ASA_1

With the latest announcement of additional orders for the MAX intended to replace the a320s, Alaska also booked options for dozens more MAXs. In Alaska’s most recent quarterly update they announced they’ll be retiring 1 737-800.

Do we think Alaska will update the interiors for the -800s (similar to the -700s?) with new seats, mood lighting, bulkhead laminates, carpet, etc? Are the classic -900s going to be updated?

the new interior on the a321s and updated a320s feels fresh (let’s not use this as a forum discuss seat comfort). The -800s and -900s are now 2 generations behind in terms of Alaska interior (-900ER interior 1 generation behind).

Everytime I step onboard the -800/-900 fleet, I always get that “wow, this looks (and sometimes smells) dated” first impression. I just wonder why Alaska has neglected to make any investments in this sizeable sub fleet, unless they plan to retire more in the next few years (Not announced).

Eastbay1K

I would expect that even if AS has unannounced plans for these birds, unless there are some contractual penalties for not proceeding, this would be pretty low on the "we're bleeding money, what should we fix" priority list.

ASA_1

for the sake of the discussion, let’s fast forward 12-18 months. I agree, any cosmetic upgrade would only be considered amidst profitability.

SNAnghbr

I suspect the 12 nonER-900s will be leaving as soon as sufficient MAXS are on property. According to the weebly site 75% of the fleet is already in long term storage.

sltlyamusd

Not sure if the new interior blue and grey seats on the A320/321 are interchangeable between Boeing and Airbus (the Airbus has a wider cabin, but not sure if AS opted to install wider seats)? If the seats are identical, as the A320s are phased out of the fleet, AS could install those still relatively new seats on older 737-800/900s in need of a cabin refresh. They previously did something similar with the 737-400s, putting the old 737-800 seats on those planes until the 734s were finally retired.

northwesterner

The Airubs seats are for an Airbus width plane. They're not seats for a Boeing placed in a wider plane.

seacarl

Unless they are less fuel-efficient, why would AS retire them? There are many routes where they have sufficient range. I would expect to see them on routes like SEA-DEN, SEA-LAS, SEA-SAN for as long as they are efficient

SNAnghbr

The non ERs are some of the oldest frames,16 to 20 years old and don't have the same legs as the ERs. If AS is trying to simplify the scheduling getting rid of the small sub fleet would help streamline things.

seacarl

I know that the non-ER frames don't have the same range. In fact that was why AS stopped buying the -900 and focused on the -800 until Boeing came out with the 900ER. But AS operates a whole lot of routes which are well within the range of the -900. They aren't giving up pilot commonality or maintenance commonality to have two range variants. Now if the maintenance costs start to increase or the fuel efficiency is worse, I can understand. But otherwise I would expect them to keep flying the '900s for quite a while longer, especially if they are already paid for

Eastbay1K

Not just the range, but the capacity. Lest we forget how impacted SEA was not that long ago. LAX was no picnic, either. Taking a frequency per day out of certain routes while keeping available seating generally the same has a lot of operational benefits. Just chopping one SEA/ANC, one SEA/LA area, one SEA/Bay Area flight per day should save substantial $ over the course of a year.

eponymous_coward

They're less fuel efficient than the 738's (let alone 739ERs)- identical tank, you're trading range for capacity (and more weight in the frame since it's a 738 stretch). The 900 also is a tiny type; AS has about 23% off ALL the 739s (non-ER) ever produced (12 out of 52), and all of them are 15 years old or older, having only been produced from 2001-2005 (read: some expensive D checks probably coming up). Seems pretty logical that you'd dump them if you're getting MAX planes that can outright replace them on capacity.

Probably a great plane to send off to a cargo operator or something? Maybe AS decides to add 739s to the 73G cargo fleet?

jsguyrus

As I recall, a couple of the 900's (non-ER) were the original Boeing test aircraft and as such have some unique wing modifications. You can easily spot them as the wing structure was not able to support winglets.

Eastbay1K

They must not have been able to support the mid-cabin lav, either, causing their removal. That was the best "creature comfort" on the early -900 deliveries. Can you imagine the thousands of "you need to wait at Row 6" commands, or "Why am I subjected to a constant flow of Y pax leaning on my armrest or worse, headrest, on their way to the F lav" (or just pick the issue) that could have been obviated?

jsguyrus

I assume they removed the mid cabin lavs to make them compatible with the 900ER's in the event of swaps. Personally I would prefer mid cabin lavs on all of them.

seacarl

UA has the mid cabin lavs on all their 900 aircraft - that sure makes F a better experience. They also have 20 F seats.