Jump to content




Photo

New 737-900


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1 norfolkwesternhenry

norfolkwesternhenry

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN
  • Interests:Trains, Boating, Trains, Mountain Biking, Trains, Having Fun, Trains, working on my bikes, Trains, planning my next trip, PV

Posted 20 October 2016 - 11:16 PM

has anybody else flown on the new 737-900? The Alaska air 737-900s have decent seats, and I can actually stand up! There is an outlet at each seat, and bathrooms that are about 5x3x7 feet, whuch means I can stand up!

Empire Builder MSP-CHI (2) CHI-MSP (2) MSP-PDX (1) MSP-CBS (5.5 H late) (1) MKE-MSP (1) MSP-SEA (1) Coast Starlate PDX-EMY (1.5H late) (1) California Zephyr DEN-SLC (1H late) (1) Hiawatha CHI-MKE (1) NE Regional WAS-BAL (1) WAS-NYP (1) Acela Express BAL-WAS (1) BOS-WAS (1) Late Shore (Limited service) CHI-BOS (On Time) (1) Capitol Limited WAS-CHI (1) Texas Eagle SAS-CHI (1) Wolverine DET-DER-ARB-CHI (35 Min late) (1) Cascades SEA-VAC (1)
Non-Amtrak: VIA: Corridor Service Q.C.-Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto-Windsor (1) Canadian: VAC-Winnipeg 4.5 H late (1) D. C. metro, Montreal Metro, Toronto subway, Portland streetcars, BART, Metra, NYC subway, Boston subway, Twin cities Blue/Green line
train cars travelled in: Superliner: Coach, Sleeper, Diner, CCC, SSL. Amfleet: LD Café, Café/Business, coach. Viewliner: Sleeper, Diner. Acela: Café, Business, quiet car. Horizon: Coach. Talgo: coach, diner, café; non Amtrak: ex CP Via Canadian Manor cars, Park car, diner,sleeper, Skyline lounge. LRC trainset: coach (tilt de-activated)


#2 bmjhagen9426

bmjhagen9426

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Klamath Falls, Oregon
  • Interests:Computers, riding trains/travel, watching movies/sporting events, listening to music/speeches/talk radio, reading

Posted 20 October 2016 - 11:44 PM

I may have traveled on a United Airlines Boeing 737-900 on my Chicago trip last winter (or was it a 737-800?), but they did not have all the new amenties that you mentioned.


Just a 23 year old college student who likes to travel by train.

Trains taken (US): Coast Starlight, San Joaquins, Empire Builder, Southwest Chief, Hoosier State, SP4449 excursion 2015

Commuter/Transit Rail (US): Metra, TriMet, SoundTransit, Muni, LA MetroRail

Trains/Transit taken (Outside US and Canada): KNR, SMSC, SMRT, IRTC, DJET, DX LINE, EVERLINE, HUMETRO, METRO9

Ambus trips: BFD-LAX, EMY-SFC

Current Amtrak mileage: 17251 miles plus 130 Ambus miles


#3 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 20 October 2016 - 11:50 PM

I have flown on 737-900 and I believe 737-900ER too, dozens of times. United. And yes they were all Sky interior with the mentioned amenities.

Edited by jis, 20 October 2016 - 11:52 PM.


#4 Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,495 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SAS
  • Interests:Mechanized Travel

Posted 21 October 2016 - 07:27 AM

The Boeing 737 is the most common commercial aircraft in the world.  Based on my memories the 200 was the last version with really loud engines, the 300 was the first version with "squished" inlets, the 500 was rather rare and mainly used as a high frequency regional shuttle, the 700 was the first variant I flew with winglets, and 800 was the first 737 to have a fuselage long enough to create an attractive profile.  For me the 800 and 900 series seem almost identical on the inside.  I'm not a fan of the new air vents with a more restricted airflow and directional range, but other than that they're fine.  I haven't flown on Alaska as of yet but I plan to get around to it eventually.


I'd rather be a glass half empty than a glass half fool.


#5 Texan Eagle

Texan Eagle

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,644 posts

Posted 21 October 2016 - 11:31 AM

More than the model, it depends on the airline how well they want to fit the interiors.

