Jump to content

wesak81

Members
  • Content Count

    22
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About wesak81

  • Birthday 08/24/1981

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Alaska

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    IVAO
  • Virtual Airlines
    Yes
  1. why would be a ER model if it didnt have the extra tanks in it? Alaska isnt happy with the normal 900 model cause it cant go on a full pay load with a full load of fuel on full range.. heres the article by the way theres nothing diffrent aerodyamic from the 800s to 900s to the ER Model, the ER model has 2 extra emercengy doors, a flat pressure bulkhead dome, and extra fuel tanks and the new sky interior?So why does this airplane make sense for Alaska? Well, let’s look at an example in Boeing’s press release – Seattle to Orlando. Right now, it appears that the largest aircraft Alaska can toss on the route is a 737-800, and the airline operates two flights per days with that aircraft type. Let’s say Alaska wants to increase supply because demand is strong. Well, that means a third flight needs to be operated with a 737-700 or 737-800, and that comes along additional costs like additional flight crew. Those costs could make an increase in capacity uneconomical. But, if an 737-800 is an upgraded to a 737-900ER, then maybe the additional capacity makes sense, especially as the 737-900ER should have lower unit costs than the 737-800 (partially driven by less fuel consumption per seat).The 737-900ER should also offer more attractive costs than Alaska’s existing 737-900 fleet. One way I like to look at it is weight. The 737-900ER’s operating empty weight reported by Boeing (based on a base two-class configuration) is very slightly (less than 100 pounds) lower than that of the original version, and plus it can seat more passengers. So one way to look at is that there is less empty weight per passenger on the -900ER. Fuel burn per seat is also lower on the -900ER than it is on the base version.Meanwhile, other fixed costs are better spread out thanks to the 737-900ER when compared with a 737-900 or 737-800. For example, two pilots are still required, and the seating configurations of the 737-800, 737-900, and 737-900ER all require four flight attendants as per FAA regulations. Assuming that Alaksa staffs all of the aircraft types with the same number of FAs, that means labor cost is more effectively distributed among passengers.Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see how Alaska distributes these. I wouldn’t be shocked if some of them ended up at the high-yield, slot-controlled DCA. Alaska uses slots exempt from the airport’s perimeter rule to serve Los Angeles and Seattle. I was also wondering if Alaska would have the 737-900ERs equipped for ETOPS operations so they could fly to Hawaii. An airline spokeswoman that the -900ER “could be used in certain Hawaii markets, but we have not yet made a decision to order the aircraft ETOPS equipped.”
  2. i really doubt that, i read in boeing media, that alaska airlines is goin to use the plane on high capicity that are long, like from seattle to flordia or anchorage to flordia or to the east cost with a full pay load, and i heard 3 of them will be etops
  3. im sure Alaska airlines will be pleased when they get the 900er.. will i hope anyways, i like the 900 it has more room plus its the heaviest 737
  4. I would like to see the 737-900 textures in the 900er versions like united merger and alaska airlines since they have them on order
×
×
  • Create New...