# New 737-900



## norfolkwesternhenry

has anybody else flown on the new 737-900? The Alaska air 737-900s have decent seats, and I can actually stand up! There is an outlet at each seat, and bathrooms that are about 5x3x7 feet, whuch means I can stand up!


----------



## bmjhagen9426

I may have traveled on a United Airlines Boeing 737-900 on my Chicago trip last winter (or was it a 737-800?), but they did not have all the new amenties that you mentioned.


----------



## jis

I have flown on 737-900 and I believe 737-900ER too, dozens of times. United. And yes they were all Sky interior with the mentioned amenities.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

The Boeing 737 is the most common commercial aircraft in the world. Based on my memories the 200 was the last version with really loud engines, the 300 was the first version with "squished" inlets, the 500 was rather rare and mainly used as a high frequency regional shuttle, the 700 was the first variant I flew with winglets, and 800 was the first 737 to have a fuselage long enough to create an attractive profile. For me the 800 and 900 series seem almost identical on the inside. I'm not a fan of the new air vents with a more restricted airflow and directional range, but other than that they're fine. I haven't flown on Alaska as of yet but I plan to get around to it eventually.


----------



## Texan Eagle

More than the model, it depends on the airline how well they want to fit the interiors.

I have been on Copa 737-800 that had the new Boeing Sky interiors, mood lighting, 10" tablets at every seat, and great in-flight service. On the other end, I have also flown on brand new looking 737-900s that are extremely barebones except that it has the "new plane" smell and look to it.


----------



## railiner

I love it that the basic look of the latest 737, the nose and area of the cockpit windows design, has endured for 62 years(!)

The Boeing 367-80 (the 707 prototype), was first completed in 1954.....


----------



## jis

While similar to the Dash-80, the 707 was actually quite different. Its fuse was wider than the Dash-80. It is the 707 shape that has been retained in the 737 including the fuselage width and cross section shape.


----------



## railiner

True, but that is not apparent when just looking at a profile view....the shape of the cockpit side windows has not changed in all that time....the former Douglas narrow bodies had a similar design,..


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Texan Eagle said:


> More than the model, it depends on the airline how well they want to fit the interiors.


I'd agree that the airline remains the primary factor for First and Business Class. However, in the case of coach I'd say that the make, model, and *era* tends to have a higher overall impact on the coach cabin hard product than the airline. For instance, from the mid-1990's through the mid-2000's the 777 provided the best coach product regardless of airline. They had the best entertainment with standard PTV's, live maps for the air show, power plugs for personal electronics, and best-in-class seat width and pitch.

Today the the 777 represents a poor cabin experience with extremely noisy engines, uncomfortably tight clearances, ugly florescent lighting, and outdated seat designs. These days the B787 and A380 offer the best coach product in my experience. Quieter engines, smoother ride, softer lighting, larger windows, more advanced AVOD, and improved seats that make the most of the limited pitch. Flying coach _*after*_ the deployment of PTV, live maps, and power plugs, but _*before*_ the seat pitch crunch is likely to have been the best overall coach flying experience that has ever been or will ever be.


----------



## Texan Eagle

Devil's Advocate said:


> uncomfortably tight clearances, ugly florescent lighting, and outdated seat designs.


Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong.

Like I said, you are probably flying on the wrong kind of airlines. The Asian and Middle Eastern airlines that are getting brand new 777s fit those with some excellent hard and soft product even today in 2016.

Just in the last two years, I have flown on 777-300ER (exact same aircraft) of Singapore Airlines, Turkish Airlines, Air China, Emirates and Air India and the experience varied from good to excellent.

Tight clearance happens if the airline does 3-4-3 on a 777. Turkish, Singapore, Air China and Air India were all 3-3-3 which makes the 777 cabin very spacious

Ugly fluorescent lighting has stayed away from me. All 5 airlines did mood lighting on their longhaul 777 flights mimicking time of the day

Outdated seat design- I don't know what you mean by that but most of these airlines are using the exact same seats on their 777s and 787s.


