United 737MAX-9 planned service entry - June 7th

LAXintl · Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:03 pm

United expects to begin operating MAX 9 aircraft on June 7, between its hub at Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport and five cities (ANC, AUS, FLL, MCO, SAN). Beginning June 29, United plans to add additional MAX 9 flights from its Houston and Los Angeles hubs including service between Los Angeles and Honolulu.

Routes and times below link
http://newsroom.united.com/2018-02-19-M ... -9-Service

=

Interesting going for ETOPS almost right out of the box!

Newbiepilot · Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:11 pm

Has ETOPS been an issue at all for the max? IAH-ANC makes sense to take advantage of the airplanes range

iceberg210 · Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:15 pm

Exciting! Sounds like they've got at least two that'll be in their hands soon, do they have more coming quickly as well or will it just be two 9's for a while? Be interesting to see how many 9's they pick up compared to the 10's.
http://737-max.blogspot.com/2017/12/blog-post.html

Bjm0517 · Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:17 pm

Alaska is going to need the ETOPS If they intend to do ANC-HNL, Norwegian is gonna want ETOPS too. The planes Range certaly fits a few airlines in my mind (AA, UA, even Qantas) and I hope that Qantas orders them. Other than that thats all I have to say

0517

codc10 · Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:21 pm

IAH-ANC and LAX-HNL sense given the MAX9's range advantage over the -900ER. It should result in a notable improvement in payload on those routes.

janders · Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:17 pm

Better range and fuel economy but still will have pretty poor runway performance, high landing speeds, and altitude capability.
Hate to see the MAX-10 performance.

codc10 · Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:30 pm

Chugach wrote:
codc10 wrote:
IAH-ANC and LAX-HNL sense given the MAX9's range advantage over the -900ER. It should result in a notable improvement in payload on those routes.

IAH-ANC is being downgraded from a 757, not 739.

I remember, and was a frequent customer, when CO tried IAH-ANC on the 738 about 10 years ago. That is a long...long...long flight on a domestic 737. And it was even longer when you factored in the unscheduled fuel stops in YEG. Sad to see this going back to 737 service, but not altogether surprised.

Good point... and yes, I remember when CO had a 738 on IAHANC.

Chugach · Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:32 pm

codc10 wrote:
IAH-ANC and LAX-HNL sense given the MAX9's range advantage over the -900ER. It should result in a notable improvement in payload on those routes.

IAH-ANC is being downgraded from a 757, not 739.

I remember, and was a frequent customer, when CO tried IAH-ANC on the 738 about 10 years ago. That is a long...long...long flight on a domestic 737. And it was even longer when you factored in the unscheduled fuel stops in YEG. Sad to see this going back to 737 service, but not altogether surprised.

FSDan · Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:48 pm

iceberg210 wrote:
Sounds like they've got at least two that'll be in their hands soon, do they have more coming quickly as well or will it just be two 9's for a while?

The loaded schedule from June 7 requires at least 3 frames, and I'm guessing there might be a spare too. Looks like UA is showing these as "737-900" in the schedule/booking engine just like all the 737-900s and -900ERs, but if you click into the seat map you can see that it's got the MAX configuration (48 Y+ seats).

448205 · Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:05 pm

janders wrote:
Better range and fuel economy but still will have pretty poor runway performance, high landing speeds, and altitude capability.
Hate to see the MAX-10 performance.

Are you flying the airplane yourself? If not, why do you care? Most pilots are more concerned about the ice in the cockpit than this.

caverunner17 · Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:19 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
janders wrote:
Better range and fuel economy but still will have pretty poor runway performance, high landing speeds, and altitude capability.
Hate to see the MAX-10 performance.

Are you flying the airplane yourself? If not, why do you care? Most pilots are more concerned about the ice in the cockpit than this.

I'm pretty sure the largest operator of the 737 cannot use the MAX-9 due to these performance limitations which would make them inoperable from one of their largest hubs.

77H · Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:24 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
janders wrote:
Better range and fuel economy but still will have pretty poor runway performance, high landing speeds, and altitude capability.
Hate to see the MAX-10 performance.

