Boeing 737 series

[Mystere IV A]

All of you know the Boeing 737s, but as you may also know there are different models in the series :
B-737/100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800 and 900 as far as I know.

Do you know what are the main differences in between those different kinds ?

Do you knwo how to spot one from the other ?

Fly High :windsock:
:pilot_2:

[Studley]

737-100 and -200 series have Pratt & Whitney JT8D turbofans.

From the -300 series onward, they have CFM International CFM-56 turbofans, and the bottom of the engine nacelles are curved upward, actually flattened out, due to their large size. The larger, rounded nacelles make them easy to distinguish from the earlier series aircraft, which have the tube-like nacelles under the wings.

Some of the models have winglets that serve to help decrease the fuel burn.

The CFM-56 turbofans are the same type that are used in the DC-8-71/72/73 series aircraft that were upgraded in the '80's.

[bridget74]

mystere,

At Southwest, we have the -200, -300, -500, and -700. I'll tell you how we can tell them apart at a glance:

The -200s are easy: they have the long silver engines mounted directly beneath the wings, whereas the -300, -500, and -700s have the engines with a larger circumference, with a slightly flatened bottom, and they are mounted just in front of the wing. They're just about like every other engine you see on most of the Boeings in the sky today.

Distinguishing the -300 from the -500 is difficult for me if I can't see the tail number.

The -700s are easy to spot, as the "canoes" underneath the wings are painted either orange or red (depending on whether it's the new or old paint scheme). None of the other planes in our fleet have the painted canoes.

Question: mystere, is it the -600, -700, and -800 that are considered the NG 737s? I know the -700 and -800 are, but I wasn't sure about the -600 and the -900.

[Paddles_up]

with a slightly flatened bottom,



I believe those are eliptical in shape.

The diff between the 700 and 900's are the body length, payload and range. Also, the 900 is supposed to have a larger rudder.

[EXASaab]

Everything you ever wanted to know if you have the time to sit and read all the info... I did a few weeks ago but can't remember all the specs.

Boeing Company 737 Family (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/background.html)

The 600,700,800,900 are the NG's.

As well as the 700 and 800 are the BBJ Version which have the winglets.Winglets are also available on the 800 series.

[Mystere IV A]

bridget74 wrote :
Distinguishing the -300 from the -500 is difficult for me if I can't see the tail number.



Well here I can help as, if I am not wrong, the 300s have 2 emergency exits on the wing, while the 500s have only one.

As for the other queries, I think EXASaab gave the answer , and a perfect link to some others we might have .... :smile_2:

Fly High :windsock:
:pilot_2:

[Mystere IV A]

Well what can I add to this EXASaab ? :confus_2: :grin:
I guess nothing as you gave us the perfect link to watch out ! :smile_2:

I am just a bit curious to know :


Do you knwo how to spot one from the other ?



I tried to answer bridget about how to distinguish a 300 from a 500, without seeing the tail number, but how about others, cause sometimes from distance it is hard to evaluate the length of fuselage, and as winglets are optionnal on some ...

Fly High :windsock:
:pilot_2:

[bridget74]

Well, actually, on our -500s, we have the exact same number of overwing window exits as all our other planes. Only two. :grin:

So darn it, I'm no closer! :wink_2:

[bridget74]

I know a major difference in our -700s from the other planes in our fleet is the -700 wingspan. It's considerably larger than our other 73s.

If I remember correctly, the measurement for the -700 wingspan is 112'7".

See the useless info I learn when I sit in classes with pilots? :grin:

[Mystere IV A]

bridget74 wrote :
Well, actually, on our -500s, we have the exact same number of overwing window exits as all our other planes. Only two. :grin:
So darn it, I'm no closer! :wink_2:



Sorry bridget, as this is the way I found to check ours by AF, and I thought that it applied to the series .... :frown_2:
Will have too to find another way to make difference in between them .... :mad_2:

Anybody can help ?

Fly High :windsock:
:pilot_2:

[Studley]

Aren't different customer versions tailored to each customer's requirements? For example, one customer may want two overwing exits, another four, etc. This explains why a particular model ends up with multiple configurations.

Then it's logical to see that WN use two overwing exits on all of its aircraft.

[EXASaab]

Maybe this will help.. this isn't all of the info as it would take up several pages. I will post the link.
737 Family (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/ngback/back2.html)

A Family of Airplanes

The Next-Generation 737 family is offered in four sizes, ranging from 110 to 189 seats in mixed-class configuration.

The 737-700 is equivalent in size to the current 737-300, at 126 to 149 seats.


The 737-800 is a stretched version of the current 737-400 and can seat 162 to 189 passengers.


The 737-600 is the smallest member of the family, and can carry 110 to 132 passengers.

The 737-900 is capable of carrying up to 177 passengers in a two-class layout, and up to 189 passengers in a one-class layout.

The 737-600/-700/-800/-900 models incorporate a new, advanced-technology wing design that helps increase and improve fuel capacity and efficiency, both of which increase range.

The total wing area is increased by 25 percent to 1,340 sq ft (125 sq m), providing 30 percent more fuel capacity for a total of 6,875 U.S. gallons (26,136 l).
The advanced wing airfoil design provides an economical cruise speed of .785 Mach (530 mph) -- compared to .745 Mach for earlier 737 models -- with sprint capability of .82 Mach. This speed capability makes Next-Generation 737s ideal replacements for retiring 727s.
Range is increased to approximately 3,300 nautical miles (5,926 km), up to 900 nautical miles over earlier 737 models. This allows U.S. transcontinental flights and increases 737-route capability throughout the world.
The Next-Generation 737 airplanes are capable of cruising to a maximum altitude of 41,000 feet, compared to 37,000 feet for the 737-300/-400/-500 models, and 39,000 feet for the Airbus A320


The 737-600/-700/-800/-900 models are powered by new CFM56-7 engines produced by CFMI, a joint venture of General Electric Co. of the U.S. and Snecma of France.

