Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will WN 737-800 Ever see BUR/MDW?  
User currently offlinemir2069 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 50 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5582 times:

With the short runways and the recent overrun at mdw can a 800 under any codition weather wise make it in safely to either of these airports with short runways???

[Edited 2011-04-27 10:27:17]

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25056 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5547 times:

-800 is no issue at BUR.
Lots bigger planes have operated at BUR. (think L-1011 with PSA, 767 at UA, and plenty of things like 757s over the years, not counting a few -800 operators also.)



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22863 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5527 times:

Umm, TZ flew 738s in and out of MDW in all sorts of weather for years. The problem - if there is one - is with the operator, not the airplane.


I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinephllax From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 436 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5400 times:

FedEx and UPS operate multiple daily flights at BUR with Airbus A300/310 cargo birds. JetBlue sends a A320 to JFK. Things do get interesting when it's hot and windy. Yesterday (April 26) when it was windy all of the AA MD-80's stopped in ONT for fuel and the B6 flight to JFK stopped in LAS.

User currently offlineKcrwflyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3805 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5367 times:

Quoting mir2069 (Thread starter):
With the short runways and the recent overrun at mdw can a 800 under any codition weather wise make it in safely to either of these airports with short runways???

Don't pay any attention to the people in the other thread acting like MDW is some incredibly dangerous airport. They have ample runway for anything up to a 757/A321.. or even a widebody on a shorter flight. The 800 will have no problem at either airport and will almost have to go in and out of MDW on a regular basis. Not to mention ATA flew them there for years.


User currently offlinemir2069 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5349 times:

Quoting Kcrwflyer (Reply 4):
Don't pay any attention to the people in the other thread acting like MDW is some incredibly dangerous airport. They have ample runway for anything up to a 757/A321.. or even a widebody on a shorter flight. The 800 will have no problem at either airport and will almost have to go in and out of MDW on a regular basis. Not to mention ATA flew them there for years.

Thanks All


User currently offlinejoeljack From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5312 times:

Lets ask this then, is there any airport that WN currently serves that the 738 can't go into?

User currently offlinejj8080 From Brazil, joined Aug 2008, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5270 times:

Except for longer BUR-East Cost flights, I don't see any problems for 738 operation there, let alone MDW, considering it's geographical position.

BUR longest runway(15/33) is 6,866ft / 2,099m while MDW longest runway(13C/31C) is 6,522ft / 1,988m. G3 operates 738s (including the non-SFP ones) on CGH's 6,365ft / 1,940m runway on routes up to more than 1.000nm. Also JJ operates 320s there...

Anyone knows if WN's will be SFP?



100 146 319/20/21 332 722 732/3/4/5/G/W/8/H/9 742/3/4 752/3 762/3 772/W BE2 BET E75 CNJ CR2 D10 F27 F50 ER4 LRJ M11 M80
User currently offlineKcrwflyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3805 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5270 times:

Quoting joeljack (Reply 6):
Lets ask this then, is there any airport that WN currently serves that the 738 can't go into?

no


The same goes for FL.. I'm thinking if they can get one of their de-rated 73G's in and out, you shouldn't have a problem with a WN 738, which will probably have the most powerful engine offered.


User currently offlinejj8080 From Brazil, joined Aug 2008, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5210 times:

Not to mention that G3 also operates multiple 738s (SFP version) with high density Y config on SDU's 1,300m runway on the shuttle service to CGH...


100 146 319/20/21 332 722 732/3/4/5/G/W/8/H/9 742/3/4 752/3 762/3 772/W BE2 BET E75 CNJ CR2 D10 F27 F50 ER4 LRJ M11 M80
User currently offlineOklahomaSooner From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5198 times:

Runway length is not an issue in BUR as previously mentioned. AS flies 738s into BUR on a daily basis.

The problem for WN though is fitting a 738 into the A gates. I know from personal experience the only WN gate that could fit a 738 is A7, although it would have to be repainted. In the past AS has RONed 738s on A7.