Are you flying the airplane yourself? If not, why do you care? Most pilots are more concerned about the ice in the cockpit than this.

High landing speeds and low cruise altitudes have an impact on passengers. I was on a 739ER last week SFO-HNL. We our initial cruise altitude was FL280 for a good portion of the flight and we were skimming cloud tops the entire time. It was quite bumpy. FAs were in their jump seats the majority of the flight.

The landing was equally uncomfortable. Rough touch down with full reverse thrust and heavy breaking... on a 12K ft runway. Standard for the type based on my experience. I avoid that plane as much as I can. At least this one had sky interior...

77H

bgm · Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:31 pm

caverunner17 wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
janders wrote:
Better range and fuel economy but still will have pretty poor runway performance, high landing speeds, and altitude capability.
Hate to see the MAX-10 performance.

Are you flying the airplane yourself? If not, why do you care? Most pilots are more concerned about the ice in the cockpit than this.

I'm pretty sure the largest operator of the 737 cannot use the MAX-9 due to these performance limitations which would make them inoperable from one of their largest hubs.

The curvature of the earth should help it get airborne.

STT757 · Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:32 pm

They seem perfect to replace 737-900ERs, and 737-800s, on Transcons and West Coast to Hawaii routes. Thus freeing up those aircraft for medium haul flights from the hubs ( ORD, DEN, EWR, IAH etc..).

hOMSaR · Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:35 pm

caverunner17 wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
janders wrote:
Better range and fuel economy but still will have pretty poor runway performance, high landing speeds, and altitude capability.
Hate to see the MAX-10 performance.

Are you flying the airplane yourself? If not, why do you care? Most pilots are more concerned about the ice in the cockpit than this.

I'm pretty sure the largest operator of the 737 cannot use the MAX-9 due to these performance limitations which would make them inoperable from one of their largest hubs.

The largest operator of the 737 doesn’t have the MAX 9 on order, and also isn’t the subject of this thread, so why should that matter?

AA737-823 · Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:33 pm

I was a fan of the 757-300 on the ANC-IAH route, for the past several summers. Big, buff airplane.
But it did take AGES to load and deplane.
And with the new reconfig of 234 seats in the same tube, it would be even worse this year.

But I am completely shocked that one of the first routes to get a new type is Anchorage. We rarely get the best of anything!

And, regarding performance, the takeoff and cruise altitude performance issues are a big deal.... to a.net whiny witches. It's about as valid as the decades-old argument that the A343 is a wretched airplane compared to the 777-2ER.
If the planes were that terrible, customers wouldn't be buying them.
And, while the 739 does often cruise a bit lower, it's still far higher than things were just a decade or two ago... I can remember many MD-80 flights that never got above FL290 on even just a 2.5 hour mid-con.

AvObserver · Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:26 am

janders wrote:
Better range and fuel economy but still will have pretty poor runway performance, high landing speeds, and altitude capability.
Hate to see the MAX-10 performance.

Really need to see how this plays out when the bird is actually in service. Don't assume it will be exactly the same as the NG-900. And don't forget, the -10 will have modified main landing gear intended to improve rotation angle on takeoff and I think, an engine thrust bump so it may be no worse than the -9. Maybe at some point, the -10's modified MLG will be backpedalled to the -9 as an option and improve that variant's field performance.

STT757 · Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:45 am

The best part about the Max 9 coming to UA is that they're not replacing anything, these are pure growth (61 frames). It's been a while since UA has taken delivery of that many new domestic mainline, the used A319s have been trickling in at a snails pace. They had a handful of 738s and 739s they took delivery of a couple years ago, but it's been since the large post merger 737-900ER order that they've seen this many new domestic mainline. The difference is all those 737-900ERs they order post merger replaced UA's domestic Pratt powered 752s.

These MAX 9 are growing the domestic mainline fleet.

Newbiepilot · Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:53 am

77H wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
janders wrote:
Better range and fuel economy but still will have pretty poor runway performance, high landing speeds, and altitude capability.
Hate to see the MAX-10 performance.

