US Airways back in bed with Boeing?

From the first article:

At least some of the 737s will be replaced by smaller, 90-99 seat Embraer E190s.

From the ALPA transition agreement:

EMB 190 aircraft do not count toward the minimum aircraft numbers in the US Airways ALPA collective bargaining agreement or in Section II,B., paragraphs 4.b, 4 c) or 4.d) above.

Captain Stephan, you've got a message from Al Hemenway. Something about additional scope relief... :shock: :shock: :shock:
 
My guess would be the Embraer 195 (continuing on from the 170 and 190) for shorter routes and some more 320 family for longer routes as the replacement for 737s.
 
My guess would be the Embraer 195 (continuing on from the 170 and 190) for shorter routes and some more 320 family for longer routes as the replacement for 737s.


I think the 737-900x is a 757 replacement seats around 210+ and has long legs. Doug P. said something about this at one of the employee meetings,but can't remember where. GE has delivery spots for this A/C in 08-10 time frame. US will be dealing with GE in the future for a lot of it's planes I think. No more small 737's I agree, all EMB's from now on.
 
I think the 737-900x is a 757 replacement seats around 210+ and has long legs. Doug P. said something about this at one of the employee meetings,but can't remember where. GE has delivery spots for this A/C in 08-10 time frame. US will be dealing with GE in the future for a lot of it's planes I think. No more small 737's I agree, all EMB's from now on.

The 739 is an OK aircraft, but its slower than the other boeings, has a considerable shorter range (I don't think it can do a transcon, and if it does, worse than the A321), and it does not hold 210+ unless you put all coach seats and really cramp them up.
 
The 739 is an OK aircraft, but its slower than the other boeings, has a considerable shorter range (I don't think it can do a transcon, and if it does, worse than the A321), and it does not hold 210+ unless you put all coach seats and really cramp them up.

The consideration would be the 737-900ER, though, which will have transcon range (the A321 cannot do a true transcon), and the 757-200 won't hold 210 unless it's in European-charter-carrier configuration. It's pretty unlikely that US will be able to get its hands on 757-300's unless they get Condor's; I suspect Continental will try to snap up any that TZ is operating should they become available.
 
Air Transport
Boeing Challenges A321 With 737-900ER
Aviation Week & Space Technology
07/25/2005, page 40

Michael Mecham
San Francisco

Airline feedback pushes Boeing to more range, seating on newest 737

Printed headline: Family Growth

Boeing is filling a seating gap in its single-aisle lineup and renewing the challenge to the Airbus A321 with the launch of the 737-900ER, which offers airlines the choice of carrying 26 more passengers or flying another 500 naut. mi.

Known as the 737-900X when Boeing began offering it to airlines 18 months ago, the new airplane was launched last week with the formal signing of an order for 60 aircraft from Lion Air. Indonesia's first discount carrier signed a preliminary agreement for a mix of 737-800s and -900Xs two months ago--the model mix has not been announced--with a book value of $3.9 billion. The first -900ER is to be delivered in the first half of 2007. The list price is $66.5-68.5 million (2005 dollars).

Boeing has added range (495 naut. mi.) and boosted the potential passenger count by five from what it initially discussed when it first began making -900X presentations to airlines (AW&ST Dec. 1, 2003, p. 52). It has also decided to include a flat aft pressure bulkhead to be manufactured by Mid-Western Aircraft in Wichita, Kan., the former Boeing plant that produces 737 fuselages and tail sections. There was talk earlier of making that bulkhead optional. Chief Project Engineer Mike Delaney says 98% of the aircraft's parts and assemblies are the same as other 737 Next Generation aircraft.

The new aircraft will include a standard Type 2 door measuring 24 X 52 in. located on the left side of the fuselage behind the wing. It is to accommodate safety requirements if airlines opt to carry up to 215 passengers in a single-class configuration. The standard -900 has six exit doors but is limited by safety requirements to 189 passengers. Airlines that opt for range over added seating won't "activate" the seventh door, meaning its cutout frame will still be included in the fuselage but covered over, according to Delaney.

Carriers that choose the standard seating can gain a range of up to 3,205 naut. mi. with auxiliary fuel tanks. The flat pressure bulkhead adds 26 in. to the aircraft's interior running length over a traditional concave bulkhead. That translates into being able to store eight galley carts in the tail rather than five, for instance.

The added range opens the possibility of flying Singapore-Tokyo or Boston-Los Angeles routes with 180 passengers, which Boeing considered typical for a two-class layout in aircraft of that size. Those examples assume an aircraft with one auxiliary fuel tank and having a 187,700-lb. maximum takeoff weight. Boeing says the A321-200 cannot match the 737-900ER's range or trip-mile costs carrying a similar passenger count.

Delaney says Lion Air is discussing seating for 200-213 passengers, meaning it will use the seventh exit door.