The engines meet community noise restrictions well below current Stage 3 limits and below expected Stage 4 limits.
They were certified by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration in late 1996 at 26,400 pounds of thrust.
They offer lower fuel burn and lower engine maintenance costs. The CFM56-7 has a 10 percent higher thrust capability than the CFM56-3C engines powering the 737-300/-400/-500 models.


Hope this helps

Jeezz see what sitting Reserve does to a person :tongue_2:

[Mystere IV A]

Will check it out with some friends and colleague here, and hope to give an answer before my vacs ...

Fly High :windsock:
:pilot_2:

[EXASaab]

Maybe this will help? This is a picture of all 4 NG Models in flight. As you can see they vary in size.


Here is the image on the Boeing Site.

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/commercial/737900-09.jpg

[EXASaab]

Aren't different customer versions tailored to each customer's requirements?



I'm almost positive the # of ovewing exits is based upon the number of seats. You are correct Studley in each customer tailors it to their liking.(i.e. engines, avionics, type of seats, interiors etc)

From looking at the pic of all 4 models inflight.. it appears to me that the -600 and -700 have a single overwing exit and the larger longer -800 and -900's have the dual overwing exits.

If I remember correctly the -600 is essentially the -300 airframe with newer avionics and engines, and the -700 is the -400 or -500 with enhancements. It's somewhere in that link I posted earlier.

:grin:

[hart]

Since no one say anything about the cockpit, I will give it a shot. The very old -100 had an F/E station and -200 has the typical steam gauges. The -300/400/500 have EFIS instead of the steam gauges for the primary instruments. The NG has the typical PFD, ND, EICAS, autothrottles etc, just like the 744 and the 777. Boeing has plugged the small wondows in the cockpit with the latest production units. There's no big loss there. Most people stuff that with newspaper or charts as sun screen anyway.

Also, the fins are different as well. Pay close attention to it and you can tell the difference. :pilot_2:

[Wizguy]

Well...Is it possible that Boeing will design and build the next series of the aircraft (after -900)?

[EXASaab]

The very old -100 had an F/E station and -200 has the typical steam gauges.



I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. I don't have anything to back this up. But I read somewhere(wish I could remember) That when Boeing came up with the design with UAL I think Boeing wanted to put an F/E on board. But Airline Management in thier infinite wisdom fought hard against it. (hmm could it be to save money? of course not :grin:)
Pretty much the airlines told Boeing if they put a 3rd pilot in there they wouldn't buy the airplane.

I may have seen that on Discovery. Anyone else out there can confirm or deny this??
:windsock:

[SFOFlyboy]

Boeing has plugged the small windows in the cockpit with the latest production units. There's no big loss there. Most people stuff that with newspaper or charts as sun screen anyway.

Also, the fins are different as well. Pay close attention to it and you can tell the difference. :pilot_2:



Any word if Boeing is going to do away with the eyebrow windows much as has been done on the 717?

About the fins, are you referring to the -100 and -200 (I believe) having the curved interface between the top of the fuselage and the fin vs. the angled edge rising from the fuselage to meet the fin?

[traveler]

See if I can get this right …


737-100 + 200
Tail curves up from fuselage.
Long narrow engines
One overwing exit.

737-300
Tail angle hooked front
Fat engines
One overwing exit.

737-400
Tail angle hooked front
Fat engines
Two overwing exits.

737-500
Shorter than 300
Tail angle hooked front
Fat engines
One overwing exit.

737-600
pretty much looks like a 300.
Hard to see outside but new and improved

737-700
A bit bigger.
Looks like a 400 but with one overwing exit

737-800
Tail angle hooked front
Fat engines
Two overwing exits.
New larger wing.
Overall really looks longer.

737-800 (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=318968&WxsIERv=Qm9laW5nIDczNy04SzI%3D &WdsYXMg=Um95YWwgRHV0Y2ggQWlybGluZXMgKEtMTSk%3D&Qt ODMg=WnVyaWNoICgtIEtsb3RlbikgKFpSSCAvIExTWkgp&ERDL Tkt=U3dpdHplcmxhbmQ%3D&ktODMp=QXVndXN0IDI3LCAyMDAy &WNEb25u=QWxleGFuZGVyIEpvbnNzb24%3D&xsIERvdWdsY=UE gtQlhO&MgTUQtODMgKE=SSB3YXMgdmVyeSBjcml0aWNhbCB0by B0aGUgS0xNLWxpdmVyeSBjaGFuZ2UgYnV0IHRoZXkgbWFkZSBh IHRydWUgaW1wcm92ZW1lbnQgb3IgYXQgbGVhc3QgbWFraW5nIG l0IGxvb2sgYSBiaXQgbW9yZSBtb2Rlcm4uIEkgaG9wZSBJIHdp bGwgc2VlIHRoZSBuZXcgYy9zIG9uIGEgNzM3IHNvb24u&YXMgT UQtODMgKERD=Mzkx&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwMy0wMi0wOQ%3D%3D&s tatic=yes)

737-900
Same as above, but even longer.

737-900 (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=317087&WxsIERv=Qm9laW5nIDczNy05SzI%3D &WdsYXMg=Um95YWwgRHV0Y2ggQWlybGluZXMgKEtMTSk%3D&Qt ODMg=QW1zdGVyZGFtIC0gU2NoaXBob2wgKEFNUyAvIEVIQU0p& ERDLTkt=TmV0aGVybGFuZHM%3D&ktODMp=SmFudWFyeSAxNywg MjAwMw%3D%3D&WNEb25u=R2FycnkgTGV3aXM%3D&xsIERvdWds Y=UEgtQlhT&MgTUQtODMgKE=&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=MjA1&NEb 25uZWxs=MjAwMy0wMi0wNA%3D%3D&static=yes)

737-BBJ
With almost ridiculous large wingtips upwards.