Are you flying the airplane yourself? If not, why do you care? Most pilots are more concerned about the ice in the cockpit than this.

High landing speeds and low cruise altitudes have an impact on passengers. I was on a 739ER last week SFO-HNL. We our initial cruise altitude was FL280 for a good portion of the flight and we were skimming cloud tops the entire time. It was quite bumpy. FAs were in their jump seats the majority of the flight.

The landing was equally uncomfortable. Rough touch down with full reverse thrust and heavy breaking... on a 12K ft runway. Standard for the type based on my experience. I avoid that plane as much as I can. At least this one had sky interior...

77H

What day was that? Most days have initial cruise between FL300 and 340. A321s and 737-900ERs usually have similar cruising altitudes with sometimes the 737-900ER flying a little higher.

Polot · Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:13 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
77H wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:

Are you flying the airplane yourself? If not, why do you care? Most pilots are more concerned about the ice in the cockpit than this.

High landing speeds and low cruise altitudes have an impact on passengers. I was on a 739ER last week SFO-HNL. We our initial cruise altitude was FL280 for a good portion of the flight and we were skimming cloud tops the entire time. It was quite bumpy. FAs were in their jump seats the majority of the flight.

The landing was equally uncomfortable. Rough touch down with full reverse thrust and heavy breaking... on a 12K ft runway. Standard for the type based on my experience. I avoid that plane as much as I can. At least this one had sky interior...

77H

What day was that? Most days have initial cruise between FL300 and 340. A321s and 737-900ERs usually have similar cruising altitudes with sometimes the 737-900ER flying a little higher.

Yes the 739’s biggest issue is getting off the ground. Once wheels up it’s climb performance isn’t out of line.

Also without more info the braking in the 12k ft runway anecdote is meaningless. The pilots could have been aiming for a specific turnoff to shorten their taxi time for all we know.

Goodyear · Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:23 am

IAH-ANC on a 737? Max or not, you couldn't pay me to take a flight that long in a 737. No thanks!

Polot · Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:33 am

Goodyear wrote:
IAH-ANC on a 737? Max or not, you couldn't pay me to take a flight that long in a 737. No thanks!

How’s it any different for the Y passengers than the 757 that has typically operated the flight?

Sucks for first though unless UA installs some flatbeds.

LAXLHR · Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:37 am

bgm wrote:
caverunner17 wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:

Are you flying the airplane yourself? If not, why do you care? Most pilots are more concerned about the ice in the cockpit than this.

I'm pretty sure the largest operator of the 737 cannot use the MAX-9 due to these performance limitations which would make them inoperable from one of their largest hubs.

The curvature of the earth should help it get airborne.

Bwahahahaha! Nice one...

spiah · Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:48 am

77H wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
janders wrote:
Better range and fuel economy but still will have pretty poor runway performance, high landing speeds, and altitude capability.
Hate to see the MAX-10 performance.

Are you flying the airplane yourself? If not, why do you care? Most pilots are more concerned about the ice in the cockpit than this.

High landing speeds and low cruise altitudes have an impact on passengers. I was on a 739ER last week SFO-HNL. We our initial cruise altitude was FL280 for a good portion of the flight and we were skimming cloud tops the entire time. It was quite bumpy. FAs were in their jump seats the majority of the flight.

The landing was equally uncomfortable. Rough touch down with full reverse thrust and heavy breaking... on a 12K ft runway. Standard for the type based on my experience. I avoid that plane as much as I can. At least this one had sky interior...

77H

That cruise wasn't chosen because the plane can't handle anything more, it was likely chosen due to turbulence or whatever route-planning/atc factors happened along the way.

Bumpy landings, I agree, largely a symptom of giving the pilots more control vs the airbus computer, but that has its benefits and disadvantages along the way.

No problem having preferences, but I think you're being a little unfair on the poor plane.

Goodyear · Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:09 am

Polot wrote:
How’s it any different for the Y passengers than the 757 that has typically operated the flight?

