Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AS To Replace 732s With 734s...  
User currently offlineFalcon Flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1330 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3747 times:

Don't know if it was covered but a press release on Yahoo said that 4 -400s would become combis and 1 -400 would become a full freighter for the Alaska flying.


My definition of cool ? Not trying so hard to be cool.
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMD11LuxuryLinr From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1385 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3725 times:

Are these planes that Alaska already owns?

I was hoping they'd be -400s  Big grin



Caution wake turbulence, you are following a heavy jet.
User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3690 times:

Here's the link: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040714/sfw109_1.html

And yes, they are currently in the fleet. The release says that now they will look at how to replace the capcity lost by converting the -400s. It will be interesting to see how the route/schedule these new planes. I still think this will end up meaning an overall drop in cargo capacity. Certain times of the year these planes operate all pallet just to carry fish, now they won't have that option.

I'm sure this is a relief to the towns/villages that were affected by this.

Duane



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3624 times:

Interesting and sensible......look for AS to order additonal 737NGs in the near future to replace the 734s to be converted.

Note that the 734 combi will be have a fixed partition......the 732s had flexible partitions that allowed several combinations of freight and passengers, but due to the FAA, this cannot be done with the 734s. The all-cargo 734 is also interesting - will this be the first 734 operated in full-freigher configuration? I bet FedEx is watching this situation closely.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3609 times:

Well, that was the rumor.

Look for that straight freighter to run almost exclusively between ANC-SEA.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offline737-990 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 371 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3601 times:

Looks like we're digging a hole to fill a hole. The question now is what replaces the 5 737-400s in the fleet? Hopefully more 737-800s.


Happiest is a man who has his vocation as a hobby
User currently offlineRydawg82 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 868 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3562 times:

Someone mentioned a loss of cargo capacity...Just my two cents, but with the fixed position, all a/c will have 4 pallet positions. AS Currently never runs a 1 or 4 pallet configured bird (sure this may be the actual number of igloos loaded but not the actual configuration). In freighter configuration a max of 6 igloos can be loaded, so yes they will be down 2 positions, but don't forget the bellys, they can turn into a rampers nightmare if needed. Pit 3 can hold about 4500 lbs and pit 4 can haul aprox 6000 lbs (very rough figures). These quantities are just about identical to what would be loaded in each respective igloo upstairs. All the way around these birds will be able to do a very good job at meeting Alaska Cargo demands.

Also yes look for the fixed freighter running the nightly ANC-JNU-SEA freighter, while daytime making freighter extras to OTZ/ADQ/AKN etc...

Ryan



You can take the pup out of Alaska, but you can't take the Alaska out of the pup.
User currently offlineScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3541 times:

It looking like to get rid of them with 732 aircraft and will replace them more new aircraft anytime soon?

User currently offlineAs739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6187 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3533 times:

737-990 and Dutchjet,a order will be placed for more of the 738 at some point. The biggest hold up at this time in not the economy, but the pilot contract. Once ratified then we will order more -800's. The company has been hanging that out in front of the pilots for a few weeks now from what I have heard. The first 2 -400's to go were planned for this year but that was called back. A/C N754AS (Spirit of Alaska and 400 #1) and N755AS were scheduled for the desert or sold this year.

This is very smart of Alaska for another good reason. When you have owned the planes already, you have their track record. We can keep the 400's that have been the most maintance free. I heard about all this 3 days ago, but couldn't confirm it. I think we made a smart move.

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13703 posts, RR: 61
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3433 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Here's the press release:

Contact: Lou Cancelmi -or- Sam Sperry
206-392-5170 206-392-5038

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 14, 2004

ALASKA AIRLINES TO RETROFIT 737-400 AIRCRAFT TO PROVIDE BETTER PASSENGER AND CARGO SERVICE TO THE STATE OF ALASKA

SEATTLE—Alaska Airlines today reaffirmed its commitment to serving the cargo and passenger needs of the state of Alaska by inking a $15 million contract to retrofit five of its 737-400 aircraft to carry cargo and passengers.

“We’ve been looking for a replacement for our 737-200s for some time now,” said George Bagley, Alaska’s executive vice president of operations. “Retrofitting our existing, newer 737-400s makes sense from a cost standpoint and will actually increase our freight and passenger capacity in Alaska.”

Four of the carrier’s 737-400s will be converted to a fixed 70 passenger/four pallet configuration. One aircraft will be retrofitted to full cargo configuration. Once completed, the retrofitted aircraft will replace the airline’s retiring 737-200 fleet—long the workhorse of the carrier’s unique passenger and cargo operations to rural communities in Alaska. In addition, the airline is currently weighing several options to replace the capacity of the five 737-400s that will be converted.