(I hope) :plane:

[Mystere IV A]

Well that's helping a lot spotting them Trav, thanks a lot for the summary.

But I have one problem regarding


traveler wrote :
737-500
Shorter than 300
Tail angle hooked front
Fat engines
One overwing exit.




Cause as SWA was the launch customer of the 500s series, and regarding what bridget said about :


<font color="purple"> bridget74 wrote :
Well, actually, on our -500s, we have the exact same number of overwing window exits as all our other planes. Only two. :grin:
So darn it, I'm no closer! :wink_2:



Looks like as I wrote before there's a bug in this ...

Fly High :windsock:
:pilot_2:

[Mystere IV A]

And just to "highlight" the difference as bridget said, here is a link to an Air France B-737/500

Boeing 737-528 F-GJNE (http://www.airliners.net/Airliners_net_image.file?filename=7/8/0/318087.jpg&amp;ZyXtCe=MTkxNDM1&amp;id=318087&amp;ViD=middle)

and one the a SWA B-737/500 :

Boeing 737-5H4 N527SW (http://www.airliners.net/Airliners_net_image.file?filename=5/4/3/313345.jpg&amp;ZyXtCe=MTkyMTUx&amp;id=313345&amp;ViD=big)

Uuuuupppsssss !!!!!!
Looks like <font color="purple"> bridget74 is wrong .... :frown_2:
Only one overwing exit on the 737-5H4 of SWA ..... :confus_2:

So I think we can deff adopt Trav' summary as correct :smile_2: , unless someone has "objections" ?

Fly High :windsock:
:pilot_2:

[Studley]

Is the WN ship in question one purchased directly from Boeing per WN specifications, or was it one acquired either through a merger or by WN taking up an aircraft already built per the specifications of another customer?

If the ship was acquired through the second method, then it would not have the same attributes as one purchased as part of a regular order.

[Mystere IV A]

I have been surfing to check whether the 737 were all 5H4 models or if there were other one, and as far as from now, I have discover that WN ordered :

- 18 B-737/500 on May 20th 1987,
- 07 B-737/500 on Aug 28th 1989.

Deliveries were :

- February 28, 1990 : 1
- April 27, 1990 : 2
- May 02, 1990 : 1
- May 07, 1990 : 1
- May 30, 1990 : 1
- September 07, 1990 : 1
- October 16, 1990 : 1
- October 17, 1990 : 1
- October 30, 1990 : 1
- April 12, 1991 : 1
- May 30, 1991 : 1
- June 05, 1991 : 1
- July 02, 1991 : 1
- July 05, 1991 : 1
- September 17, 1991 : 1
- October 04, 1991 : 1
- October 07, 1991 : 1
- January 21, 1992 : 1
- January 23, 1992 : 1
- February 27, 1992 : 1
- May 22, 1992 : 1
- May 26, 1992 : 1
- May 28, 1992 : 1
- May 29, 1992 : 1
Which drive to a total of 25 deliveries directly from Boeing.

As far as I know they only have 25 B-737/500 in the fleet, so deff all coming from Boeing plant straight.

Out of SWA web site :

Fleet:
Southwest currently operates 372 Boeing 737 jets (as of November 30, 2002).

B 737-200, 27, 122 seats,
B 737-300, 194, 137 seats,
B 737-500, 25, 122 seats,
B 737-700, 126, 137 seats.

But maybe bridget can confirm ?

Fly High :windsock:
:pilot_2:

[Studley]

I did a quick scan of Bill Harms' site that lists jetliner registrations. "H4" is WN's customer designation with Boeing, so this is correct, all deliveries were direct from Boeing.

The plot thickens. :grin:

[Studley]

If y'all ever would like to see that site, here's the link. It has a lot of interesting information.

Commercial Jet Aircraft Census (http://www.bird.ch/bharms/asr_sh00.htm )

[Mystere IV A]

studley wrote :
I did a quick scan of Bill Harms' site that lists jetliner registrations. "H4" is WN's customer designation with Boeing, so this is correct, all deliveries were direct from Boeing.



UUUpppps, sorry , looks like I forgot to add this information in order to make it clearer .... :mad_2:

Thanks for the update Stud :smile_2:

Fly High :windsock:
:pilot_2:

[Mystere IV A]

studley wrote :
If y'all ever would like to see that site, here's the link. It has a lot of interesting information.

Commercial Jet Aircraft Census (http://www.bird.ch/bharms/asr_sh00.htm )



Well I didn't know that site. very interesting indeed ! :smile_2:
Many thanks for the tip Stud ! :smile_2:

Fly High :windsock:
:pilot_2:

[Wizguy]

737-BBJ With almost ridiculous large wingtips upwards.


hahahaha - it's called winglets

B737-800, B737-900 and B737-BBJ have larger and longer wingets...they look GROOVE!

I have studied the difference between B737-300 and B737-600
I think B737-300 is longer than B737-600. B737-600 fuselage looks fatter than B737-300

[Mystere IV A]

Wizguy wrote :

traveler wrote :

737-BBJ With almost ridiculous large wingtips upwards.


hahahaha - it's called winglets



Sorry Wizguy, but Trav was right too.
They are call wingtips, winglets and sometimes wing fences too. It all depends on the english language variations and from where you are, or from the manufacturer (Boeing, Airbus, etc...).

Fly High :windsock:
:pilot_2:

[traveler]

I’m also thinking about what one of you guys (gals) wrote earlier.