 

I have been on Copa 737-800 that had the new Boeing Sky interiors, mood lighting, 10" tablets at every seat, and great in-flight service. On the other end, I have also flown on brand new looking 737-900s that are extremely barebones except that it has the "new plane" smell and look to it. 



#6 railiner

railiner

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,638 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queens, NY
  • Interests:All public transportation....land, sea, and air

Posted 23 October 2016 - 08:27 AM

I love it that the basic look of the latest 737, the nose and area of the cockpit windows design, has endured for 62 years(!)

The Boeing 367-80 (the 707 prototype), was first completed in 1954..... :)


metroblue?

okay on the blue!

#7 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 23 October 2016 - 09:05 AM

While similar to the Dash-80, the 707 was actually quite different. Its fuse was wider than the Dash-80. It is the 707 shape that has been retained in the 737 including the fuselage width and cross section shape.

#8 railiner

railiner

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,638 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queens, NY
  • Interests:All public transportation....land, sea, and air

Posted 23 October 2016 - 10:06 AM

True, but that is not apparent when just looking at a profile view....the shape of the cockpit side windows has not changed in all that time....the former Douglas narrow bodies had a similar design,..


metroblue?

okay on the blue!

#9 Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,495 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SAS
  • Interests:Mechanized Travel

Posted 23 October 2016 - 09:09 PM

More than the model, it depends on the airline how well they want to fit the interiors.


I'd agree that the airline remains the primary factor for First and Business Class.  However, in the case of coach I'd say that the make, model, and era tends to have a higher overall impact on the coach cabin hard product than the airline.  For instance, from the mid-1990's through the mid-2000's the 777 provided the best coach product regardless of airline.  They had the best entertainment with standard PTV's, live maps for the air show, power plugs for personal electronics, and best-in-class seat width and pitch. 
 
Today the the 777 represents a poor cabin experience with extremely noisy engines, uncomfortably tight clearances, ugly florescent lighting, and outdated seat designs.  These days the B787 and A380 offer the best coach product in my experience.  Quieter engines, smoother ride, softer lighting, larger windows, more advanced AVOD, and improved seats that make the most of the limited pitch.  Flying coach after the deployment of PTV, live maps, and power plugs, but before the seat pitch crunch is likely to have been the best overall coach flying experience that has ever been or will ever be.

Edited by Devil's Advocate, 23 October 2016 - 11:22 PM.

I'd rather be a glass half empty than a glass half fool.


#10 Texan Eagle

Texan Eagle

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,644 posts

Posted 23 October 2016 - 10:32 PM

uncomfortably tight clearances, ugly florescent lighting, and outdated seat designs.  

 

Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong. 

 

Like I said, you are probably flying on the wrong kind of airlines. The Asian and Middle Eastern airlines that are getting brand new 777s fit those with some excellent hard and soft product even today in 2016.

 

Just in the last two years, I have flown on 777-300ER (exact same aircraft) of Singapore Airlines, Turkish Airlines, Air China, Emirates and Air India and the experience varied from good to excellent.

 

Tight clearance happens if the airline does 3-4-3 on a 777. Turkish, Singapore, Air China and Air India were all 3-3-3 which makes the 777 cabin very spacious

 

Ugly fluorescent lighting has stayed away from me. All 5 airlines did mood lighting on their longhaul 777 flights mimicking time of the day

 

Outdated seat design- I don't know what you mean by that but most of these airlines are using the exact same seats on their 777s and 787s.



#11 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 24 October 2016 - 08:16 AM

Some airlines have even retrofitted 777-200ERs with the wide body Sky interior which includes LED lighting. What is in the interior depends a lot on the specific airline. Almost any airliner today can be fitted with the modern interior if the airline chooses to do so. Typically aircraft that are due to be retired within the next few years are not thus upgraded, but those that are scheduled to stay on for five or more years do go through an interior refurbishment, unless the airline in question is in terrible financial shape.

 

BTW, the Lufthansa 747-8s have an interior that is more or less equivalent in its ambiance to the Airbus 380 interior. I have flown in both on two legs of the same trip so had an opportunity to experience them almost side by side.


