're stuck with. It seems that all things in the post modern world we live in are getting worse not better.
Does the 900 really cost less to operate when you are leaving 30 to 40 pax on the dock on temperature and distance challenged days? Like I said it is what it is, but that doesn't make the 900 a good airplane, it just makes it the under performing little POS that we're stuck with. It seems that all things in the post modern world we live in are getting worse not better.
On a whole the airplane makes money, and yes it burns a lot less gas than the 757. The 757 has a lot more capability than the 900, but that capability is not needed on 95% of the missions the 900 flies.
06-03-2013, 12:13 PM
#496
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,709
To construe it as hundreds of flights every day leaving with 40 open seats is flat wrong.
06-03-2013, 01:09 PM
#497
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,575
Originally Posted by Airhoss
Didn't mean to construe that. Only that it gets weight limited a heck of a lot more than 757 ever would. How does the 900 do on say, DEN to HNL?
06-03-2013, 01:10 PM
#498
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,575
Originally Posted by Really
Things on here are getting blown out of proportion a little!! I've been on the 7/8/9 since we've flown them. Also the 200/300 when we had them. A plane is a plane some are just more challangening than others in certain situations!! The 8/9 is one of those planes!! I've NEVER been weight restricted except SNA and I think that has more to do with airport than airplane! Last time load planning wanted to wt restrict me was in Den w/snowstorm. They put me on 34r with a r/w restriction. Said it was contaminated (it wasn't even close) I asked load planner (in ord) to run #'s on 34L (much longer) no contam. had no idea what I was talking about. I asked for supervisor and came up w/20000lbs more. I think our BIG problem is we have many in load planning that are NEW since the experienced ones didn't want to make move from IAH to ORD. Also, many new pilots that were never FE's running #'s thinking about ways to make weights work. (I was in Den once on the 727 running #'s as engineer and we switched r/w 3 times do to heat/wind/alt!) I think it's a skill that's lost with advent of computer! Also, with the stalls, if your at the top of your limits in wave or storm topping there are other issues and it's not with the plane!! Go lower or go around, not that hard!!!
Also, with the stalls, if your at the top of your limits in wave or storm topping there are other issues and it's not with the plane!! Go lower or go around, not that hard!!!
06-03-2013, 01:48 PM
#499
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,709
Originally Posted by Ottopilot
Does it do that leg? Does it do Newark to Hong Kong? Who cares what it doesn't do?
Thanks for answering my question.
What airplane is going to do those stage lengths after the 757-200 is gone? How about Jackson Hole? How about DEN LGA on a hot summer day? I've never flown a 900 so I am just asking what the thing is capable of.
Nothing personal against your handicapable baby airplane there otto. Just thinking out loud. Thinking and coming up with a good solution is something our bean counters don't seem to be very capable of.
06-03-2013, 02:12 PM
#500
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,166
Originally Posted by Airhoss
Thanks for answering my question.
What airplane is going to do those stage lengths after the 757-200 is gone? How about Jackson Hole? How about DEN LGA on a hot summer day? I've never flown a 900 so I am just asking what the thing is capable of.
Nothing personal against your handicapable baby airplane there otto. Just thinking out loud. Thinking and coming up with a good solution is something our bean counters don't seem to be very capable of.
What airplane is going to do those stage lengths after the 757-200 is gone? How about Jackson Hole? How about DEN LGA on a hot summer day? I've never flown a 900 so I am just asking what the thing is capable of.
Nothing personal against your handicapable baby airplane there otto. Just thinking out loud. Thinking and coming up with a good solution is something our bean counters don't seem to be very capable of.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