If you get a smaller seat pitch in the main cabin … and no business class … (like one of those “low-cost” carriers) then maybe per FAA regulation and type certification the second overwing exit is necessary.
Many more people to evacuate.
Maybe you can indeed purchase or order it like that.
Would make sense ! (just not comfortable). :plane:

[EXASaab]

Sorry Wizguy, but Trav was right too.
They are call wingtips, winglets and sometimes wing fences too. It all depends on the english language variations and from where you are, or from the manufacturer (Boeing, Airbus, etc...).




Mystere,

I'm not trying to say you are incorrect. But my understanding is wingtips are the outboard portion of the wing, if you have winglets(such as the CRJ and BBJ) then the wing tip is removed and the winglet replaces it.

Wing Fences or from what I have heard them called here in the states stall fences are placed on top of the wing to block the air flow (stall) from progressing inboard or outboard of the wing depending on the wing design.

If you look closely in the photo of the Dassault(mystere) Falcon 20 you can see the stall fence

Dassault(Mystere) Falcon 20 (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/309882/M/)

Are we confused now? :grin:

Still can't get that image button to work. :confus_2: :grin:

[Docent75]

ExSAAB &amp; I agree on U.S. terminology. To amplify, as far as I know, the wingtip is just that, the tip of the wing, and not a feature like a winglet. If one has to be specific, it is propably the most outboard section of the wing that can be removed.

[Mystere IV A]

EXASaab wrote :
Still can't get that image button to work. :confus_2: :grin:



Well looks like there's a problem with the "image" UBB code now, as it doesnt work anymore my side too ... :frown_2:
I'll check it out with Airlinecrew, and revert !

EDITED
Problem is coming from the size of the image file when medium or large. Taking the small one works as you can see further down.

Fly High :windsock:
:pilot_2:

[Mystere IV A]

EXAsaab wrote :

mystere wrote :
Sorry Wizguy, but Trav was right too.
They are call wingtips, winglets and sometimes wing fences too. It all depends on the english language variations and from where you are, or from the manufacturer (Boeing, Airbus, etc...).




Mystere,

I'm not trying to say you are incorrect. But my understanding is wingtips are the outboard portion of the wing, if you have winglets(such as the CRJ and BBJ) then the wing tip is removed and the winglet replaces it.

Wing Fences or from what I have heard them called here in the states stall fences are placed on top of the wing to block the air flow (stall) from progressing inboard or outboard of the wing depending on the wing design.

If you look closely in the photo of the Dassault(mystere) Falcon 20 you can see the stall fence

Dassault(Mystere) Falcon 20 (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/309882/M/)

Are we confused now? :grin:

Still can't get that image button to work. :confus_2: :grin:



Well fact is that I checked in my <font color="purple">"old" files from Airbus when I was on the Air Inter Airbus 320 technical team, and there were refering for the 200 series to <font color="purple"> winglets as <font color="purple">wingtips fences, as well as for the Airbus 310-300, so there come my mistake from. Looks like by that time, word <font color="purple">winglets was not so spread, or not existing ... :confus_2:

As for the <font color="purple">wings fences, I perfectly remember about them, but too learnt you call them <font color="purple">stall fences across the pond :smile_2:

Thanks for your carefull watching EXASaab :smile_2:
I feel ashame now writing errors on that subject, especially as one of the "moderator" of this forum ... :crazy: :mad_2:

But as I heard, "Only those who make nothing never mistake !" .... :smile_2: :cool_2: :laugh: :grin: :grin: :grin: http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung/engel/engel008.gif

:wink_2: :wink_2: :wink_2:

Fly High :windsock:
:pilot_2:

[Mystere IV A]

Here we go :

http://www.airliners.net/photos/small/2/8/8/309882.jpg

and to see better ,

http://www.airliners.net/photos/small/5/9/8/302895.jpg

Fly High :windsock:
:pilot_2:

[EXASaab]

I feel ashame now writing errors on that subject, especially as one of the "moderator" of this forum ...



No need to feel ashamed! That's why this is called a discussion board We all discuss and learn from each other! :grin:

[Mystere IV A]

Thanks for your comprehension and mercy EXASaab, appreciated :smile_2:

Looks like getting older doesnt help that much my poor "spongy" memory :smile_2: :laugh: :grin:

Fly High :windsock:
:pilot_2:

[traveler]

I can relate to that feeling ! :crazy:
Remember when you only had to read stuff once ?

[hart]

I am 99.99% sure the -100 came with the F/E station. As a matter of fact, LH ordered the 737 before UA did. UA ordered the -200, which is longer and has no F/E station. The story you heard about UA is probably correct but as far as I know, they only purchased the -200, not the -100.

The wing fence or whatever you called them on the A310/320 is a different gizmo than the winglet. They serve to reduce the vortices generated by the wings and hence, reduce drag. The winglet OTOH will increase the aspect ratio of the wing and increase lift.

[Mystere IV A]

Yes I do remember trav :crazy: :mad_2: :smile_2: :grin:
We'll have to practice , more and more ... :grin:

Fly High :windsock:
:pilot_2:

[Mystere IV A]

hart wrote :
The wing fence or whatever you called them on the A310/320 is a different gizmo than the winglet. They serve to reduce the vortices generated by the wings and hence, reduce drag. The winglet OTOH will increase the aspect ratio of the wing and increase lift.



As a matter of fact hart, they are intended for both purpose, from what I read in the technical files and specifications of the 320 from Airbus. :smile_2:

Fly High :windsock:
:pilot_2:

[Docent75]

I want to have my understanding clarified here. Don't winglets reduce vortexes while increasing lift? Looking for enlightment and not to argue with you.

[Archer]

A winglet is basically an aerodynamic endplate, designed to oppose, diffuse and weaken the strength of the main trailing wingtip vortices by 'unwinding' them. They claim to offer drag reduction of the bare wing by 14%, but in practice a winglet will only give you an overall reduction of 1 to 1.5%. As winglets can only be tailored for max efficiency for one speed only they are only useful on long haul airplanes.

