VA B737-700

[Scarlett]

Why does VA have the sub-fleet of B737-700?

Are there better economics from operating it, compared to the B737-800? I’d guess not, as likely similar fuel cost and fixed charges (t-o, landing, enroute), but less pax contributing revenue.

Are they owned outright and so VA just keep flying them rather than taking on new leases?

Is it just because they got a good deal when acquiring them?

 

[oz_mark]

I think they got them at a good price (ex KLM), and they were initially used to phase out the F100 aircraft. I guess they are useful on the more thin routes.

 

[Harrison_133]

The original ones from the Virgin Blue days (VBY and VBZ) are owned.

The 7 second-hand ones from KLM are leased.

 

[markis10]

Are there better economics from operating it, compared to the B737-800? I’d guess not, as likely similar fuel cost and fixed charges (t-o, landing, enroute), but less pax contributing revenue.

There are better economics when the pax load for the route doesn’t need an 800, which is why VA have had them since they started, when they were known as Virgin Blue.

Fuel consumption. Typical cruise is 1200 kg/hr per engine for the 800 as opposed to 1000 kg/hr in a rather heavy 700.

Altitude capability. A 700 you can go as high as 1200 ft above optimum FL, whereas in the 800 your lucky to go higher than 200 to 300 feet above optimum, especially in turbulent air.

 

[jb747]

Altitude capability. A 700 you can go as high as 1200 ft above optimum FL, whereas in the 800 your lucky to go higher than 200 to 300 feet above optimum, especially in turbulent air.

How are they defining 'optimum' (and max for that matter). There can be different definitions, and so the FMC can be programmed with different margins.