Re: New Boeing 737-800 anouncement

From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
Date:         06 Sep 94 12:11:08 
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Robert Ashcroft writes (regarding the 737-800):
>187 passengers?  What?

>Sounds a little on the high side to me.  Anyone got additional info?
>I'd expect about 20 passengers fewer.

Boeing's sales literature on the 2nd generation 737 gives the
following seating numbers:

				-500	-300	-400
				----	----	----
mixed class, 36/32 in. pitch	8+100	8+120	10+136
all economy, 32 in. pitch	122	140	159
all economy, 30 in. pitch	132	149	168

The 737-800 is 9'2" longer than the 737-400, room for more than 3
additional rows or another 18 seats.  With the 30 in. pitch you get
186.

I've been inside a Chinese 737 (safely on the ground!) with what must
have been the 30 in. pitch and it was a real sardine can.  The more
generous pitch is certainly what we're used to.  (Southwest puts 122
on a 737-500 and 137, probably with an extra lav, on their -300, while
United used Boeing's mixed class counts exactly until the FAA made 'em
take out a couple of seats by the overwing exits.)

>Otherwise you may as well call it a 757 and be done with it.

Nope, in the one-class/inclusive-tour config, using 28/29/30 in. pitch
(ouch!), Boeing crams 231 pax on a 757.  A 767-200 holds 285 while the
-300 manages a whopping 325, both with 2-4-2 seating.

>How long before the ETOPS transAtlantic 737 rolls out?

You're a few years late, Robert!  According to the same Boeing glossy,
from a New York base, Dublin, Ireland is within range for a 737-500,
and the 737 is ETOPS rated.  While Boeing does mention the possibility
of using the 737 on intercontinental routes for additional flexibility,
the main reason for ETOPS is this:

    "ETOPS lets European 737 charter operators serve more vacation
    resorts, and it lets U.S. operators serve less heavily traveled
    Caribbean routes with twinjet efficiency."

>737 air superiority fighter

Well, as I've mentioned, a lightly loaded 757 does have a better
thrust-to-weight ratio than a loaded F4 Phantom running with full
afterburners!

>the 737 Stealth bomber

Sounds like descriptions I've heard of 777 fly-bys!  :-)

--
Karl Swartz	|INet	kls@ohare.chicago.com
1-415/854-3409	|UUCP	uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls
		|Snail	2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA
 Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com