A winglet doesn't give you more lift, there is a theory that the effective span of the wing is increased a bit, but as this gives you a larger surface for the same total lift needed (weight stays the same!) the lift produced per surface unit is less.

[bridget74]

Can't see it...I couldn't get the picture to pull up. Is this one of our planes, mystere?

[bridget74]

Okay...I just realized something:
When y'all are saying two overwing window exits, are you talking about two on each side, and four overall?

Because when I say the -500 has two overwing window exits, I mean one on each side.

I'm pretty sure our -500 have two overwing window exits (overall). Why would our -200s have two overwings and our -500 only have one overall? They seat the same number of people?

So are we all talking the same language here? :grin:

This is what you get for chatting with someone who is "non technical" in the airplane world! :cool_2: And now I'm going to go check, because I'm feeling a fool, darn it!

[Archer]

Some 73s have two overwing exits per side Bridget, when you see one taxiing, its easy to spot. I'm sure he meant that the -500 only has 1 PER SIDE. I don't think there has been a plane yet that had an overwing exit on one side and none on the other. Hmm, I'll have to go look for some photos.

[Archer]

Here we go: to illustrate the differences here are the 737-300, -400 and -500 from top to bottom. You can see that the 500 is substantially shorter than the -300 (count the windows), and the 400 can be recognised by the double overwing exits (two on each side :grin: ).

http://members.lycos.nl/jhieminga/images/737versions.jpg

[SWAFA30]

Bridget,

Just to back you up....you are correct all of our planes have the same number of exits at the overwing...2...

And I outta know...

" This aircraft is equipped with 6 emergency exits, 2 foward doors, 2 overwing window exits and 2 aft exit doors. Each emergency exit is marked with a sign overhead and strip lights on the floor of the aisle will lead you to an exit."

I have not been on a -500 in ages...not that I'm complaining the overhead bins on the -500s are useless...you might as well be on a -200. The only difference of course is the noise and the galleys.

I like the bin space on the -700 and the cabin just seems more open and airy. Also, the emergency equipment is much easier to find, check, and use on the -700. It's all in one spot in a big cabinet. My only complaint is that the rows are staggered and it makes it tough to do my service. I serve from right to left and 17D is about half a step closer to the front of the plane than 17C. It might not seem like a big deal but you want to move as little as possible when you're holding a tray containing about a gallon of assorted beverages.

As I'm walking down the jetway I can tell a -700 before I even see it...they "whistle". The APU makes this high pitched whining sound and you can hear em a mile away.


The big question is....will be upgrade to the -800 or -900 once all the -200s are retired. Especially now that we are doing all of these trans-continental flights. The
-700 as we purchase them was NEVER meant to do flight that are almost 7 hours in block time.

[PAX]

Pfft...a -800 would be super, BUT you see they hold quite a bit more than a -700, and that causes for a more lenthy turnaround time, Jim said that the -700 just fits SW better, but you know anything can happen. If you think about it, The -800, or -900 would slow you guys down, more baggage, more people, more peanuts, more lav water, ect ect. Continental has the 73G go just as far as Southwest takes them, EWR-SFO-SXM stuff like that

PAX :pilot:

[SWAFA30]

PAX,

When I refer to a -800/-900 upgrade I'm not necessarily talking about the number of passenger seats. I am speaking more about how the cabin is designed and laid out. Seat pitch, number of lavatories, galley configuration etc. It is difficult to provide good Customer Service when you are buried under piles of long-haul trash because our galley has no storage space. Currently our -700s have only 2 lavatories. One up front, one in the rear on some long hauls the line for both lavs are so long the meet in the middle of the plane.


Just because the planes can seat many more passengers does not mean they have to. Seating configuration is specific to each carrier. Essentially they will build em however you want em.
We could add an additional 12 seats to our current 137 and still operate with only 3 flight attendants. Several of our stations have installed dual jetbridges that allow planes to board and deplane from the front and rear simultaneously.

Our turn time has already increased due to the new reality of flying in the post 9/11 world. The 20 minute turn is gone forever.

The bottom line is that we have to make our passengers more comfortable. In the past we could shoe horn them into a -200 they would gladly do it because the price was right and essentially we were the only game in town....this is no longer the case....the JetBlue's, Song's and ATA's of the world desperately want our customers and if we're not careful...they just might get em.

[PAX]

I agree, I didn't even think of the F/A's...I was thinking on my side...I apologize for that. I didn't realize that the -700 only had 2 LAV's...that can not be good. I hear the #2 complaint about SW is that there is no inflight movie I guess that passengers dont understand the value of money these days. I think it would be a good move for SW to invest in the -800 because COA has a mid-cabin lav, there is no room for that in a -700, and is is muuuch more convienient. I guess really it is upper mgmt.'s decision

PAX :plane:

[Paddles_up]

...one of the BIGGEST reasons why Southwest is hesitant to take a 737-800...What would happen if they had to pull that plane out of service for maintenance issues? Unless there were other -800s sitting around, (which isn't likely), they could ONLY replace it with another -800, or a -700 and then have to comp a bunch of passengers for the oversell. Which, according to Jim Parker (whom I've heard answer this question in person) is the #1 reason they're hesitant to start ordering -800s.



Quoted from a friend who is employed by SWA!

[SWAFA30]

For almost 20 years we swapped -200s for -300s

Why would you have to replace an -800 with only another
-800?

We swap aircraft all the time. If the seating config were only 149, the cabin crews would be interchangeable. Not sure about type ratings for the pilots. If the -200s were gone could they then add the -800 in it's place?