----------



## jis

Some airlines have even retrofitted 777-200ERs with the wide body Sky interior which includes LED lighting. What is in the interior depends a lot on the specific airline. Almost any airliner today can be fitted with the modern interior if the airline chooses to do so. Typically aircraft that are due to be retired within the next few years are not thus upgraded, but those that are scheduled to stay on for five or more years do go through an interior refurbishment, unless the airline in question is in terrible financial shape.

BTW, the Lufthansa 747-8s have an interior that is more or less equivalent in its ambiance to the Airbus 380 interior. I have flown in both on two legs of the same trip so had an opportunity to experience them almost side by side.


----------



## B757Guy

I've deadheaded on 739 a number of times, it's a great aircraft.


----------



## Palmetto

Some of American's 737s don't even have seat-back entertainment in First Class. Way out of date.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Texan Eagle said:


> Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong. Like I said, you are probably flying on the wrong kind of airlines. The Asian and Middle Eastern airlines that are getting brand new 777s fit those with some excellent hard and soft product even today in 2016. Just in the last two years, I have flown on 777-300ER (exact same aircraft) of Singapore Airlines, Turkish Airlines, Air China, Emirates and Air India and the experience varied from good to excellent.


I've flown on 777's with American Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Japan Airlines, Korean Air, Singapore Airlines, Thai Airways, and United Airlines. Although the details and specifics varied (200/300/ER/LR/TPAC/TATL/REG) the overall hard product experience in coach has become surprisingly similar among all of them. The only combination of airline, aircraft, and cabin we both seem to have flown is on the 773 with SQ, which has a quality hard product in First/Business Class but an average coach cabin on the 773. I've been warned that AI and CA have a subpar soft product, use poorly managed/maintained airports, and carry unusually annoying/disruptive passengers. TK comes with a disqualifying 31" seat pitch in Y and although EK sounds interesting flying on the ME3 comes with a moral and ethical dilemma.



Texan Eagle said:


> Tight clearance happens if the airline does 3-4-3 on a 777. Turkish, Singapore, Air China and Air India were all 3-3-3 which makes the 777 cabin very spacious Ugly fluorescent lighting has stayed away from me. All 5 airlines did mood lighting on their longhaul 777 flights mimicking time of the day Outdated seat design- I don't know what you mean by that but most of these airlines are using the exact same seats on their 777s and 787s.


For me the primary issue with tight clearances comes from the perpetually vanishing seat pitch rather than the width. AI and TK feature a knee-crushing 31" pitch which makes them especially unattractive to taller folks like me. Only the 787 seems to be workable at that pitch, at least in my experience. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about the lights. Maybe you're referring to domestic/regional travels? In my experience on intercontinental flights the lighting/activity on board rarely seems to have any logical connection to the time at the origin, destination, or current location. On nearly every TPAC/TATL flight I've ever flown the lights were turned on to wake everyone up for some arbitrary feeding time and then shut off to put everyone back on sleep/movie time again. The main difference with newer aircraft is that the transition period is smoother with warmer/cooler hues applied in smaller discreet increments, but it still doesn't come close to a normal day/night experience.



jis said:


> Typically aircraft that are due to be retired within the next few years are not thus upgraded, but those that are scheduled to stay on for five or more years do go through an interior refurbishment, unless the airline in question is in terrible financial shape. BTW, the Lufthansa 747-8s have an interior that is more or less equivalent in its ambiance to the Airbus 380 interior. I have flown in both on two legs of the same trip so had an opportunity to experience them almost side by side.


It would probably be faster and easier to name the airlines _*not*_ in some sort of debilitating financial trouble rather the other way around. Although the 748's are an interesting cross-era curiosity they are unlikely to show up in most flight searches due to their extremely limited deliveries. Meanwhile the 777 has almost completely replaced the role of passenger 747's and is flown by almost every major international airline of record. Right now the 787 and 380 can still provide a substantially improved coach experience regardless of airline, at least in my experience, but in due course they too will fall victim to the perpetually shrinking coach cabin seat pitch. At that time the specific aircraft involved will likely cease to matter to me and the Premium Economy product will become the primary/only factor worth worrying about.


----------



## jis

Curiously, none of the American airlines are in dire financial straits at present. That could of course change again.

