Howdy howdy,Looking into getting into some American operations here, planning a jaunt to Anchorage from Seattle in the -900...as I've never flown that variant yet...he he.Does anyone have any dirt on what equipment/options Alaska operates on thier NG's? Particulary the -900?Any tips for the -900? To me it look's like i'll be flying a underpowered 757 with no landing gear ;)

Howdy howdy,Looking into getting into some American operations here, planning a jaunt to Anchorage from Seattle in the -900...as I've never flown that variant yet...he he.Does anyone have any dirt on what equipment/options Alaska operates on thier NG's? Particulary the -900?Any tips for the -900? To me it look's like i'll be flying a underpowered 757 with no landing gear ;)

The -900 and the -800 aren't equipped that much different. Some have a middle lavatory. The FAs like that. Some have older comms. Some guys don't like the -900 because it's a pig, but I don't notice/care. 26K engines.

He he, i'm not too concerned with the Lav's...more what options it's got up front in the pointy end ;)The closest I can get is via an Airliners.net pic taken from 2007.

He he, i'm not too concerned with the Lav's...more what options it's got up front in the pointy end ;)The closest I can get is via an Airliners.net pic taken from 2007.

What options are you interested in? Gimme a tail number and I can look see what it has.

Just interested in the stuff I can configure within the PMDG framework.No particular tail number - tell ya what, could you look up the one of the 'older' -900's...I imagine they'd all be equipped with the Collins nowadays but are they ETOPS etc etc.

315 and up has Collins. Early -900s have no winglets. None are ETOPS. 315 318 and 323 do not have eyebrow windows. No automated callouts except for minimums. No ISDF. No NavTech clocks. ACARS printer by the FO's knee. No. Concentric rings on the ND. Compact engine display and only hydr on lower DU. No PTT on glare shield. Cheap radar. . . . ALT DEST info in the FMC. What else?The -800 is Alaska's baby. The -900 is the stepchild.

Many thanks man.Just one Q. No PTT on glareshield...no Push to Talk on glare shield? Not sure what you mean there.Your info is exactly the kind of stuff this forum's about. Cheers man.

Edited January 9, 201214 yr by Houghton11

No PTT on glareshield...no Push to Talk on glare shield? Not sure what you mean there.

There's a cut out on the outer ends of the glareshield. Some companies spend the big bucks to put a PTT there. It's a nice option, actually. If ATC gives you a freq change or something, you usually need your inboard hand to do it. If the other guy is handflying, it's annoying to him if you grab the yoke to transmit there, so you have to use the PTT on the audio panel. I think it's a standard option on the 757/767 but it's uncommon on the 737 - they wouldn't want to mess up their great 1960's jet with ergonomics.

Ahh okay.Slick.

im sure Alaska airlines will be pleased when they get the 900er.. will i hope anyways, i like the 900 it has more room plus its the heaviest 737

im sure Alaska airlines will be pleased when they get the 900er.. will i hope anyways, i like the 900 it has more room plus its the heaviest 737

One of the higher-ups said Alaska isn't getting the extra fuel tanks on the 900ER. The joke is that the ER stands for Extra Row.

i really doubt that, i read in boeing media, that alaska airlines is goin to use the plane on high capicity that are long, like from seattle to flordia or anchorage to flordia or to the east cost with a full pay load, and i heard 3 of them will be etops

i really doubt that, i read in boeing media, that alaska airlines is goin to use the plane on high capicity that are long, like from seattle to flordia or anchorage to flordia or to the east cost with a full pay load, and i heard 3 of them will be etops

Well, I didn't understand it either, but the Chief Mucketymuck said that the improvement in aerodynamics gave the plane enough improvement that, for our routes, the extra tanks weren't worth the expense.Don't shoot the messenger.http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/alaska-to-deploy-737-900ers-within-existing-network-352317/

Alaska Airlines plans to deploy its new fleet of Boeing 737-900ERs on dense routes within the carrier's existing network.

Alaska VP planning Andrew Harrison told analysts the carrier is not looking at using its -900ERs to extend its network south of Mexico or open any new longer-haul markets. "We are very focused in incorporating [the 737-900ERs] into our current network" and in particular dense markets "which could use some extra seats," Harrison says.

i really doubt that, i read in boeing media, that alaska airlines is goin to use the plane on high capicity that are long, like from seattle to flordia or anchorage to flordia or to the east cost with a full pay load, and i heard 3 of them will be etops

Can you find that article?

why would be a ER model if it didnt have the extra tanks in it? Alaska isnt happy with the normal 900 model cause it cant go on a full pay load with a full load of fuel on full range.. heres the article by the way theres nothing diffrent aerodyamic from the 800s to 900s to the ER Model, the ER model has 2 extra emercengy doors, a flat pressure bulkhead dome, and extra fuel tanks and the new sky interior?So why does this airplane make sense for Alaska? Well, let’s look at an example in Boeing’s press release – Seattle to Orlando. Right now, it appears that the largest aircraft Alaska can toss on the route is a 737-800, and the airline operates two flights per days with that aircraft type. Let’s say Alaska wants to increase supply because demand is strong. Well, that means a third flight needs to be operated with a 737-700 or 737-800, and that comes along additional costs like additional flight crew. Those costs could make an increase in capacity uneconomical. But, if an 737-800 is an upgraded to a 737-900ER, then maybe the additional capacity makes sense, especially as the 737-900ER should have lower unit costs than the 737-800 (partially driven by less fuel consumption per seat).The 737-900ER should also offer more attractive costs than Alaska’s existing 737-900 fleet. One way I like to look at it is weight. The 737-900ER’s operating empty weight reported by Boeing (based on a base two-class configuration) is very slightly (less than 100 pounds) lower than that of the original version, and plus it can seat more passengers. So one way to look at is that there is less empty weight per passenger on the -900ER. Fuel burn per seat is also lower on the -900ER than it is on the base version.Meanwhile, other fixed costs are better spread out thanks to the 737-900ER when compared with a 737-900 or 737-800. For example, two pilots are still required, and the seating configurations of the 737-800, 737-900, and 737-900ER all require four flight attendants as per FAA regulations. Assuming that Alaksa staffs all of the aircraft types with the same number of FAs, that means labor cost is more effectively distributed among passengers.Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see how Alaska distributes these. I wouldn’t be shocked if some of them ended up at the high-yield, slot-controlled DCA. Alaska uses slots exempt from the airport’s perimeter rule to serve Los Angeles and Seattle. I was also wondering if Alaska would have the 737-900ERs equipped for ETOPS operations so they could fly to Hawaii. An airline spokeswoman that the -900ER “could be used in certain Hawaii markets, but we have not yet made a decision to order the aircraft ETOPS equipped.”

why would be a ER model if it didnt have the extra tanks in it?

That's why there's a a joke about it. ER=Extra Row of seats.The 900ER can be bought with zero, one, or two aux tanks. Boeing isn't making the -900 anymore (I'd guess marketing decided that one), so if you want a "big" 737, you get the -900ER. Alaska probably won't get the two-position tail-skid, either. Dunno yet. I'm pretty sure the exec said there was some aerodynamic tweaks, as well.