The -700 is the aircraft of choice for our long hauls but the -300s do them all the time. On my last trip, day 1 was supposed to be a -700 and we had a -300, on day 2 it was the other way around.

If the swap occurs on a transcon going westbound, sometimes a fuel stop is necessary but it happens all the time.

The -300 seats 15 more than the -200/-500 and when a downgrade is necessary, you just oversell the flight and move on. Again, this already happens all the time around here. Before my inflight days I worked in Customer Service and I oversold many a flight that showed up with 15 seats too few.

The oversell argument is especially laughable when you consider that our denied boarding stats are already among the highest in the industry. Two weeks ago, I worked a flight that was booked to 175...that's 38 seats over capacity...it oversold by 25.

[PAX]

Is there like a miss communication over there or what?!?! How can you over sell 25 seats? Just wondering...Also I am sure that the -700/-800 cockpits are pretty much the same, so the Type Ratings would make a different, the pilots would just have to take a difference corse and learn the -800's style!

PAX :grin:

[EXASaab]

The type ratings are all the same for the 737 series. Once your typed you can fly them all... yea there are some differences training such as the -200/-300 "Steam Gauge" panel vs the "Glass Cockpit" of the newer series.

[PAX]

Steam gauge...what kind of planes are you flyin' SW? Please tell me there is SOME technology in those hangar queens!

PAX :grin:

[EXASaab]

Steam gauge...what kind of planes are you flyin' SW?



The -200 and I think SWA's -300's are all steam gauges/round dials....I think UAL is the only one who has "EFIS" in the -300's.

Heck, I'd be happy flying a JurasicJet such as the old 72asaurus... :grin:
"Glass Cockpits" are nice but they take the fun out of it.

[SWAFA30]

PAX,

Our Revenue management department uses complicated statistical analysis and computer models to try to guess the "no-show" factor on each flight. Based on the "mix" of seats being sold on a particular flight, the computer then adjusts the "lid" to try to make sure that the flight goes out full. Full coach tickets are changeable and refundable so they have a higher no show factor, the more full coach tickets are sold on a flight, the higher the computer will allow that flight to be booked. On the other hand if most of the tickets sold on that same flight are the inexpensive, nonrefundable, advance purchase tickets, the computer will lower the lid assuming that since those tickets can't be changed, those passengers are more likely to show up. Around Thanksgiving and Christmas when people make reservations but don't purchase tickets until the last minute it is not uncommon to see a flight booked to 175 or higher(our biggest jets only seat 137!)

The only problem is that these computer models cannot always account for the unexpected such as weather, delays, and so forth. When the unexpected happens and too many people show up...you get an oversell.

[bridget74]

Hi, SWAFA30... :grin:

Dispatcher's quote was actually taken from a conversation she and I had, one where I was telling her what Jim Parker was specifically asked about the -800 question, and the answer he gave. I was actually present at this meeting (it was actually a Message to the Field), so I promise that what I'm giving isn't rumor or third-hand information. :smile_2:

He answered that the only reason we would take an -800 was if we had difficulty getting airport slots, and we couldn't meet Customer demand otherwise. Although when he spoke of the -800, I believe he was talking of it having more along the lines of 160+ seats, and it would be flown on those routes where demand was high but seats were limited. When asked about the need to add the fourth flight attendant, he acted like it wasn't that much of an issue...we'd need to add the fourth flight attendant, so we'd add it.

IMHO (and that's all it is), it doesn't do much good to get a considerably larger aircraft and then only put 12 more seats in it. The -800 is, as I understand it, the same aircraft as the -700...just with a larger body (and extra lav...whoo hoo! :cool_2:). Engines and everything are exactly the same. But I'd be willing to bet that Southwest would pay more for the -800, and since the plane uses the exact same engines as the -700 but with a larger body, fuel efficiency also needs to be taken into consideration. In other words, I'm not sure only adding 12 more seats would offset the added costs of the -800. Good grief...does any of what I'm saying make sense?

He also expressed concern over that large number of seats and what would happen if we had to take a plane out of service. Yes, you're right...it isn't that big of deal with only a 12 or 15 seat difference. But if we're using a -800 specifically for high-demand routes, those extra 25 or so might make an even bigger difference.

Like I said, just telling you what I heard. :grin:

And EXA is right...type ratings are the same for all 737s. However, we do have different sims for the different series of 737s. The 737-700 has some considerable differences when compared to the -300 and -500. There's a few days worth of training for our new pilots concerning the -700 differences. Including the glass cockpit. But as I understand it, we were looking at having the rest of our 737s eventually retrofitted with a glass cockpit...we just have yet to find an appropriate vendor.

Will we get the -800s? I don't see it happening for a while, if ever. Getting airport slots isn't the hassle it used to be since most airlines have cut 20% or more of their flights. I'll be the first to agree that the -700 AIN'T the ideal aircraft for transcons, but I guess it will have to do for now. It's more cramped than I'd like, but if the passengers are willing to pay and keep us making a profit...well, I guess there are worse things. If we do get the -800, I think it will be driven by Customer demand. JMHO

PAX-
Ah, my young friend...some things to learn:
SWAFA30 hit it right on the head: Revenue Management is a tricky process. As I've said on this board before, it's part art, part science, and part witchcraft. I've spent a day with those guys...and let's just say it's not a job I would want. Quite frankly, I'd suck at it. :grin:

Does anyone know for sure what's going on here with the -800s? No. With the exception of what I heard (and repeated) from the mouth of Parker, everything else you're reading here is pure speculation. Educated speculation, but still speculation. And if you ever one day achieve your dream of working in the airline industry, you'll learn how fast word of mouth and speculation catch on here. So don't take it as meaning that nobody knows what's going on at this company. Take it as the decision not having been made yet, and we're just having fun guessing. And maybe one of us will be right.