Among the wide bodies I think the following types are of relevance going forward from now

Boeing: 777-300 and then 777NG, 787, very limited 747-8i

Airbus: 330NG, 350, 380 to some extent depending on how it does in the market going forward.

As you say, Coach seats will be Coach seats. We will never go back to Coach seats of the mid 20th century both in terms of physical seat quality and service quality. The advent of wide bodies completely bollixed that one up. However, there is nothing that prevents similar coach seats being provided in the refurbished 777s and Airbus 330/340. Whether an airline will bother with that or spend all their effort in bringing the newer aircraft down to the least common denominator is something that we will have to see. There is very little financial incentive to provide better Coach seats anywhere. The service quality competition for Coach will be in Premium Coach, not in Steerage Coach.


----------



## Texan Eagle

Devil's Advocate said:


> I've been warned that AI and CA have a subpar soft product, use poorly managed/maintained airports, and carry unusually annoying/disruptive passengers.


LOL thanks for the good laugh on a Monday morning. I would invite you to visit the new/updated airports at Delhi, Mumbai or Beijing (hubs for AI and CA). They blow any US airports out of the water by miles!

Annoying disruptive passengers come in all shapes and forms. I have had my fair share on "western" airlines too.



Devil's Advocate said:


> TK comes with a disqualifying 31" seat pitch in Y


31-32" depending on rows, which is pretty much industry standard these days whether you are on a 777, 787 or a 737. Where are you finding airlines that do not disqualify by your criteria? Very few today give 34" that's the maximum.



Devil's Advocate said:


> EK sounds interesting flying on the ME3 comes with a moral and ethical dilemma.


Too bad. I have no such dilemma flying on an independently run, audited, profit-making airline that some keep believing is a puppet of "those bad countries"



Devil's Advocate said:


> For me the primary issue with tight clearances comes from the perpetually vanishing seat pitch rather than the width. AI and TK feature a knee-crushing 31" pitch which makes them especially unattractive to taller folks like me. Only the 787 seems to be workable at that pitch, at least in my experience.


Pitch is pitch on any plane. How does 31" pitch on 777 become disqualifying for you, but the same on 787 is fine? I am 5'10" and have not found any difference between a 777 and 787 pitch.



Devil's Advocate said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about the lights. Maybe you're referring to domestic/regional travels? In my experience on intercontinental flights the lighting/activity on board rarely seems to have any logical connection to the time at the origin, destination, or current location. On nearly every TPAC/TATL flight I've ever flown the lights were turned on to wake everyone up for some arbitrary feeding time and then shut off to put everyone back on sleep/movie time again. The main difference with newer aircraft is that the transition period is smoother with warmer/cooler hues applied in smaller discreet increments, but it still doesn't come close to a normal day/night experience.


Yes that is what I mean by mood lighting, and all the airlines I listed do that on long international flights. They will slowly illuminate the cabin when it is time for meal service, and once done, tone it down to simulate "night" irrespective of actual time of day outside.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Texan Eagle said:


> LOL thanks for the good laugh on a Monday morning. I would invite you to visit the new/updated airports at Delhi, Mumbai or Beijing (hubs for AI and CA). They blow any US airports out of the water by miles! Annoying disruptive passengers come in all shapes and forms. I have had my fair share on "western" airlines too.


Claiming that Indian airports are much better than US airports isn't really saying much. Anyone who travels regularly already knows US airports suck and it's not like I can avoid US airports regardless of where I'm traveling. The real test would be how BOM/DEL/PEK competes with the likes of HKG/SIN/ICN. I do not dispute that US airlines have unruly passengers. Over time I have come to realize that passengers from countries such as the United States, Russia, and China are often uniquely loud and annoying people compared to many others. That being said, North American and Western European passengers are generally going to be annoying/disruptive in a manner I can anticipate/resolve/ignore due to familiarity and verbal/visual communication. This is unlikely to be the case on Russian/Chinese/Indian airlines.



Texan Eagle said:


> 31-32" depending on rows, which is pretty much industry standard these days whether you are on a 777, 787 or a 737. Where are you finding airlines that do not disqualify by your criteria? Very few today give 34" that's the maximum. Pitch is pitch on any plane. How does 31" pitch on 777 become disqualifying for you, but the same on 787 is fine? I am 5'10" and have not found any difference between a 777 and 787 pitch.


