A/C order question for Delta guys

[gutshotdraw]

You can't compare a 757 to a 737 in the back...the airlines have a large range of options in the back (they sometimes have someone other than Boeing outfitting the passenger cabin in fact). You also might be comparing a 1980's 757 to an NG. Try comparing a 737-Classic to a 757 and I think you will see that it's realy the same tube...just a little higher off the ground due to the longer landing gear. There is no reason Boeing couldn't have made the same improvements to the interior that they made on the 757 to the 737. Also, try riding a former CAL 737NG to an Alaska NG. CAL has nicer gizmos on the seats...Alaska has a sightly thicker seat cushion making the choice difficult. I personally prefer the thicker seat cushion.

Anyway...

And as a passenger, I'll take the Bus over either of them.

Actually rode a brand new Alaska -900 three days ago. So new it had that "new car smell." Funky new overhead panels with the space age lites and the goofiest wemac vents I've ever seen and the low profile, composite shell seats. A pretty nice ride overall but the Bus has more shoulder room and I'm 6'4", 230.

Saddest part was watching some lady deplaning in front of me drag her too-wide rollaboard down the aisle smashing the crap out of the nice, clean, new aisle seats. And she'd probably be the first to complain about beat-up airliners....

 

[fr8doggie]

I fly a MINIMUM of 50 airline trips a year (mostly coach) as a paying customer and my preferences are as follows for passenger experience:

Narrow Body

A-319/320/321
B-737
E-190
B-757
B-717
MD-80 Series
All the other RJ's

Wide Body

A-330/340
B-777
B-747
B-767
MD-10/11

I'm curious how many times you've ridden in an MD-10? And when was the last time you rode in an MD-11?

Regards,
Fr8doggie

 

[gutshotdraw]

I'm curious how many times you've ridden in an MD-10? And when was the last time you rode in an MD-11?

Regards,
Fr8doggie

Rode the -10 on Hawaiian a LOT back in the day. Had a trip or two on somebody's -11 but then they started converting them all to freighters. Wonder why that was....

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

I'm curious how many times you've ridden in an MD-10? And when was the last time you rode in an MD-11?

Regards,
Fr8doggie

Does it matter? Really?

 

[BentOver]

Ok...so was that a no, Delta has not ordered any A320NEO or 737MAX

How the heck did an a/c order question turn into a "fractional pilots don't like riding as passengers in the back of pt.121 airplanes thread!!"

I get it, a corporate jet, which none of us here will ever be a passenger in (on our own $$) is much more comfortable than a 757. We don't need to hear about how much airlining sucks every time you're on day 7 and jump on Facebook to joke about it.:beer:

 

[DYLIN]

Saddest part was watching some lady deplaning in front of me drag her too-wide rollaboard down the aisle smashing the crap out of the nice, clean, new aisle seats. And she'd probably be the first to complain about beat-up airliners....

Well, that just goes back to the Airbus again.

C'mon Boeing . . . a few more inches?

 

[gutshotdraw]

Ok...so was that a no, Delta has not ordered any A320NEO or 737MAX

How the heck did an a/c order question turn into a "fractional pilots don't like riding as passengers in the back of pt.121 airplanes thread!!"

I get it, a corporate jet, which none of us here will ever be a passenger in (on our own $$) is much more comfortable than a 757. We don't need to hear about how much airlining sucks every time you're on day 7 and jump on Facebook to joke about it.:beer:

Not complaining. It's part of the job. Just saying it is/would be nice if the executive suite of a US airline actually factors passenger experience into the aircraft procurement equation.

And Facebook is a datamining scourge and I refuse to participate....:smash:

 

[CheapFlyer]

we blew by a 777 on approach to the parallel. Our ref must have been easily 30 knots faster than his.

The 737-900 is at the practical aerodynamic limits for this wing.

FYI: The NG's are geometrically limited, not aerodynamically limited. They increase the ref speeds so you don't hit the tail. At least that's what I've been told.

 

[jonjuan]

Not complaining. It's part of the job. Just saying it is/would be nice if the executive suite of a US airline actually factors passenger experience into the aircraft procurement equation.

It's so CEOs like Gary Kelly at Southwest can pay his senior CAs $260K/year (plus a $26K/year 401k match) or 60% more than a corporate GV CA (with a significantly smaller 401k match). Maybe if corporate CEOs valued their senior CAs better.

 

[fr8doggie]

Does it matter? Really?

Only in the nitpicking sense that FDX is the only airline to ever operate the MD-10. Now, if you are talking about a DC-10 that is a whole 'nother issue.


Regards,
Fr8-

 

[BILL LUMBERG]

Only in the nitpicking sense that FDX is the only airline to ever operate the MD-10. Now, if you are talking about a DC-10 that is a whole 'nother issue.


Regards,
Fr8-

If he did ride on one, I'm sure he thanks you for the ride!

 

[igneousy2]

FYI: The NG's are geometrically limited, not aerodynamically limited. They increase the ref speeds so you don't hit the tail. At least that's what I've been told.

I'm going to have to look into this further but that doesn't make sense to me at first glance because tail strikes are a greater concern at lower weights at lower flap settings. Which is the opposite of what I would expect if what you've been told were true.

Additionally, the 400 has a greater risk of tail strike on landing at light weights then the NG's do. Get to slow while you're light on a 400 and you will strike the tail.

 

[CheapFlyer]

. Get to slow while you're light on a 400 and you will strike the tail.

That's exactly the theory on the NG's increased ref speeds. Increase the speed and you won't hit the tail.

 

[SWA Bubba]

FYI: The NG's are geometrically limited, not aerodynamically limited. They increase the ref speeds so you don't hit the tail. At least that's what I've been told.

You're partially right, but actually, it's simple aerodynamics. It's the same exact wing, so if you want to generate more lift to support the greater weight of a stretched NG, you've got to go faster. The other possibilities are to change the shape of the wing (not practical to redesign), or increase the AOA (not practical due to the increased length of the fuselage). So, go faster it is. It's as simple as the higher gross weight, the higher the Vref for a given wing.

As far as geometric limitations, Boeing has pretty much reached it for the 737 in a -900. The landing gear is shorter than an Airbus', so it can only be so long before rotation on its pitch axis causes the rear end to smack. The Airbus 320 family sits on higher gear, so in theory, you can stretch it longer.

Bubba

 

[redflyer65]

Like the A321. I think all economy class it's around 200 pax. Spirit has a couple at full load.

 

[ROSWELL41]

A Spirit A321 holds 218 passengers.

 

[igneousy2]

That's exactly the theory on the NG's increased ref speeds. Increase the speed and you won't hit the tail.

so the saying goes...but you have slightly LESS clearence at LOWER weights...if what you're saying is the entire answer, then I would expect the higher weights to have the least clearence.

 

[CesnaCaptn]

Flaps 30 vs 40 in the -700 only changes ref by a few knots. In the -800 and -900 it makes about a 10 knot difference. That must be because of deck angle on the long bodies. The plane will fly slower at flaps 30, but you would have a tail clearance issue.