In the end, these are just message boards for fun. Don't take anything you read on here as the gospel. :wink_2: :tongue_2:

[Studley]

I've spent a day with those guys...and let's just say it's not a job I would want.



People tell me the same thing. LOL :grin:

There are many facets to Yield Management - and many headaches, too numerous to list here. And those are just the things you CAN control!

[Studley]

Looks like as I wrote before there's a bug in this ...



So mystere, was this question ever resolved?

[SWAFA30]

Bridget,


I'm confused about these airport "slots" that would be hard to get. I've seen the -800....ATA is operating them out of MDW where I used to be based, and they are not really that much bigger than the -700. Now the -900 is a different story...it is so long it almost looks ridiculous. Kind of like a 757 with stubby landing gear.

The main argument I heard with the -800 in the past was the difficulty in scheduling it...if it takes 4 flight attendants then you always have to have that 4th flight attendant. It would make it harder to swap...say a -700 pulls into an outstation like SLC and breaks...they decide to do an aircraft swap and an -800 is available...you only have 75 passengers but because you are swapping off of a -700 you only have 3 flight attendants...now you are stuck...even if you don't have over 149 passengers...you still have to have that 4th flight attendant...now you've gotta scramble to find an additional crewmember before you can push the flight. That is why I theorized that the -800 could be equipped with 149 seats...thereby eliminating the need for the 4th flight attendant.

From my point of view it would not really do any good to upgrade to the -800 if we just going to shoehorn more people into them. Ideally it would have an altered seat pitch, maybe some kind of entertainment system to make a transcontinental flight much more comfortable for our passengers.

I feel so bad for these folks on these long flights...they are so crammed in, they have to lean into the aisle to keep their arms from falling asleep. The front row has no tray tables, those folks can't work or eat. It's embarassing. "Here is your snackpack and your drink..now balance them on your knees for the next 6 hours"

Oh well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

PAX,

In the airline business we thrive on rumors and gossip and sometimes it ends up on these message boards.

Bridget,

Heard any good rumors lately?

[bridget74]

Besides the fact that Jim Parker likes to cross dress? :grin:

Okay, I'm kidding...he'd never pass as a chick anyway. :wink_2:

Actually, I have a good one I heard today but won't post on this board. I'll PM it to you tomorrow. Of course, it's not really a rumor. More like a fact...one of those hysterical stories of things that only seem to happen at Southwest.

In regards to the 737s:
You know, though...I believe our -700s have a 33" seat pitch, which is as much as Song will have when they start service. I do agree...we need some sort of inflight entertainment. I mean, you guys are awesome, but you can't be expected to perform for the entire flight! :grin:

As long as they can keep that 33" pitch, I'd be for seeing how many seats they can put on a 737-800. The leather is a nice touch and a good starting point, but for those long hauls, there just needs to be a little something more, you know? And now that they've ripped those damn phones out...wouldn't it be nice?

[bridget74]

SWAFA30,

Sorry...I probably need to clarify...by "slots", I mean landings and takeoffs from a particular airport. In other words, how many flights (takeoffs and landings) can we put in a given airport. At airports such as LAX, there are so many flights going in and out of there, it's more difficult for us to get slots. At say, AUS, on the other hand, slots are pretty easy to come by.

Now, this was a big issue pre-9/11. At some of our airports, slots and gates were challenging to get...such as SFO. Hence, we bailed out of SFO because we couldn't get enough flights in and out of there to make it worth our while, and the airport was so crowded that we had a lot of delays originating from that airport. However, after 9/11, with all the airlines cutting their flights, slots at all of our airports are pretty easy to come by, or so I would imagine.

Does that make sense, or have I just muddied the waters further? :grin:

[Paddles_up]

I think part of what Bridget is trying to express is the company's take on the economics and feasibility of utilizing this aircraft. The FAA allows carriers to overbook by 15%. A 737-800 with 160 seats would legally be allowed to book up to 184 pax.

Now lets say this aircraft were to be pulled out of service due to maintenance and the crew and pax have to swap to another aircraft which seats 128 pax. Since it's not likely there will be another avialable 737-800, the carrier is now obligated to compensate 56 passengers. This is very costly.

IMHO, I believe it's to the company's benefit to keep aircraft with relatively the same passenger occupancy. It's just common sense.

Another issue the company may be taking into consideration is training costs. Not just for inflight training but for the flight crews as well. The more aircraft the company maintians with the same type of equipment (meaning uniformity) the less they have to pay to qualify the crews in the aircraft for differences. Since SWA has an extensive fleet, often times differences training can be a hinderance. This is why (as Bridget states) the company is opting to modernize the fleet. This will allow for all the fleet to be uniform and thus training costs to be minimal. They will be able to offset the cost of modernizing the fleet with the savings they will have in providing differences training.

Most people don't realize it, but the BIGGEST cost to airlines IS training. Often times more than 50% of it's operating costs. This being the largest barrier to entry for new and upstart carriers.

JMTCW

[bridget74]

Here's an interesting article. Note what it says the max number of seats are in the -800. Not that I think we'd got that high, but it's still interesting to keep in mind.

Boeing 737-900 is still growing
Design changes boost range, capacity

By JAMES WALLACE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER AEROSPACE REPORTER

Despite the ongoing industry downturn, The Boeing Co. is getting closer to a possible launch this year of a new version of the 737-900 that would be able to carry more than 200 passengers and help Boeing better compete against Airbus, especially with tour operators in Europe.

Boeing is talking with several potential launch customers in Europe and Asia about the new model, known for now as the 737-900X.

"This plane will bring us into direct competition with the Airbus A321," said Kenneth Hiebert, regional director of product marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes. "It will give us head-to-head competition."

The A321 is the biggest member of the Airbus A320 family, which also includes the A319 and the smaller A318 now in development.