You're right, in that the cabin width is the same. I prefer the A320 series (or larger) on transcon flights. The only benefit that Max has from a passenger perspective is the noise level; the Max may be quieter than the 757, but it's still cramped in my opinion. The advances to the Max are more to advance the carrier's bottom line in ways that a NG otherwise would not. Lipstick on a pig is my overall view of the Max. There are still 707 parts on the airframe.

AWACSooner · Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:21 am

Will they have the same atrocious seat pitch that AA has on their 3M8's?

FlightLevel360 · Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:45 am

AWACSooner wrote:
Will they have the same atrocious seat pitch that AA has on their 3M8's?

In the link the OP provided it says "at least 30..."
Considering that they have the same seat install (B/E Meridian) I would most likely say yes.

flyboy80 · Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:29 am

Will the -9 be configured the same as the current 900er? AA is adding seats to their -8 but not sure if that’s -8 specific or also on the -800 as well.

CONTACREW · Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:38 am

flyboy80 wrote:
Will the -9 be configured the same as the current 900er? AA is adding seats to their -8 but not sure if that’s -8 specific or also on the -800 as well.

Configuration will be 20F/48Y/C+/111Y/C 179 Total. Same number of seats as the current 737-900/900ER fleet.

mcdu · Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:40 am

AA737-823 wrote:
I was a fan of the 757-300 on the ANC-IAH route, for the past several summers. Big, buff airplane.
But it did take AGES to load and deplane.
And with the new reconfig of 234 seats in the same tube, it would be even worse this year.

But I am completely shocked that one of the first routes to get a new type is Anchorage. We rarely get the best of anything!

And, regarding performance, the takeoff and cruise altitude performance issues are a big deal.... to a.net whiny witches. It's about as valid as the decades-old argument that the A343 is a wretched airplane compared to the 777-2ER.
If the planes were that terrible, customers wouldn't be buying them.
And, while the 739 does often cruise a bit lower, it's still far higher than things were just a decade or two ago... I can remember many MD-80 flights that never got above FL290 on even just a 2.5 hour mid-con.

You won’t be sampling this I presume as you said earlier in the 757-300 thread that you kicked UA to curb. Why would you care if it’s a max or a hot air balloon since you don’t ride UA?

Busyboy2 · Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:44 am

Goodyear wrote:
IAH-ANC on a 737? Max or not, you couldn't pay me to take a flight that long in a 737. No thanks!

Wait. So what you're saying is if someone paid you actual money to go on a flight, you'd say no? That's incredible.

intotheair · Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:45 am

I'm sure this is probably just incomplete paint, but it's at least interesting to get a small taste of what an all-white globe on the tail would look like:

https://twitter.com/united/status/965662272914894848

iahcsr · Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:13 am

The first six craft are spaced about 20 line numbers apart (give or take) that’s about 2/month. So there could be up to six on property by June. The 7th is when they will be ‘officially’ assigned to given routes. Until then they will surely (Don’t call me Shirley...) be popping up in random places for air and ground crew training/ familiarization.

Boeing12345 · Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:24 pm

3 deliveries in April and 3 deliveries in May. The 7th frame is scheduled for September and total of 10 by year end.

mcdu · Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:31 pm

Busyboy2 wrote:
Goodyear wrote:
IAH-ANC on a 737? Max or not, you couldn't pay me to take a flight that long in a 737. No thanks!

Wait. So what you're saying is if someone paid you actual money to go on a flight, you'd say no? That's incredible.

And these same people that are complaining about the horrors of riding a 737 from IAH go ANC, will tell you how great it would be to have one of the Norwegian identities flying from their home market to somewhere in Europe. And I imagine when or if WN can ever figure out how to fly to Hawaii they will wax lyrically about the wonderful opportunity to ride a 737max to the islands.

Goodyear · Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:22 pm

I don't recall being asked about my thoughts on Norwegian. Or Southwest to Hawaii for that matter.

jonnyclam123 · Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:27 pm

What will the first flight be?