The conversions of the 737-400s will result in an upgrade of service, as the converted aircraft will carry more passengers and cargo. Bagley noted that the 737-400s are half the age of the carrier’s 737-200s, thus less costly to maintain. Additionally the -400s consume about 30 percent less fuel and already are equipped with Alaska’s state-of-the-art RNP flight guidance technology, which allows pilots to precisely guide aircraft during periods of low visibility.

The retrofitting work, to begin in April 2005 for completion in early 2007, will be coordinated by InterContinental Aircraft Services (ICAS) of Taiwan for a team including Flight Structures Inc., Marysville, Washington, a unit of B/E Aerospace, Inc., and the Boeing Company. Flight Structures will do the engineering work. Boeing will provide post-conversion engineering support.

Alaska Airlines and sister carrier Horizon Air serve more than 80 cities in Alaska, the Lower 48, Canada and Mexico. For more news and information, visit the Alaska Airlines Newsroom on the Internet at [ http://newsroom.alaskaair.com ]http://newsroom.alaskaair.com.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3407 times:

The only problem that I see with converting the 734 to 734C is convencing the F.A.A. for certification. Its gonna be a long phase for AS. We all know how the F.A.A. feels about certifying new combi aircraft. If AS cant get certification then I bet that AS will probably go for a cargo only aircraft.

...but don't forget the bellys, they can turn into a rampers nightmare if needed. Pit 3 can hold about 4500 lbs and pit 4 can haul aprox 6000 lbs (very rough figures).

Huh?!? This isnt an M80. The 732C has TWO cargo pits #1 and #2. And the main cabin is capable of holding 7 pallets, not only 6, regardless of whats on them, seats or igloos.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3393 times:

Although I found the MD-80 harder to load, due to the still design, the lower ceiling and the plastic floor in the aft compartment, I will agree that pit four is one lONG ASS PIT!!!!


Nicest aircraft pits for loading I have ever been in where the rear ones in the B727-100 that Reeve Aleutian flew. 2nd best was the one right next to the trailing edge of the wing on the IL-62.

And lets get the terminology straight. From what I remember the 727-200QC had 2 cargo compartments divided into three pits each, numbered 1 to 6 front to back. ditto for the rest of the fleet. RV on the other had only numbered their bellies 1 to 4.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineHa763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3666 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3378 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't see much problem convincing the FAA to certify the aircraft. This is exactly what the FAA wanted in a combi: a solid bulkhead that is in one fixed position.

Actually I can see the combi -400s being exactly like the Navy's C-40s. The C-40 can be used in all pax, all cargo, or combi (3 pallets, 70 pax). With Boeing doing the engineering work, it kind of makes sense to use the same kind of system being used in the C-40 and give AS the flexibility.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3362 times:

Actually I can see the combi -400s being exactly like the Navy's C-40s. The C-40 can be used in all pax, all cargo, or combi (3 pallets, 70 pax).

The C-40 is a military aircraft...it does not need F.A.A. certification for a combi aircraft. The F.A.A. does not oversee safety/maintenance on military aircraft, they dont have any powers over those aircraft.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3342 times:

Exactly. With the exception of some engineering data, the C-40 is not going to be used as a plan for any combi conversion.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineHa763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3666 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3307 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The C-40 has a fixed bulkhead. That's why its combi configuration is fixed at 3 pallets and 70 pax. So, the FAA doesn't cover military aircraft, but this is what the FAA wants in new combis-a fixed bulkhead.

User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3304 times:

a cargo fixed bulkhead wont be classified as a combi anyway. It would then be strictly used as a cargo aircraft and never carry pax. Now the F.A.A. would definately certify that, but not as a combi configured aircraft.


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineRydawg82 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 868 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3254 times:

...but don't forget the bellys, they can turn into a rampers nightmare if needed. Pit 3 can hold about 4500 lbs and pit 4 can haul aprox 6000 lbs (very rough figures).

Huh?!? This isnt an M80. The 732C has TWO cargo pits #1 and #2. And the main cabin is capable of holding 7 pallets, not only 6, regardless of whats on them, seats or igloos.


As far as the main belly on any Alaska 737 (-200 -400 -700 -900) they have six cargo pits. 3 Pits are forward, 3 pits are aft. I only mentioned pits 3 and 4 as they are the largest. On the -400s they are capable of carrying just about the amount typically loaded in an Igloo thus not being too much of a loss on cargo capacity. The other pits can be loaded as well, I was just referencing the larger pits. Also I'm not sure if AS has reconfigured their combis since your days there, however there are only 6 pallet positions upstairs. AS can operate them in All seats (111 seats), 2 pallet (72 seats), 3 pallet (56 seats), 5 pallet (26 seats), or freighter (6 pallet) at no time has the main deck of a AS 73M had 7 pallets to my knowledge.

