|
   |
Home >> Forum >> B737-600 Civil aviation forum
B737-600
Return to the forum index - Post a message for this thread
| |
Message of monarch - Sent 31 Jan 8:45 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of G-NIKO - Sent 31 Jan 15:59 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of EI-DUB - Sent 31 Jan 19:52 |
|
| |
I reckon it comes down to seats and them being too small for larger airlines, why for instance would you order a -600 if you could get a -700, and for the same amount of crew enable more passengers to fly.
I know airlines don't always go for huge capacity, as this allows them to fly routes with thinner numbers, but I think these planes are too small for big routes and too big for thinner routes.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of monarch - Sent 31 Jan 21:58 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 01 Feb 14:29 |
|
| |
If Boeing has messed up re 736, then Airbus has done the same re 318. Anyway, I don't really agree this really qualifies as a 'mess-up' by Boeing and Airbus.
1st, the incremental investment to develop both fm the 73G and 319 couldn't be high. I may be imprecise technically but how hard can it be to take out a few fuselage sections while almost all other design aspects remain the same as the other variants? It must be cheap to develop these 2 variants so neither Boeing nor Airbus planned/expected large sales numbers fm them in the 1st place. The real $ are in the 73G+738/319+320 as U can see fm the orders listed on Boeing's+Airbus' websites.
2nd, given the same aircraft family, the smallest variant always yield the worst op economics on a per pax basis relative to its bigger brothers. It may hv slightly better flying performance(e.g. longer range, faster climb, shorter take-off length,etc.) but typically, few airlines need those extra performance while all airlines today need the best op economics possible. 736/318 are targeted for a small niche in the aircraft mkt.
Finally, seat cap of 736/318 is around 110(2-class). That's similar to the latest/biggest variants of the E-jets or CRJ families(90-110seats mkt segment). The biggest E-jet/CRJ are still based on regional jet platforms that are significantly cheaper to buy/operate than 736/318 that are based on mainline jet platforms(i.e. 737NG/A320 families). Do some research and U'll find nearly all huge airlines(e.g. U.S. majors) today that hv aircrafts in the 90-110seats category select either E-jet or CRJ in their big fleets. For higher performance+capacity(i.e. over 110seats), these huge airlines hv the scale to afford a separate family fm 737NG/A320. 736/318 are for airlines, especially those already operating 73Gs/319s, that must limit the number of diff families in their fleets in order to minimize training+maintenance costs.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of captain bill - Sent 01 Feb 19:49 |
|
| |
Also remember that the 737-500 was the last of the old variant 737 to be produced and they still have a lot of life left in them yet. Once they get a little older the 600 just might start to sell through and also some B.Ae. 146 users are looking at the 600.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of aaaron3 - Sent 11 Feb 20:59 |
|
| |
Malev has also got some B736's and i think, they are one of the best in Malev's fleet, i think it is a shame that there are not too many of them, but that is only my oppinion...Anyway, wellsaid FLX, you have got the reason why these beautyful fat jets are not in the top of their chategory!
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of Triton - Sent 13 Feb 3:23 |
|
| |
Reasons behind the failed sales of both 736 and 318 are the same; Embraer and Bombardier!
Although they have similar capacities (Emb 190 series and CRJ 900's) of 90-110, many airports charge 736's and 318's as single aisle 730's and 320's, which gives quite a big advantage to Emb's and CRJ's.
The second disadvantage is their fuel economies. Although the manufacturers claim that they burn less fuel due to lower weights, the difference that they keep on mentioning is not that dramatical. In the end, almost all airlines choose 733's and 734's to 735's; 737's to 736's and 319's to 318's.
Last but not least, for both companies, larger versions have immense ranges (319 and 737ER) and that gives a really good flexibility of use to those models. Although Airbus claims that the 318 Elite will have long range, that won't be that much attractive to buyers, since 737's hot&high capabilities, capacity and range is much more higher...
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 21 Feb 18:19 |
|
| |
Triton:
I agree to most of what U said except larger variants of a family actually hv less range than the smaller ones typically.
Take the 321, largest of the 32x family, definitely has less range than 320/319/318 @ their max payload(Check their specs). Same thing for the std 739(Not offered anymore as customers are only interested in 739ER), largest of the 737NG family, it has less range than any 738/73G/736. Even the 739ER, with its many performance enhancement features(e.g. winglets+33% more powerful turbofans+extra fuel tanks) as std equipement, only manages to fly 4.9% further than the poor little std 736(None of those features are offered here even as options) or std 738(Approaching the size of a 739) and much less range than the significantly smaller 73GER(Most of those features are standard here). Technically, whatever tricks they used to extend range/enhance performance for the larger variant can be adapted easily for the smaller variant as all are developed fm the same basic platform of the same tech generation. That's how Boeing can quickly+cheaply developed the 73GER(Nearly double the range of all other 737NG variants today on the catalogue) by basically combining the heavier-duty wings+landing gears of a std 738 with the fuselage of a std 73G.....presto! a 73GER is born with enough range(Over 9,900km which is more than a 747-100) to cross the N.Pacific(e.g. SEA-NRT) non-stop yr round with plenty of bad weather allowance. Given basically the same design(As in an aircraft family), a simple rule of physics almost always rule: The lighter U are, the further U can fly. So, imagine if Boeing put all the performance enhancement features of the big brother 739ER into a cute little std 736. That plane(A 736ER?) can probably match the range of any 747 Classic.....may be even fuel cost per seat as the 747 Classic's turbofans are pure gas guzzlers by today's std. I suspect a similar story if Airbus take parts fm a 321 to make a 318LR. Of course, manufacturers can still manipulate features to make bigger variants to fly further than their smaller variants of the same family. It has more to do with mkting strategy than techical limitations. Don't forget smaller planes(Unless it's a specially config variant customized for a eager buyer who need the extra performance) typically sell @ less profit margin than bigger planes.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post a message for this thread
|
|
Messages must be written in english. Messages written in an another language will be deleted.
Post only messages related to the civil aviation, and do not insert any ad. Your IP is logged.
You can custom your text by using the following codes
[B]Your text[/B] : Text in bold
[I]Your text[/I] : Text in italic
[U]Your text[/U] : Text underline
[S]Your text[/S] : Text striketough
To include an Airfleets.net photo, use the code [P]Photo number[/P] |
|