Originally Posted by
EWR764
I beg to differ,
mrtruman. The 737-900 absolutely has the legs for EWR-LAS, it's the return that becomes problematic with the hot-and-high nature of LAS. When CO has operated the 737-900 between Newark and Las Vegas, it would usually be scheduled late in the day when temperatures are lower.
EWR-LAS is only 1935nm, so it falls within the 737-900's envelope, but could certainly be weight-restricted when conditions require. With 30 -900ERs now in the fleet, I agree with you, there is no need for CO to schedule the less-capable baseline -900 models on longer hauls. However, it is technically possible, and has happened on numerous occasions.
I'll take the time to look at the 737-900 performance data when I can, but my internet is being painfully slow at the moment, and a download of that size would probably take me over an hour.
While I disagree for many reasons including the ewr-las leg goes against the jet stream and is a much longer flight. The fact remains that the op will have a direct tv flight because co does not fly the base 739 to las from ewr.
I have flown a a320 jfk-las many times too. I have also had to stop many time in phx along the way for fuel.
From boeings website:
"The 737-900ER can carry 26 more passengers or fly about 500 nautical miles farther than the 737-900. Aerodynamic and structural design changes such as an additional pair of exit doors, a flat rear pressure bulkhead allow more room for up to 215 passengers. Other changes such as a two-position tailskid, wing strengthening changes, enhancements to the leading and trailing edge flap systems, and optional Blended Winglets and auxiliary fuel tanks increase the range of the 737-900ER to 3,200 nautical miles (5,925 km).
The longer range of the 737-900ER will connect distant city pairs across continents (e.g., Seattle to Orlando, or San Francisco to Boston) in a generous two-class configuration. "