Edited by jis, 24 October 2016 - 10:17 AM.


#12 B757Guy

B757Guy

    Train Attendant

  • Training
  • Pip
  • 28 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 October 2016 - 09:20 AM

I've deadheaded on 739 a number of times, it's a great aircraft.


I'm an airline pilot with a major US based carrier, and avid lover of trains since the very early days of Amtrak. I fondly recall GG1's zipping along the NEC, and sleeping in a slumbercoach on the Montrealer as a kid. I miss the old heritage cars, the GG1 and the original Budd Metroliners. The new equipment today simply doesn't have the same personality and elegance...


#13 Palmetto

Palmetto

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,272 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Across the Rio Grande from Matamoros, MX

Posted 24 October 2016 - 10:44 AM

Some of American's 737s don't even have seat-back entertainment in First Class.  Way out of date.



#14 Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,495 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SAS
  • Interests:Mechanized Travel

Posted 24 October 2016 - 10:54 AM

Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong.  Like I said, you are probably flying on the wrong kind of airlines. The Asian and Middle Eastern airlines that are getting brand new 777s fit those with some excellent hard and soft product even today in 2016.  Just in the last two years, I have flown on 777-300ER (exact same aircraft) of Singapore Airlines, Turkish Airlines, Air China, Emirates and Air India and the experience varied from good to excellent.


I've flown on 777's with American Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Japan Airlines, Korean Air, Singapore Airlines, Thai Airways, and United Airlines.  Although the details and specifics varied (200/300/ER/LR/TPAC/TATL/REG) the overall hard product experience in coach has become surprisingly similar among all of them.  The only combination of airline, aircraft, and cabin we both seem to have flown is on the 773 with SQ, which has a quality hard product in First/Business Class but an average coach cabin on the 773. I've been warned that AI and CA have a subpar soft product, use poorly managed/maintained airports, and carry unusually annoying/disruptive passengers.  TK comes with a disqualifying 31" seat pitch in Y and although EK sounds interesting flying on the ME3 comes with a moral and ethical dilemma.


Tight clearance happens if the airline does 3-4-3 on a 777. Turkish, Singapore, Air China and Air India were all 3-3-3 which makes the 777 cabin very spacious Ugly fluorescent lighting has stayed away from me. All 5 airlines did mood lighting on their longhaul 777 flights mimicking time of the day Outdated seat design- I don't know what you mean by that but most of these airlines are using the exact same seats on their 777s and 787s.


For me the primary issue with tight clearances comes from the perpetually vanishing seat pitch rather than the width. AI and TK feature a knee-crushing 31" pitch which makes them especially unattractive to taller folks like me. Only the 787 seems to be workable at that pitch, at least in my experience. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about the lights. Maybe you're referring to domestic/regional travels? In my experience on intercontinental flights the lighting/activity on board rarely seems to have any logical connection to the time at the origin, destination, or current location. On nearly every TPAC/TATL flight I've ever flown the lights were turned on to wake everyone up for some arbitrary feeding time and then shut off to put everyone back on sleep/movie time again. The main difference with newer aircraft is that the transition period is smoother with warmer/cooler hues applied in smaller discreet increments, but it still doesn't come close to a normal day/night experience.


Typically aircraft that are due to be retired within the next few years are not thus upgraded, but those that are scheduled to stay on for five or more years do go through an interior refurbishment, unless the airline in question is in terrible financial shape. BTW, the Lufthansa 747-8s have an interior that is more or less equivalent in its ambiance to the Airbus 380 interior. I have flown in both on two legs of the same trip so had an opportunity to experience them almost side by side.


It would probably be faster and easier to name the airlines not in some sort of debilitating financial trouble rather the other way around. Although the 748's are an interesting cross-era curiosity they are unlikely to show up in most flight searches due to their extremely limited deliveries. Meanwhile the 777 has almost completely replaced the role of passenger 747's and is flown by almost every major international airline of record. Right now the 787 and 380 can still provide a substantially improved coach experience regardless of airline, at least in my experience, but in due course they too will fall victim to the perpetually shrinking coach cabin seat pitch. At that time the specific aircraft involved will likely cease to matter to me and the Premium Economy product will become the primary/only factor worth worrying about.

