Directv
Mar 9, 2010 | 5:11 pm
#16
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
Mar 9, 2010 | 6:38 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: DL Diamond, B6 Mosaic, AS MPV Gold, UA Gold MM, Marriott Plat, SPG Plat, Nat'l Exec Elite
Posts: 16,679
Mar 10, 2010 | 10:23 am
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 10,111
My internet connection is back up to speed, so I looked up performance data from Boeing for the 737-900(winglets) for you.
Some numbers:
EWR-LAS: 1935nm
737-900 MGTOW: 174,200lb
EWR airport elevation: 18ft (essentially sea level)
LAS airport elevation: 2181ft
FAA Standard Day: 15 degrees C (59F)
FAA Standard Day +15C: 30 degrees C (86F)
EWR longest runway: 11000ft
LAS longest runway: 14500ft
Calculation for EWR-LAS using 737-900 with winglets:
135k/lb payload
39k/lb fuel
Standard day (59F), dry runway conditions, sea level
Range: 2400nm
Takeoff run, flaps 25: 7200ft
Calculation for LAS-EWR using 737-900 with winglets:
135k/lb payload
39k/lb fuel
Standard day +15C (86F), dry runway conditions, 2000ft elevation
Range: 2400nm
Takeoff run, flaps 15: 9500ft
DISCLAIMER: these figures are incredibly simplistic, do not take into account a number of operational factors, including weather, airspace restrictions, route of travel, additional reserves, taxi time, company operating restrictions, plus other things. Also, I am not a pilot.
However, it should demonstrate that the 737-900 is more than able to operate the EWR-LAS sector, rebutting your assertion that the airplane is "absolutely" incapable of the route according to your exhaustive airliners.net research.
CO is likely to be operating 737-900ERs on this route, however, because the -900ER can haul about 10,000 more pounds than the standard -900 over the same stage length. This translates into greater cargo and pax capacity.