Boeing's next-generation 737 family and the Airbus A320 family have been the best sellers in recent years of commercial jetliners with more than 100 seats, and competition between the two manufacturers has been brutal.

The A321 can carry more passengers than Boeing's biggest plane in this class, the 737-900. This has given Airbus an advantage with European tour operators, which typically haul passengers in one class to get the most seats on a plane.

"We are talking to customers who are very interested in the plane," Hiebert said of the 737-900X. "They are excited about it. We are in active discussions with them. I can't say if something is imminent or not. But our hope is sooner rather than later."

Boeing's marketing and sales people have been talking to airlines for several years about a version of the 737-900 that would be able to carry more passengers but have the range of the smaller 737-800.

"We are hearing from them that they are getting closer" to wanting the plane, said Elizabeth Lund, deputy chief project engineer for the 737 program

The 737-900X is essentially the same plane as the 737-900, of which 50 have been ordered and 29 delivered to customers Alaska, Continental, Korean Air and KLM.

But several design changes are planned for the new plane to boost its range and capacity.

Of those, the most significant are two emergency exit doors just behind the wings.

Under U.S. and foreign aircraft certification rules, the seating capacity of a commercial jetliner is determined by the number of exits and passenger doors and how quickly people can get out of the plane in an emergency.

The basic 737-900 has a fuselage that is 8.5 feet longer than the 737-800, but they share the same wing, engines and maximum take-off weight.

Although the 737-900 is bigger than the 737-800, it has the same number of passenger doors and exit hatches. Thus both planes are restricted by regulation to no more than 189 passengers, even though the 737-900 could carry more.

By adding two emergency exits, the 737-900 would be certified to carry up to 220 passengers, though airlines would probably configure the cabin for no more than 214 passengers in a single class or about 204 passengers in two classes, according to Boeing.

An airline option would be an auxiliary fuel tank that would boost the plane's range by about 320 nautical miles, out to a maximum range of about 3,100 nautical miles. That would give the 737-900X the same range as the popular 737-800.

"It makes this a really competitive airplane in terms of operating costs," Lund said.

Tweaking the current flap system also will provide better performance, she said.

Another innovation for the 737-900X is a redesigned aft pressure bulkhead. On passenger jets, this is the bulkhead at the rear of the plane that separates the pressurized part of the cabin from the unpressurized tail. For strength, this bulkhead is usually designed in the shape of an egg.

By using new and stronger materials, Boeing has come up with a flat pressure bulkhead for the 737-900X. This allows more room in the rear of the cabin for galley cart storage. Even a couple more seats might be possible if the rear galley were pushed back a little.

Lund said the flat aft pressure bulkhead could eventually become standard on all next generation 737 models, not just the 737-900X.

"It's a new option that we are very excited about," Lund said.

Another engineering innovation for the 737-900X is a two-position tail skid. The skid prevents damage to the plane should the tail hit the ground. Having a "smart" tail skid that can change positions on the plane can improve take off operations, for example.

The maximum take off weight of the 737-900X would be about 10,000 pounds more than the 737 -- 900.

For now, Boeing appears to be targeting the 737-900X primarily at countering the A321 in the European charter or tour market, although it is also believed to be talking with Qantas of Australia and some other airlines about the plane.

The Airbus plane has become popular with the tour operators because it can accommodate up to 220 passengers in a high-density configuration.

"The A321 has done well in the European market place," acknowledged Hiebert.

But he described the plane as a "pig" because of its weight and slow climbing capability. The next generation 737 performs better, he said.

Boeing's single-aisle 757-200 and 757-300 are used by European tour operators. Boeing launched development in the mid 1990s of the bigger 757-300 with an order for a dozen planes by Condor, the German tour operator.

But sales of the 757 have dried up.

"This plane (the 737-900X) will help us," Lund said. "We have the 757 but we are not as competitive as we need to be in this market."

Hiebert said the 737-900X would help the European tour operators expand their operations, flying passengers deeper into the Middle East direct from Europe and also into Northern Africa.

European tour operators are being pressured by the low-fare carriers. Ryanair, easyJet and others are expanding rapidly through Europe, using 737s.

The low-fare carriers in Europe would also be potential customers for the 737-900X, Hiebert said

"It's the backpackers in many cases that fill those seats," he said. "The more seats, the lower the operating costs, lower seat-mile costs and more revenue. This plane could do well with the low-fare carriers that are packing them in."

It would take about 30 months from launch to delivery of the first planes to customers, Lund said.

By then, the current industry slump should be improved, with more airlines ready and financially able to add new planes to their fleets.

The U.S. airline industry is expected to take longer to recover, but Boeing believes the 737-900X could eventually fit into the fleets of carriers such as Continental on routes to sun destinations in South America.

Continental was one of the launch customers for the 737-900.

Even Southwest, the world's largest 737 operator with nearly 400 planes, could be a potential future customer of the 737-900X, Hiebert said.

"They have used 737s in some cool ways," he said. "We are talking to them."

Although U.S. airlines are more interested in staying alive these days than thinking about what new airplane they might eventually buy, Boeing is still knocking on doors to talk.

This is actually pretty exciting news for us. From all I've heard, Boeing is very good about working with us and tailoring some things to fit our needs. I can't help but wonder in the next several years if this will be one of them. Just pure speculation on my part. :smile_2:

[PAX]

Yeah Yeah...I came in here thinking I was pretty edumacated on airplanes...since that is almost all I think about! lol...plane on the brane...But when I came in here -SLAP- I found out I still have MUUUUUCH to learn :smirk: but you guys are a wealth of knowledge....so just feel free to open up my brain and load it up lol!

PAX :windsock:

[hart]

Blended Winglets - Boeing (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_17/winglet_story.html)