I've read from some United pilots that the 737-900er is one of the most underpowered airliners in the sky right now.

 

They said on flights from EWR-LAX they take full runway, flaps 5 and bump thrust and they still use a significant amount of runway.

 

I'd love to see Boeing and CFM design an engine with 33K-35K thrust for the 900/900ER.

That reminds me of what I see when I plane spot at KPHL.  US Airways uses a lot of A321s on their KPHL to KLAX route, and like the -900 you describe, the A321 actually has to use a longer runway that other jets don't use just to takeoff, presumably because of a high fuel/passenger weight.   And they use most of the runway, noticeably more than the other flights.   

 

A321 actually has to use a longer runway that other jets don't use just to takeoff

 

I've heard the A321 is very under-powered as well... 

I've heard the A321 is very under-powered as well... 

I have been reading where fuel burn for many airlines is paramount. Even to the point where they're doing 15% derates on take off, shallower initial climb angles and a restriction on reverse thrust when landing. I think Emirates is ok, though.

 

Jon

 

 

I have been reading where fuel burn for many airlines is paramount. Even to the point where they're doing 15% derates on take off, shallower initial climb angles and a restriction on reverse thrust when landing.

 

Derated takeoffs and climbs burn more fuel than max power BUT, the engines are much less likely to run into trouble when operating at a lower level of thrust. 

 

Bigger airlines like Delta tend to be more interested in saving on fuel by using higher thrust settings at the expense of increased maintenance costs from engine ware.