Currently sitting in a new Delta 737-900ER awaiting to travel from KEWR to KSLC. Stormy day here in NY. Plane departs and we go back to the gate for more fuel due to a route change. Once at the gate, cargo came off (mail) and 15 "volunteer" passengers. Hard to believe this plane (I note the ER design) has to load restrict for a 2,000 mile trip. Delta used to fly this route with 757's.......

That's very interesting. Delta states the range of the aircraft are just under 2,900 miles. Wonder if there are severe headwinds right now.

While it's anecdotal, DL's 739s to Hawaii from LAX the past few months have had a dreadful time due to abnormally strong outbound winds, and I saw first hand some days upwards of 30 passengers being bumped and re-accommodated on HA. Issues with AA's 321s as well.

Huge storms over the Midwest forcing a major route change...and added mileage.

There are very strong headwinds all the way to Kansas City today. I don't think it has to do with the ER's performance so much as safety. An ER is not a 757 - it is from a different era, with a different mission, with much better technology to allow the margins to get thinner and thinner. You will likely be flying many hundreds more miles against the air than you are against the ground.

winginit wrote:

While it's anecdotal, DL's 739s to Hawaii from LAX the past few months have had a dreadful time due to abnormally strong outbound winds, and I saw first hand some days upwards of 30 passengers being bumped and re-accommodated on HA. Issues with AA's 321s as well.

The 757 truly is one of a kind.

I don't care how many times the bean counters tell you that the 737-900ER is the 757-200 replacement, it's not and never will be. The 900ER might carry close to what the 757-200 did in passengers, but that's where it stops. It can't haul bags and cargo like the 757 did. They're weight restricted, load balance restricted, range restricted, etc. I wish my company would of bought the A321 over the 737-900ER to replace the 757 fleet.

Looking at flightaware, it almost looks like they diverted through the weather than around it, if that makes sense. Anyone else able to tell from looking at it if it's just that the winds are heavy and not actual storms?

Too bad it's not still a SONG route on the 757.

It does look like they're fighting to get through storms all through the midwest, but... FlightAware still says it's under 4 hrs 30 min of flying which one would have thought the ER would be able to do unrestricted. Maybe they took 40k lbs of fuel just to make sure they'd get through it all, who knows. Hard to condemn the airplane without knowing the whole story.

DL498 flew JFK-SLC this morning without any problem with the same type. So it's not a problem with the 737-900ER per se. There was obviously some extenuating circumstance.

"The 900ER might carry close to what the 757-200 did in passengers, but that's where it stops. It can't haul bags and cargo like the 757 did. They're weight restricted,"

And they tail-tip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLWxD0gY__A

Is this DL1724? Can someone explain to me why both SLC-EWR and EWR-SLC have the same DL1724 flight number? Is this new with DL?

I asked another airline why they did not buy 737-900er's. They said that with the extra fuel tank that they had limited cargo space and weight issues. They said they where much better off with 737-800's.
That 737-900 takes a lot of runway to get off the ground and they can't put bigger engines on it due to its stubby gear. The A321 is the better chose.
I wish Boeing worked on the 757 replacement rather then the 777x. The 777 was doing just fine. There was s segment that was there's for the taking.

berari wrote:

Is this DL1724? Can someone explain to me why both SLC-EWR and EWR-SLC have the same DL1724 flight number? Is this new with DL?

Delta (and other airlines as well) have been using the same flight number on return trips from/to a hub for years. It helps conserve flight numbers with the ever increasing numbers of codeshares. Delta has been doing it for at least 10 years, possibly longer.

If you want to see the winds, here's one from my friend:
www.windytv.com

Juest check the FL you want, and there you go. Easier than looking at actual high weather SIGs.

Cheers,
Adam

The flight ended up being 4 hours 30 minutes. While long for EWR-SLC, that should not cause weight restrictions resulting in passengers being offloaded under normal conditions. My guess is that there was something wrong with the plane requiring a deferral or they had to use the crosswind runway.

The EWR crosswind runway is only 6800ft. If they took off from that, there would be significant payload restrictions with the 737-900ER.

They could have had a hydraulic pump fail, brake problem or some other problem that can be deferred but comes with a performance limitation. For example a hydraulic pump failure can still allow the plane to fly, but there is a MTOW restriction. My guess is that a maintenance deferral caused a weight restriction causing them to need to offload passengers.