I'd rather be a glass half empty than a glass half fool.


#15 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 24 October 2016 - 11:41 AM

Curiously, none of the American airlines are in dire financial straits at present. That could of course change again.

 

Among the wide bodies I think the following types are of relevance going forward from now

 

Boeing: 777-300 and then 777NG, 787, very limited 747-8i

Airbus: 330NG, 350, 380 to some extent depending on how it does in the market going forward.

 

As you say, Coach seats will be Coach seats. We will never go back to Coach seats of the mid 20th century both in terms of physical seat quality and service quality. The advent of wide bodies completely bollixed that one up. However, there is nothing that prevents similar coach seats being provided in the refurbished 777s and Airbus 330/340. Whether an airline will bother with that or spend all their effort in bringing the newer aircraft down to the least common denominator is something that we will have to see. There is very little financial incentive to provide better Coach seats anywhere. The service quality competition for Coach will be in Premium Coach, not in Steerage Coach.



#16 Texan Eagle

Texan Eagle

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,644 posts

Posted 24 October 2016 - 11:42 AM

I've been warned that AI and CA have a subpar soft product, use poorly managed/maintained airports, and carry unusually annoying/disruptive passengers.

 
LOL thanks for the good laugh on a Monday morning. I would invite you to visit the new/updated airports at Delhi, Mumbai or Beijing (hubs for AI and CA). They blow any US airports out of the water by miles!
 
Annoying disruptive passengers come in all shapes and forms. I have had my fair share on "western" airlines too.
 

TK comes with a disqualifying 31" seat pitch in Y


31-32" depending on rows, which is pretty much industry standard these days whether you are on a 777, 787 or a 737. Where are you finding airlines that do not disqualify by your criteria? Very few today give 34" that's the maximum.
 
 

EK sounds interesting flying on the ME3 comes with a moral and ethical dilemma.

 
Too bad. I have no such dilemma flying on an independently run, audited, profit-making airline that some keep believing is a puppet of "those bad countries"
 

For me the primary issue with tight clearances comes from the perpetually vanishing seat pitch rather than the width. AI and TK feature a knee-crushing 31" pitch which makes them especially unattractive to taller folks like me. Only the 787 seems to be workable at that pitch, at least in my experience.

 
Pitch is pitch on any plane. How does 31" pitch on 777 become disqualifying for you, but the same on 787 is fine? I am 5'10" and have not found any difference between a 777 and 787 pitch.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about the lights. Maybe you're referring to domestic/regional travels? In my experience on intercontinental flights the lighting/activity on board rarely seems to have any logical connection to the time at the origin, destination, or current location. On nearly every TPAC/TATL flight I've ever flown the lights were turned on to wake everyone up for some arbitrary feeding time and then shut off to put everyone back on sleep/movie time again. The main difference with newer aircraft is that the transition period is smoother with warmer/cooler hues applied in smaller discreet increments, but it still doesn't come close to a normal day/night experience.


Yes that is what I mean by mood lighting, and all the airlines I listed do that on long international flights. They will slowly illuminate the cabin when it is time for meal service, and once done, tone it down to simulate "night" irrespective of actual time of day outside.



#17 Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,495 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SAS
  • Interests:Mechanized Travel

Posted 24 October 2016 - 04:32 PM

LOL thanks for the good laugh on a Monday morning. I would invite you to visit the new/updated airports at Delhi, Mumbai or Beijing (hubs for AI and CA). They blow any US airports out of the water by miles! Annoying disruptive passengers come in all shapes and forms. I have had my fair share on "western" airlines too.


Claiming that Indian airports are much better than US airports isn't really saying much. Anyone who travels regularly already knows US airports suck and it's not like I can avoid US airports regardless of where I'm traveling. The real test would be how BOM/DEL/PEK competes with the likes of HKG/SIN/ICN. I do not dispute that US airlines have unruly passengers. Over time I have come to realize that passengers from countries such as the United States, Russia, and China are often uniquely loud and annoying people compared to many others. That being said, North American and Western European passengers are generally going to be annoying/disruptive in a manner I can anticipate/resolve/ignore due to familiarity and verbal/visual communication. This is unlikely to be the case on Russian/Chinese/Indian airlines.