As a 5'10" passenger your concept of pitch is likely to be rather different from that of a substantially taller passenger such as myself. Pitch is a fundamentally imprecise term that is only indirectly related to practical area and usable legroom. Factors such as seat thickness, cushion/fabric flexibility, and frame shape play an equally important role. Not to mention the size/location of AVOD/AC/DC equipment boxes under the row in front of you. In my experience 31" on a 777 is universally uncomfortable (and potentially unhealthy) for someone of my height while 31" pitch on a 787 is perfectly adequate. A380's also have size/design benefits that allow me to book such an aircraft in coach without fear of having my knees crushed. Over a long enough time line most/all intercontinental airlines will eventually shove B787 and A380 seats so close together than those aircraft will cease to benefit me where it matters most. At that time I will be forced to book into Premium Economy regardless of aircraft/airline/airport.



Texan Eagle said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> EK sounds interesting flying on the ME3 comes with a moral and ethical dilemma.
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad. I have no such dilemma flying on an independently run, audited, profit-making airline that some keep believing is a puppet of "those bad countries"
Click to expand...

Rather than shove some silly straw man in my mouth you could have simply asked me what my concerns were or left it alone. Just because I have a problem with spending my own personal money on the ME3 doesn't mean I'm a stooge for AA or a shill for DL.


----------



## jis

I am still wondering whether you are over generalizing from your experience about what 777 with 31" pitch feels like. There is absolutely nothing that prevents an airline from installing the same seat in a 777 as in a 787, and indeed some do. Since you do use the phrase "In my experience" I guess that observation applies to those planes that you have been on, and is hard to generalize from?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> I am still wondering whether you are over generalizing from your experience about what 777 with 31" pitch feels like. There is absolutely nothing that prevents an airline from installing the same seat in a 777 as in a 787, and indeed some do. Since you do use the phrase "In my experience" I guess that observation applies to those planes that you have been on, and is hard to generalize from?


Is it a generalization? Absolutely. Is it an _overgeneralization?_ Depends on your perspective I suppose.

I don't travel for business, at least not in the usual sense, so I can only fly so many aircraft on so many airlines. I have to take my options seriously and try to choose wisely. If you're a tall man then taking advice from a significantly shorter person about the current state of coach legroom could become an extremely uncomfortable or even potentially debilitating mistake. Maybe they're correct in their estimation, but if they're wrong your knees and legs could be suffering anywhere from a few hours to a few days or more.

Telling me "pitch is pitch" indicates a failure to fully comprehend the problem and how it relates to the flawed and indirect method we use to measure it. I'm not sure why this would be important but if someone _really_ wants me to change my mind I suppose they could find a person who is about a half foot taller than Texas Eagle and photograph them sitting down with the seat in front of them fully reclined. I'm not saying anyone would or should do that; just that it would be more persuasive and compelling than what has been said so far.


----------



## Palmetto

seatguru.com has pretty complete info on pitch, airline by airline, for each airline's aircraft type.


----------



## jis

Palmetto said:


> seatguru.com has pretty complete info on pitch, airline by airline, for each airline's aircraft type.


Right. But the point that DA is making is that just the seat pitch does not tell the whole story. For example, there are many airlines that place a huge box of electronics under the seat thus restricting ones leg room under the seat in front. That is usually not accounted for in Seatguru. Such things can make all the difference between a seat that is barely acceptable to one that is unusable specially for very tall people. So in essence all 32" pitch seats are not really the same.


----------



## railiner

And the seat's design can make a difference...the modern seats have very thin backrests to yield more knee room, as compared to the relatively plush seat backs from the early jetliner era. Even without equipment boxes hung below the seats, some seats afford more "shin room" than other's...


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

Palmetto said:


> Some of American's 737s don't even have seat-back entertainment in First Class. Way out of date.


AA doesn't fly any 737-900s...there latest joke is refurbing some biz seats in their 757s and not electing to put in IFE. Just like the refurb 767-300s where they pass out tablets. The only thing I use the IFE for is the map, so the tablet doesn't make a good replacement in my eyes.