When talking about MTOW and weight restrictions there are several different ways of looking at it. There is takeoff performance MTOW which is the most limiting of the climb and runway limited weights. There is maximum structural takeoff weight. There is maximum ramp weight. Maximum zero fuel weight. MTOW limited by maximum landing weight. MTOW limited by fuel requirements. MTOW limited by MEL requirements.

While EWR-SLC may not seem like a route that is pushing the limits of the 737-900ER, there are many factors in play. With ATC constraints, the flight may have to stay a low altitude until getting past the ZNY/ZOB constraints which adds fuel. Turbulence at higher altitudes means needing the fuel for a lower altitude if lower altitudes are smoother. At EWR, ATC often changes re-routes for weather so adding more on top of what you need is a good idea but it limits your payload due to landing weight limits if you end up not needing it.

Another factor is that SLC is rather isolated in terms of alternate airports. Currently, SLC has rain, snow and some lowered visibility and ceilings forecast. Depending on regional weather, you may need to use LAS, DEN, BOI which are longer alternates and this will hurt you big time on both structural MTOW, max ramp, and max landing weight.

One thing to remember is when there are thunderstorms, ATC may throw out an incredibly long re-route that the carrier has to fuel for and takes off with as their routing. However, once the aircraft gets passed the constrained area it is very common to get a direct routing. So a flight may have been weight restricted not because of landing weight but because of structural MTOW but with a more direct routing it may not seem as if the flight was getting close to fuel and performance limits.

I doubt at EWR on the parallels that MELs would be a major issue. Those long runways shouldnt be a problem for most MELs and CDLs. 11/29 might be a different story though as it is shorter.

MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:

When talking about MTOW and weight restrictions there are several different ways of looking at it. There is takeoff performance MTOW which is the most limiting of the climb and runway limited weights. There is maximum structural takeoff weight. There is maximum ramp weight. Maximum zero fuel weight. MTOW limited by maximum landing weight. MTOW limited by fuel requirements. MTOW limited by MEL requirements.

While EWR-SLC may not seem like a route that is pushing the limits of the 737-900ER, there are many factors in play. With ATC constraints, the flight may have to stay a low altitude until getting past the ZNY/ZOB constraints which adds fuel. Turbulence at higher altitudes means needing the fuel for a lower altitude if lower altitudes are smoother. At EWR, ATC often changes re-routes for weather so adding more on top of what you need is a good idea but it limits your payload due to landing weight limits if you end up not needing it.

Another factor is that SLC is rather isolated in terms of alternate airports. Currently, SLC has rain, snow and some lowered visibility and ceilings forecast. Depending on regional weather, you may need to use LAS, DEN, BOI which are longer alternates and this will hurt you big time on both structural MTOW, max ramp, and max landing weight.

One thing to remember is when there are thunderstorms, ATC may throw out an incredibly long re-route that the carrier has to fuel for and takes off with as their routing. However, once the aircraft gets passed the constrained area it is very common to get a direct routing. So a flight may have been weight restricted not because of landing weight but because of structural MTOW but with a more direct routing it may not seem as if the flight was getting close to fuel and performance limits.

I doubt at EWR on the parallels that MELs would be a major issue. Those long runways shouldnt be a problem for most MELs and CDLs. 11/29 might be a different story though as it is shorter.

Very true. Even close(r) in alternates like GJT or TWF are still a decent ways out. SLC area paper alternates exist, but many stray away from them with freezing precip in the forecast.

StationAir wrote:

Currently sitting in a new Delta 737-900ER awaiting to travel from KEWR to KSLC. Stormy day here in NY. Plane departs and we go back to the gate for more fuel due to a route change. Once at the gate, cargo came off (mail) and 15 "volunteer" passengers. Hard to believe this plane (I note the ER design) has to load restrict for a 2,000 mile trip. Delta used to fly this route with 757's.......

Yesterday my IRS showed the winds at the Canadian border around Toronto to be 275 degrees at 247 knots! HOLY MOLY I've never seen it that strong.

If the passengers being removed from your flight had failed to comply and remained on the flight, would they have been forcibly removed from the flight, in all likelihood? I know it is theoretical - but given the UA discussions at the moment, it's a relevant question as this highlights yet another way that passengers are removed for operational purposes.

Some facts for those comparing the 739 to the 757....

The 757-200 weighs up to 115t on take-off and is powered by engines with up to 43k lbs of thrust.
The 737-900ER carries almost as many passengers but weighs 85t and is powered by 2x 27k lbs of thrust.

That is the reason that the bean-counters like the latter!