 

31-32" depending on rows, which is pretty much industry standard these days whether you are on a 777, 787 or a 737. Where are you finding airlines that do not disqualify by your criteria? Very few today give 34" that's the maximum. Pitch is pitch on any plane. How does 31" pitch on 777 become disqualifying for you, but the same on 787 is fine? I am 5'10" and have not found any difference between a 777 and 787 pitch.


As a 5'10" passenger your concept of pitch is likely to be rather different from that of a substantially taller passenger such as myself. Pitch is a fundamentally imprecise term that is only indirectly related to practical area and usable legroom. Factors such as seat thickness, cushion/fabric flexibility, and frame shape play an equally important role. Not to mention the size/location of AVOD/AC/DC equipment boxes under the row in front of you. In my experience 31" on a 777 is universally uncomfortable (and potentially unhealthy) for someone of my height while 31" pitch on a 787 is perfectly adequate. A380's also have size/design benefits that allow me to book such an aircraft in coach without fear of having my knees crushed. Over a long enough time line most/all intercontinental airlines will eventually shove B787 and A380 seats so close together than those aircraft will cease to benefit me where it matters most. At that time I will be forced to book into Premium Economy regardless of aircraft/airline/airport.

 

 

EK sounds interesting flying on the ME3 comes with a moral and ethical dilemma.


Too bad. I have no such dilemma flying on an independently run, audited, profit-making airline that some keep believing is a puppet of "those bad countries"

 


Rather than shove some silly straw man in my mouth you could have simply asked me what my concerns were or left it alone. Just because I have a problem with spending my own personal money on the ME3 doesn't mean I'm a stooge for AA or a shill for DL.


Edited by Devil's Advocate, 25 October 2016 - 03:36 AM.

I'd rather be a glass half empty than a glass half fool.


#18 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,836 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 24 October 2016 - 04:47 PM

I am still wondering whether you are over generalizing from your experience about what 777 with 31" pitch feels like. There is absolutely nothing that prevents an airline from installing the same seat in a 777 as in a 787, and indeed some do. Since you do use the phrase "In my experience" I guess that observation applies to those planes that you have been on, and is hard to generalize from?



#19 Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,495 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SAS
  • Interests:Mechanized Travel

Posted 25 October 2016 - 03:39 AM

I am still wondering whether you are over generalizing from your experience about what 777 with 31" pitch feels like. There is absolutely nothing that prevents an airline from installing the same seat in a 777 as in a 787, and indeed some do. Since you do use the phrase "In my experience" I guess that observation applies to those planes that you have been on, and is hard to generalize from?

 

Is it a generalization? Absolutely. Is it an overgeneralization? Depends on your perspective I suppose.

I don't travel for business, at least not in the usual sense, so I can only fly so many aircraft on so many airlines. I have to take my options seriously and try to choose wisely. If you're a tall man then taking advice from a significantly shorter person about the current state of coach legroom could become an extremely uncomfortable or even potentially debilitating mistake. Maybe they're correct in their estimation, but if they're wrong your knees and legs could be suffering anywhere from a few hours to a few days or more.

Telling me "pitch is pitch" indicates a failure to fully comprehend the problem and how it relates to the flawed and indirect method we use to measure it. I'm not sure why this would be important but if someone really wants me to change my mind I suppose they could find a person who is about a half foot taller than Texas Eagle and photograph them sitting down with the seat in front of them fully reclined. I'm not saying anyone would or should do that; just that it would be more persuasive and compelling than what has been said so far.


I'd rather be a glass half empty than a glass half fool.


#20 Palmetto

Palmetto

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,272 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Across the Rio Grande from Matamoros, MX

Posted 25 October 2016 - 06:55 AM

seatguru.com has pretty complete info on pitch, airline by airline, for each airline's aircraft type.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users