Originally Posted by
mtofell
That's what I remember reading as well. I'm sure things are all done with an abundance of caution built in. As in, NOT running things the way a teenager plans for gas stops on a road trip.... rolling into the station on fumes
On that flight, the most restrictive factor may be the depressurization divert. You have to have enough to to lose pressurization at the equal-time-point, descend to 10,000', then make it to your divert alternate. Takes a lot of fuel to fly that long at 10,000'.
I swear I could just feel the plane struggle to get off the ground more than usual
It doesn't struggle, it just has to accelerate to a higher airspeed before lifting off so it takes longer.
Originally Posted by
YVR Cockroach
Must be the old engine technology. The -900s and MAX9 both carry 178 pax in total. Th difference is the MAX9 has a maximum range of 3,250 n.m. vs 2,720 n.m. for the -900ER
The Leap-1B engines in the MAX burn significantly less fuel than the CFM engines in the 737 NGs. So much less, that the flight planning looks wrong when you're used to flying the NGs. Fuel tank capacity is (almost) identical in all models.