Although Boeing has adjusted the -900ER's design to reflect airline feedback, the basic challenge the company faced in wanting to improve the top end of the 737 line has not changed. Since its launch in 1993, the 737 NG has generated 2,719 orders (through June) and boosted the success of the industry's all-time best-seller. But the 189-seat -900's sales have been tepid, accounting for only 85 orders. Ninety percent of 737 NG orders are written for the 149-177-seat 737-700/ 800 models.

That's not surprising because the -700 and -800 sit in the middle of typical seat demand for single-aisle aircraft. The new -900ER is designed to appeal to charter carriers, low-fare/high-density operators and those needing extra range.

Its entry also pokes the 737 above the 200-passenger count in the single-aisle market and gives it a capability formerly filled by the 757-200. Without the -900ER, Boeing's only option for airlines needing a 200-seat-class aircraft is to migrate to the much larger twin-aisle 787 family, a big leap in terms of range and capacity but at about twice the cost.

The standard 737-900 will remain in the lineup--there are 37 deliveries pending--but the -900ER is expected to become a better seller because it's more versatile. Among current 737 customers, Singapore Aircraft Leasing Enterprise and Japan Airlines included the -900X options in orders they placed this spring, although officials for both companies say they aren't yet ready to commit now that the "X" has been launched.

The -900ER's overall length remains the same as the -900, 138 ft. 2 in. The wingspan is 112 ft. 7 in., which increases to 117 ft. 5 in. with optional winglets. Its maximum fuel capacity is 7,837 gal. and maximum takeoff weight is 187,700 lb. Typical cruise speed is Mach 0.787 (compared with Mach 0.745 for earlier 737 models) with a sprint capability of Mach 0.82.

Maximum cargo capacity is 1,827 cu. ft., which drops to 1,585 cu. ft. with two auxiliary fuel tanks. The aircraft will be powered by CFM International CFM56-7 engines producing 27,000 lb. maximum thrust.

Jim
 
The 739 is an OK aircraft, but its slower than the other boeings, has a considerable shorter range (I don't think it can do a transcon, and if it does, worse than the A321), and it does not hold 210+ unless you put all coach seats and really cramp them up.


* Carries 26 more passengers than the 737-900, up to 215 passengers in a single-class configuration
* Flies about 500 nautical miles farther, up to 3,200 nm (5,925 km)
* Weighs more than 10,000 pounds (4,536 kgs) less than the A321.
* Has lower operating costs than the A321; about 7 percent lower per trip, and 5 percent lower per seat.

Typical Cruise Speed
(at 35,000 feet) 0.78 Mach

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family...900ER_fact.html
 
The 737-900, even with its added capabilities, seems like a long shot to me. If US is going to continue to operate and purchase new A320 family aircraft, why should it complicate its fleet line-up by adding a new type? ...And it would be a new type. The 737NGs share very little in common with the classic 737s that are in the fleet now.

If they're going to continue to buy A320 family aircraft, then it makes no sense to also buy 737s. Seems to me that future narrowbody purchases would be a mix of A320s and A321s, with EMB-190s filling the role that would have been filled by new A319s.
 
Just to add a little fun to the mix.

Airbus is still high level shopping a follow on aircraft. Currently, the A32X but most have called it the A322. Length is 6-15ft(to be determined) longer that A321, new wing, engines and landing gear (4 wheel per main). Sounds like an Airbus version of the 757. Range has been pushed out to over 5000 miles. I haven't seen the weight/range tradeoff.
 
The A321 goes PHL to the coast but is always stoping for fuel in the winter. It's a marginal operation at best. It won't go BOS to the west coast or even PHX/LAS. These are markets always rumored about for the new LCC. Sounds to me like Airbus now needs LCC more than we need them. It's going to get interesting.
 
I think what we're talking about is the difference between a plane designed to fill the transcon role as opposed to a plane that's been adapted to fit that role.

Nobody would argue that the 737-300 is a true transcon airplane though the original US Air and Piedmont both used that plane in that role. The same could be said for the 727-200, again used by both for transcons.

The A321 was not originally designed with transcon range, while the 757 was (as were the 737NG series).

Jim
 
Can the 737-900ER, as touted, fly PHX/LAS to Hawaii? If so, there's your answer to replacing the 757's on those routes as well as doing some trans-cons...the only reason the A321 can make it trans-con, at all, is because it's configured to hold just 169 pax -- the former America West A320 metal holds 150 pax -- not much gain in capacity only going to 169. Jetblue used to fly their A320 with 162 seats (but pulled out a row and now only fly it with 156 to stretch it's legs). That tells you something about the capabilities, or lack-there-of, of the A321...

If I read correctly, the -900ER only has 3200 nm range, so it's NOT a trans-Atlantic replacement for the 757, really (1 or 2 routes, possibly, at best) But what about the 737-700ER? ANA bought it and it's got incredible range (5000+ nm, or something like that), but how many pax does it seat? Does it have the legs to do trans-Atlantic with a full load and does it have enough cargo capacity to make it worth-while, in that respect, too?

I honestly believe that US Airways and Boeing have something in the works -- but it's got to be EtOPs-type a/c for Hawaii/trans-atlantic routes, otherwise, for shorter-routes, it's more E190/195/175...