Also I'm not sure how much of a fit the FAA will throw with these birds. We are talking a fixed bulkhead, not a quick change. As I understand, the FAA didn't want to certify a movable bulkhead, thus AS has picked a fixed configuration that is sure to be a winner. One thing AS does is their homework, I highly doubt they would have waited almost 2 years to announce a 73M replacement if the FAA wasn't going to ok it.

-R



You can take the pup out of Alaska, but you can't take the Alaska out of the pup.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

Nope, that is the way I remember.

6 positions topside, and three pits per belly.

The only dumb thing that AS did was number the topside positions 1-6.

Reeve was smarter and id'd them with letters.

Less confusion with new hires that way.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineRydawg82 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 868 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3236 times:

Thanks L-188...Was getting a little confused at the thought of 7 pallets upstairs, of course anything is possible before my time there I guess.....
-R



You can take the pup out of Alaska, but you can't take the Alaska out of the pup.
User currently offlineHIkesWithEyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 816 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3223 times:

This is just a cosmetic wish, but I hope that the company
decides to go with a unique paint scheme for the converted
-400s. At one point there was a plan to paint one of the -400s
like a Copper River salmon.....



First, benzene in my Perrier, and now this!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3229 times:

Yeah, AirframeAS was 1 over.

Somewhere I still have the configuration card from 1994 when I was ramping in ANC,

Oh, just for comparison, a Combi 727-22C of Reeve carried 7 topside in all cargo configuration. N753AS, Alaska airlines last 727 period, which was a 727-100C was flow as an 8 pallet aircraft. The lost space on the RV aircraft was due to the galley in the RV aircraft.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3085 posts, RR: 20
Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3206 times:

It is not the FAA that is the problem. There is no rule that says no combi's as far as I know. It is a rule concerning fire and smoke. The cargo area has to be completely sealed and not allow any smoke to get into the cockpit or pax area. You also have to be able to hold the extinguishing agent in the cargo area for 1 hour I believe. On large aircraft this is almost impossible. Especially when you are moving the divider and seats. There are still the Bins and PSU's that are a problem to deal with. If you can solve that cheaply and easily then you could get certification because the only thing holding up certification is meeting the class c fire containment( I think it is class c)

GS



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineRydawg82 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 868 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3185 times:

I like HikesWithEye's idea...Lets bring out the real Salmon Thirty Sevens  Smile
-R



You can take the pup out of Alaska, but you can't take the Alaska out of the pup.
User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5947 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3079 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

All C-40's (C-40A's, B's and C's) meet FAA requirements...the A's and B's have been certified.

25 Scottb : I'm curious as to what Alaska is going to do about the fact that the 734's engines hang considerably lower than the 732's, considering that they opera
26 MD11LuxuryLinr : I'm pretty sure that the airfields that AS flies to all have paved runways.. The likelihood of ingesting something into the engines are just as great
27 Post contains links and images L-188 : MD11Luxurylinr..... Red Dog isn't. View Large View MediumPhoto © Tony Solis I had to check on Unalakleet, they are still gravel and Markair used
28 Wilax : Is Alaska ordering -800's?
29 AirframeAS : As far as the main belly on any Alaska 737 (-200 -400 -700 -900) they have six cargo pits. 3 Pits are forward, 3 pits are aft. I only mentioned pits 3
30 L-188 : Ok Airframe here goes.... There are two belly compartments on the 737, one forward and one aft of the wing. Open the door to the compartment and stand
31 AirframeAS : Ok Ok Ok, I get it, L-188. I was never in the ramp department so you guys do things differently than how we did it in the MX department. Thanks for th
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
THY Decided To Replace RJ100's With A319 posted Sat Apr 22 2006 23:05:59 by Wing
Aeropostal To Replace MD80s With A320s posted Mon Apr 3 2006 14:13:32 by Luisde8cd
JetConnect To Replace 733's With 734's posted Thu Dec 1 2005 11:17:57 by NZ1
Jet2 To Replace 737s With 757s? posted Fri Nov 18 2005 14:30:37 by Gkirk
SQ Likely To Replace A345 With 772LR posted Wed Nov 17 2004 04:48:43 by Rjpieces
QantasLink To Replace BAe146s With Boeing 717s posted Fri Oct 29 2004 08:57:21 by QantasffCL
Skyservice To Replace A330 With 767 posted Fri Oct 22 2004 15:19:05 by Ctflyer
NW To Replace 320 With 757 In Asia posted Thu Jul 3 2003 15:00:59 by N79969
Astraeus To Replace B737s With A320s?! posted Wed Jan 29 2003 14:53:13 by Englandair
UA To Replace 747s With -- 707s? posted Wed Nov 20 2002 17:12:19 by UALbrat