Rdh3e · Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:39 pm

caverunner17 wrote:
I'm pretty sure the largest operator of the 737 cannot use the MAX-9 due to these performance limitations which would make them inoperable from one of their largest hubs.

hOMSaR wrote:
The largest operator of the 737 doesn’t have the MAX 9 on order, and also isn’t the subject of this thread, so why should that matter?

Who and what are you all even talking about?

caverunner17 · Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:59 pm

Rdh3e wrote:
caverunner17 wrote:
I'm pretty sure the largest operator of the 737 cannot use the MAX-9 due to these performance limitations which would make them inoperable from one of their largest hubs.

hOMSaR wrote:
The largest operator of the 737 doesn’t have the MAX 9 on order, and also isn’t the subject of this thread, so why should that matter?

Who and what are you all even talking about?

Southwest Airlines (the largest 737 operator) can't fly the 737-9 from MDW due to the short runways MDW has. I was replying to a comment that said that it doesn't matter that the MAX 9 has poor runway performance, but it actually does, because it would prevent the largest operator from purchasing them due to those restrictions.

Polot · Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:01 pm

It doesn’t prevent WN from purchasing the 739 MAX if desired. It just prevents them from using them at MTOW from MDW, which is hardly their only hub.

We are talking about an airline that only started receiving 738s 6 or so years ago. I don’t think runway restrictions are the reason that WN currently has no -9s on order.

iahcsr · Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:07 pm

jonnyclam123 wrote:
What will the first flight be?

Literary speaking it will be Delivery from PAE to some UA Mx facility ... SEA perhaps(?). It will stay there for a few weeks while Tech Ops craws all over it checking out all the new bells and whistles... especially the Leaps. The first flight with paying passengers will likely be some random short hop from a hub (IAH?). The first ‘official’, with all the balloons, music, and ribbon cutting, will be Jun7th from/to wherever it says in the announcement above.

hOMSaR · Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:09 pm

caverunner17 wrote:
Rdh3e wrote:
caverunner17 wrote:
I'm pretty sure the largest operator of the 737 cannot use the MAX-9 due to these performance limitations which would make them inoperable from one of their largest hubs.

hOMSaR wrote:
The largest operator of the 737 doesn’t have the MAX 9 on order, and also isn’t the subject of this thread, so why should that matter?

Who and what are you all even talking about?

Southwest Airlines (the largest 737 operator) can't fly the 737-9 from MDW due to the short runways MDW has. I was replying to a comment that said that it doesn't matter that the MAX 9 has poor runway performance, but it actually does, because it would prevent the largest operator from purchasing them due to those restrictions.

It matters to Southwest (again, not relevant to this thread), and hence, they didn’t buy them. It didn’t matter as much to UA, which already operates a bunch of 739ERs (another type WN didn’t buy). There’s no rule that Boeing can’t build 737 variants that airlines not named Southwest might want.

FriscoHeavy · Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:25 pm

caverunner17 wrote:
Rdh3e wrote:
caverunner17 wrote:
I'm pretty sure the largest operator of the 737 cannot use the MAX-9 due to these performance limitations which would make them inoperable from one of their largest hubs.

hOMSaR wrote:
The largest operator of the 737 doesn’t have the MAX 9 on order, and also isn’t the subject of this thread, so why should that matter?

Who and what are you all even talking about?

Southwest Airlines (the largest 737 operator) can't fly the 737-9 from MDW due to the short runways MDW has. I was replying to a comment that said that it doesn't matter that the MAX 9 has poor runway performance, but it actually does, because it would prevent the largest operator from purchasing them due to those restrictions.