United is getting new 900s delivered without Seat Back IFE or power outlets....and they are brand new birds...I flew one a few weeks ago down to San Juan, and I have another flight from EWR-AUS where I'll get to relive the experience.

One of the funnier moments this year for me was in Indonesia I was trying to pick an airline for a quick hop from Jakarta to Surabaya (I took the train back). I came down to Lion Air and Air Asia X Indonesia. I had never heard of Lion Air so I immediately wrote them thinking they would be flying some scrap heaps....then on the bus ride out to my Air Asia jet I see about 20 737-900ERs lined up for Lion Air while I got on a 10+ year old Airbus. Don't judge a book by its cover.

Also to the OP weren't you crying a few months ago how stupid flying is?? Now were talking about fleet sub types...


----------



## jis

At least the UA 739s have a map in their Wi-Fi home on the aircraft, though nothing as good as the on screen ones in say the 787s or GE 772-ERs or even the 752 RR Internationals. But still it is something. The 787 ones are particularly nice.

But then, none of them can hold a candle to the once on Luftahnsa A380s or 748i's.


----------



## tp49

Long Train Runnin' said:


> One of the funnier moments this year for me was in Indonesia I was trying to pick an airline for a quick hop from Jakarta to Surabaya (I took the train back). I came down to Lion Air and Air Asia X Indonesia. I had never heard of Lion Air so I immediately wrote them thinking they would be flying some scrap heaps....then on the bus ride out to my Air Asia jet I see about 20 737-900ERs lined up for Lion Air while I got on a 10+ year old Airbus. Don't judge a book by its cover.


You were probably wise to write Lion Air off but for a different reason their safety record. I remember them crashing a two month old 737-800 a few years back and among the airlines of Asia they've had a higher number of crashes/incidents than I'd be comfortable with.


----------



## Ryan

jis said:


> But then, none of them can hold a candle to the once on Luftahnsa A380s or 748i's.


Like these guys? Passed through FRA last weekend, amazing planes everywhere.

Sadly, I got hauled off for extra special security screening before boarding and didn't get a chance to get more pictures.


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

Yeah the 747-8i is really just a great look bird. I had the pleasure of taking a couple flights on it EWR-FRA and return. Hope to give it a try with Korean at some point as well.

Although I think jis is talking specifically about the in flight maps across the various platforms. I still think the Airbus Tail Cam is a great way to watch a flight as well. I have been a couple 777-300s with outside cameras but have only seen the tail cam on an Airbus.



tp49 said:


> Long Train Runnin' said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the funnier moments this year for me was in Indonesia I was trying to pick an airline for a quick hop from Jakarta to Surabaya (I took the train back). I came down to Lion Air and Air Asia X Indonesia. I had never heard of Lion Air so I immediately wrote them thinking they would be flying some scrap heaps....then on the bus ride out to my Air Asia jet I see about 20 737-900ERs lined up for Lion Air while I got on a 10+ year old Airbus. Don't judge a book by its cover.
> 
> 
> 
> You were probably wise to write Lion Air off but for a different reason their safety record. I remember them crashing a two month old 737-800 a few years back and among the airlines of Asia they've had a higher number of crashes/incidents than I'd be comfortable with.
Click to expand...

And United has a had a couple 737-900s slide off the runway in the winter. The chances that you are on a flight that crashes are so low it's not even something that I really even consider. I was thinking purely from a comfort standard.


----------



## B757Guy

Long Train Runnin' said:


> Yeah the 747-8i is really just a great look bird. I had the pleasure of taking a couple flights on it EWR-FRA and return. Hope to give it a try with Korean at some point as well.
> 
> Although I think jis is talking specifically about the in flight maps across the various platforms. I still think the Airbus Tail Cam is a great way to watch a flight as well. I have been a couple 777-300s with outside cameras but have only seen the tail cam on an Airbus.
> 
> 
> 
> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long Train Runnin' said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the funnier moments this year for me was in Indonesia I was trying to pick an airline for a quick hop from Jakarta to Surabaya (I took the train back). I came down to Lion Air and Air Asia X Indonesia. I had never heard of Lion Air so I immediately wrote them thinking they would be flying some scrap heaps....then on the bus ride out to my Air Asia jet I see about 20 737-900ERs lined up for Lion Air while I got on a 10+ year old Airbus. Don't judge a book by its cover.
> 
> 
> 
> You were probably wise to write Lion Air off but for a different reason their safety record. I remember them crashing a two month old 737-800 a few years back and among the airlines of Asia they've had a higher number of crashes/incidents than I'd be comfortable with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And United has a had a couple 737-900s slide off the runway in the winter. The chances that you are on a flight that crashes are so low it's not even something that I really even consider. I was thinking purely from a comfort standard.
Click to expand...

United Flight 1977 that slide off the runway was mostly due to crew fatigue. An issue very near and dear to my heart.


----------



## jis

Long Train Runnin' said:


> Yeah the 747-8i is really just a great look bird. I had the pleasure of taking a couple flights on it EWR-FRA and return. Hope to give it a try with Korean at some point as well.
> 
> Although I think jis is talking specifically about the in flight maps across the various platforms. I still think the Airbus Tail Cam is a great way to watch a flight as well. I have been a couple 777-300s with outside cameras but have only seen the tail cam on an Airbus.


Yes. I like the 380 tail cam a lot too.

The cameras are much more important on the 380 because specially from the upper deck, the windows are more or less useless to look downwards at all, at least in my experience. And typically that is where the people that paid more money are seated


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

jis said:


> Long Train Runnin' said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah the 747-8i is really just a great look bird. I had the pleasure of taking a couple flights on it EWR-FRA and return. Hope to give it a try with Korean at some point as well.
> 
> Although I think jis is talking specifically about the in flight maps across the various platforms. I still think the Airbus Tail Cam is a great way to watch a flight as well. I have been a couple 777-300s with outside cameras but have only seen the tail cam on an Airbus.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I like the 380 tail cam a lot too.
> 
> The cameras are much more important on the 380 because specially from the upper deck, the windows are more or less useless to look downwards at all, at least in my experience. And typically that is where the people that paid more money are seated
Click to expand...

Yeah I have only done 2 flights on the A380 one upstairs and one downstairs. Although I think a lot of Airlines have put the F cabin downstairs in the nose. I know its that way on KE, AF, QR and QF for sure. The upstairs windows make for a fun view while you taxi.

Although I still think I prefer the feeling of being upstairs on the 747. Thankfully I have had a few segments up there recently. My father and I have both flown upstairs on the 747 at different times. I was glad when recently we were able to fly upstairs together on a CX 747. Especially since they have all now been put out to pasture. Although with the layout on CX its almost impossible to see out the window with the layout they have.

Also to stay on topic...what are peoples thoughts on the new sinks in most of the new Boeings? I noticed it for the first time a few years ago on my first 787 flight and see that is has spread to the 737-900s and the 747-8is. To me it seems a little bit of a germ collection point and also a tremendous waste of technology. Photo attached for reference.


----------



## PVD

There actually is a cockpit window change a few years back. The "eyebrow" windows were eliminated, they no longer had a purpose.


----------



## jis

737s had the eybrow windows until the model 737-600 AFAIR. Starting from 737-700s those were gone.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> seatguru.com has pretty complete info on pitch, airline by airline, for each airline's aircraft type.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. But the point that DA is making is that just the seat pitch does not tell the whole story.
Click to expand...

Bingo.









railiner said:


> And the seat's design can make a difference...the modern seats have very thin backrests to yield more knee room, as compared to the relatively plush seat backs from the early jetliner era. Even without equipment boxes hung below the seats, some seats afford more "shin room" than other's...


100% Correct.








jis said:


> 737s had the eybrow windows until the model 737-600 AFAIR. Starting from 737-700s those were gone.


That matches up with my memory as well, although to be perfectly honest I rarely spend much time looking at 737's unless there is literally nothing else to spot. Do you have any experience with the A350 yet?


----------



## railiner

PVD said:


> There actually is a cockpit window change a few years back. The "eyebrow" windows were eliminated, they no longer had a purpose.