Your comment has NO merit. Just a few points:

-WN can operate the 739/ER/MAX to MDW if they wanted to, just not at MTOW. It could easily operate from MDW to EWR, LGA, HOU, DAL, DEN, etc.
-WN just went for the 738 recently so it indicates that they do not want the 739 at this time, regardless of performance.
-You don't see A321s flying into MDW either (at least not regularly). Though it has slightly better performance mainly due to its taller gear, it also is no spring chicken at MTOW and couldn't operate from MDW, SNA, etc at MTOW.
-You see 739s operate daily from coast to coast with no issue (BOS-West Coast, EWR-West Coast), so while it may be a bit of a slug compared to other aircraft getting off the pavement, it's not a useless aircraft and is very economical once off the ground.

mcdu · Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:30 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
caverunner17 wrote:
Rdh3e wrote:

Who and what are you all even talking about?

Southwest Airlines (the largest 737 operator) can't fly the 737-9 from MDW due to the short runways MDW has. I was replying to a comment that said that it doesn't matter that the MAX 9 has poor runway performance, but it actually does, because it would prevent the largest operator from purchasing them due to those restrictions.

It matters to Southwest (again, not relevant to this thread), and hence, they didn’t buy them. It didn’t matter as much to UA, which already operates a bunch of 739ERs (another type WN didn’t buy). There’s no rule that Boeing can’t build 737 variants that airlines not named Southwest might want.

So true. MDW wasn’t built to handle jet aircraft of the size of a MAX9. It was designed during the DC-3 and L-1049 days. It worked okay for the 727 DC-9 and 737’s up to the -700. The -800 is pushing the limits of the runway there.

So if there are airlines that don’t hub at MDW then using a max9 is not a big deal. It works for UA for where they want to fly them, so isn’t that really all that matters in this conversation.

Love all the people talking about performance and cruising altitudes that haven’t a clue about what they are talking about when it comes to actual flight planning.

Cruising at FL290 out of SFO going east? Going to strongly suspect the lower altitude was due to worse rides or turbulence signets higher. Especially this time of year the sierras and Rockies can have significant turbulence with the strong jet stream flowing farther south over the mountains. But the guy in row 27 knows more about the performance and route/altitude selection than the pilots and dispatchers.

mcdu · Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:31 pm

mcdu wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
caverunner17 wrote:
Southwest Airlines (the largest 737 operator) can't fly the 737-9 from MDW due to the short runways MDW has. I was replying to a comment that said that it doesn't matter that the MAX 9 has poor runway performance, but it actually does, because it would prevent the largest operator from purchasing them due to those restrictions.

It matters to Southwest (again, not relevant to this thread), and hence, they didn’t buy them. It didn’t matter as much to UA, which already operates a bunch of 739ERs (another type WN didn’t buy). There’s no rule that Boeing can’t build 737 variants that airlines not named Southwest might want.

So true. MDW wasn’t built to handle jet aircraft of the size of a MAX9. It was designed during the DC-3 and L-1049 days. It worked okay for the 727 DC-9 and 737’s up to the -700. The -800 is pushing the limits of the runway there.

So if there are airlines that don’t hub at MDW then using a max9 is not a big deal. It works for UA for where they want to fly them, so isn’t that really all that matters in this conversation.

Love all the people talking about performance and cruising altitudes that haven’t a clue about what they are talking about when it comes to actual flight planning.

Cruising at FL290 out of SFO going east? Going to strongly suspect the lower altitude was due to worse rides or turbulence sigmets at higher levels. Especially this time of year the sierras and Rockies can have significant turbulence with the strong jet stream flowing farther south over the mountains. But the guy in row 27 knows more about the performance and route/altitude selection than the pilots and dispatchers.

cledaybuck · Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:47 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
caverunner17 wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:

Are you flying the airplane yourself? If not, why do you care? Most pilots are more concerned about the ice in the cockpit than this.

I'm pretty sure the largest operator of the 737 cannot use the MAX-9 due to these performance limitations which would make them inoperable from one of their largest hubs.

The largest operator of the 737 doesn’t have the MAX 9 on order, and also isn’t the subject of this thread, so why should that matter?

Up until several years ago the largest operator of the 737 didn't have the 737-800 on order.

LPSHobby · Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:51 pm

STT757 wrote:
The best part about the Max 9 coming to UA is that they're not replacing anything, these are pure growth (61 frames). It's been a while since UA has taken delivery of that many new domestic mainline, the used A319s have been trickling in at a snails pace. They had a handful of 738s and 739s they took delivery of a couple years ago, but it's been since the large post merger 737-900ER order that they've seen this many new domestic mainline. The difference is all those 737-900ERs they order post merger replaced UA's domestic Pratt powered 752s.

These MAX 9 are growing the domestic mainline fleet.

Wow !!! 737-900 just to expansion? That´s a lot of capacity !!! With this expansion do they have any chance of surpassing and American and Delta and becomes USA and world number 1 airline?

caverunner17 · Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:13 pm

FriscoHeavy wrote:
caverunner17 wrote:
Rdh3e wrote:

Who and what are you all even talking about?

Southwest Airlines (the largest 737 operator) can't fly the 737-9 from MDW due to the short runways MDW has. I was replying to a comment that said that it doesn't matter that the MAX 9 has poor runway performance, but it actually does, because it would prevent the largest operator from purchasing them due to those restrictions.

Your comment has NO merit. Just a few points:

Wow, no need to be snarky.

We know that DL can fly the 739 from LGA to FL (around 1000 miles) with 180 seats. In a WN configuration, this would most likely be 200 seats due to not having a 1st class. In addition, I'd assume that the average WN customer flies with more baggage than a DL customer due to being able to check bags. So with LGA's runway being an additional 500' + DL's lower density, WN might very well struggle with the -9 out of MDW, especially in winter where you have snow and ice concerns.

As far as will WN order them? Who knows. With only 30 orders for the MAX 7, it's clear that WN sees the value in larger aircraft. Given the better economics of the -9 (given a 200 seat capacity with the same 4 FA's) and the trend that many airlines are going to larger sized aircraft for new orders, it wouldn't shock me. It just means that their largest hub will either have very limited use for the 739's or they bypass MDW all together. It'll need to be something that Boeing considers for the 737 replacement in 10 years or so - a 739 sized aircraft that can make MDW-LAX non-stop

STT757 · Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:36 pm

I counted a total of 9 daily 737-900ER flights in UA's current schedule between LAX/SFO and HNL and KOA, mixed in with 752s, 753s and 777s. However OGG, LIH and ITO don't see any 739s, they see 738s mixed in with 752s, 753s and 777s. I'm guessing the 737-900ER cannot operate from the shorter Hawaiian runways, my question is can the 737 Max 9 operate OGG/LIH to LAX and SFO?

I figure the Max 9 will replace all the 737-900ERs to Hawaii for UA, and possibly the 738s.

77H · Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:02 pm

spiah wrote:
77H wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:

Are you flying the airplane yourself? If not, why do you care? Most pilots are more concerned about the ice in the cockpit than this.

High landing speeds and low cruise altitudes have an impact on passengers. I was on a 739ER last week SFO-HNL. We our initial cruise altitude was FL280 for a good portion of the flight and we were skimming cloud tops the entire time. It was quite bumpy. FAs were in their jump seats the majority of the flight.

The landing was equally uncomfortable. Rough touch down with full reverse thrust and heavy breaking... on a 12K ft runway. Standard for the type based on my experience. I avoid that plane as much as I can. At least this one had sky interior...

77H

That cruise wasn't chosen because the plane can't handle anything more, it was likely chosen due to turbulence or whatever route-planning/atc factors happened along the way.

Bumpy landings, I agree, largely a symptom of giving the pilots more control vs the airbus computer, but that has its benefits and disadvantages along the way.

No problem having preferences, but I think you're being a little unfair on the poor plane.

I don't work in dispatch, nor was I sitting in the pointy end of the plane but I have been on enough long stage length flights operated by 739ERs to notice a trend of very low initial cruise altitudes with minor increases in altitude later inflight. This has not been my experience with the 738, 752, 753, 763, 764, 772 or 77W all of which I've flown to and from Hawaii at some point or another in the last 3 years. Hell, I was on a 752 HNL-LAX once that shot straight up to FL410. The sunset from up there was amazing, its been my phone background for multiple years now.

77H

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net