I wonder if trans-oceanic aircraft still carry sextants anymore, "just-in-case"...and if crews even are taught their use?

Even with all the modern electronic traffic alert systems, having those windows couldn't hurt to enable crew to have better visibility in congested airspace...


----------



## jis

Clearly those that actually do the flying don't care much for those windows.


----------



## railiner

I would like to hear some pilot's opinions on that....


----------



## jis

I have talked to several, and all basically said that even though they are not allowed to use pocket GPS in navigation, they carry one just in case everything else fails. Much easier than trying to get a fix on stars while the plane is probably on the verge of getting out of control. Of course if the entire GPS constellation fails then we are all screwed.


----------



## railiner

Or intense solar flare activity that could interfere? Or is that just sci-fi?


----------



## saxman

The windows serve no purpose. They just make the flight deck hot and too bright in that they just stuff old safety cards in there to block the sun. And I've never ever heard of pilots carrying a sextant around. If you lose navigation, you have bigger problems, plus I can't think of a scenario where that would even be possible.


----------



## Bob Dylan

For those that don't know, saxman is an airline pilot so you can book this info!


----------



## B757Guy

I fly the 757/767, and can say, we don't rely on a sextant/celestial navigation anymore.


----------



## railiner

Okay....but I thought those windows might be useful in congested airspace to increase visibility of other traffic. So I guess the answer is no, if crews find them annoying and cover them up...


----------



## jis

It is TCAS that can keep much better lookout than any human in congested airspace these days anyway.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

If TCAS is alerting then something is seriously wrong with the flight plan, navigation systems, and/or ATC. TCAS is literally the last line of defense when it comes to collision avoidance.


----------



## bmjhagen9426

But when the TCAS instruction is not followed, a mid-air collision is possible (much like what happened in the Uberlingen incident between BTC2937 and DHX611)


----------



## jis

bmjhagen9426 said:


> But when the TCAS instruction is not followed, a mid-air collision is possible (much like what happened in the Uberlingen incident between BTC2937 and DHX611)


Of course. Also when the plane handling instructions are not followed a plane can crash. So what is your point?


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> It is TCAS that can keep much better lookout than any human in congested airspace these days anyway.


That's true....might as well not have any windows (or human pilots, either, right?)....


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is TCAS that can keep much better lookout than any human in congested airspace these days anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> That's true....might as well not have any windows (or human pilots, either, right?)....
Click to expand...

Huh? Being melodramatic are we?


----------



## railiner




----------



## Hotblack Desiato

jis said:


> 737s had the eybrow windows until the model 737-600 AFAIR. Starting from 737-700s those were gone.


The eyebrow windows were removed in 2005, about 8 years after the 737NG entered service. I think most of the NGs were probably retrofitted to remove them.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Hotblack Desiato said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 737s had the eybrow windows until the model 737-600 AFAIR. Starting from 737-700s those were gone.
> 
> 
> 
> The eyebrow windows were removed in 2005, about 8 years after the 737NG entered service. I think most of the NGs were probably retrofitted to remove them.
Click to expand...

I remember reading that 737 aircraft delivered with eyebrow windows had never been certified for use without them and thus were ineligible to have them structurally removed after delivery. However, it's quite possible that a third party vendor managed to receive approval for removable non-structural plugs or filters for blocking excessive sunlight that could interfere with interior visibility.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

Did some research. It was a plug, not an actual removal of the structure on planes built with them. Based on a press release from 2005 when the removal of the eyebrow was announced, the plug was developed by Boeing itself.


----------



## railiner

What about the DC-9's and its successor's, the MD-80's,90's and B-717's...IIRC, they had 'em, too...were they later discontinued and/or plugged?


----------



## Ryan

The MD-80(?) that I flew on yesterday still had them.


----------



## saxman

railiner said:


> What about the DC-9's and its successor's, the MD-80's,90's and B-717's...IIRC, they had 'em, too...were they later discontinued and/or plugged?


MD-80's, 90's, do have the windows. The 717's seem to be a mixed bag. There's some Hawaiian Airlines 717's with the eyebrow windows. The Delta 717's (ex AirTran) don't have them.


----------