A1-A6 does not have enough length between the terminal and the taxiway behind it for a 738 to fit. US A320s just barely fit into A5 as it is now.

[Edited 2011-04-27 12:13:32]


Boomer Sooner!!!
User currently offlinepsa1011 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4988 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

so is there any reason BUR has no service to ORD/MDW at this point?

User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6370 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4946 times:

Quoting OklahomaSooner (Reply 10):
The problem for WN though is fitting a 738 into the A gates. I know from personal experience the only WN gate that could fit a 738 is A7, although it would have to be repainted. In the past AS has RONed 738s on A7.

As I recall, don't the 73G and 738 have identical wingspans? I know that the 738 actually has more internal structure ("beef") to it...  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineKcrwflyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3805 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4920 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 12):
As I recall, don't the 73G and 738 have identical wingspans? I know that the 738 actually has more internal structure ("beef") to it...  

I believe the issue would be the 738s tail hanging over the hold line... though I don't think it'd make that big of a difference. BUR is already breaking every other rule ever written that pertains to how close a terminal/parked plane/taxiway can be to an active runway..

Quoting psa1011 (Reply 11):
so is there any reason BUR has no service to ORD/MDW at this point?

WN probably has a good reason for not flying it that has nothing to do with aircraft performance. Don't they fly SNA-MDW?


User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3072 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4823 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 12):
As I recall, don't the 73G and 738 have identical wingspans?

Yep. All NG's have the same wingspan.



The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineOklahomaSooner From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4825 times:

Quoting Kcrwflyer (Reply 13):
I believe the issue would be the 738s tail hanging over the hold line... though I don't think it'd make that big of a difference. BUR is already breaking every other rule ever written that pertains to how close a terminal/parked plane/taxiway can be to an active runway..

Thanks for clarifying, this is what I meant to say in my earlier post. The tail would be sticking out too far to be able to allow other large aircraft (737/A320) to safely taxi behind without sticking its own wing over the runway hold line. There is just not that much room between the terminal and the runway.



Boomer Sooner!!!
User currently offlineEWRandMDW From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 416 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4686 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):
Umm, TZ flew 738s in and out of MDW in all sorts of weather for years. The problem - if there is one - is with the operator, not the airplane.

What, may I ask, is the "problem" with the operator (I presume you mean WN)?


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5592 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4646 times:

Quoting EWRandMDW (Reply 16):

What, may I ask, is the "problem" with the operator (I presume you mean WN)?

That's something that WN, the FAA, and the NTSB are going to look at. Unfortunately, the evidence here points to something wrong with WN, as all the other airlines never had a problem with overruns at MDW, despite flying similar equipment.

Maybe they need to recalculate landing distances on wet runways, or encourage the use of go-arounds when not on the ground by the 1000ft marker on shorter runways.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineCO777DAL From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 606 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4555 times:

Quoting Kcrwflyer (Reply 13):
I believe the issue would be the 738s tail hanging over the hold line... though I don't think it'd make that big of a difference. BUR is already breaking every other rule ever written that pertains to how close a terminal/parked plane/taxiway can be to an active runway..

I just looked at the BUR airport for the first time via aerial and   !!!! How is that legal? That airport leaves ZERO room for error. It's an accident waiting to happen. It only takes a small mistake for a landing or taxing off plane to hit a taxing plane. Geesh!



Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2087 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4441 times:

I have little doubt that WN could operate BUR-MDW with a 737. B6 has been doing BUR-JFK for years, although they had to block out some seats (before they removed some seats from all of their A320s) and have the occasional tech stop. The larger problems usually arise during a Santa Ana wind condition, with the winds blowing down the mountain toward the sea.

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 18):
I just looked at the BUR airport for the first time via aerial and !!!! How is that legal? That airport leaves ZERO room for error. It's an accident waiting to happen. It only takes a small mistake for a landing or taxing off plane to hit a taxing plane. Geesh!

It is not. The FAA grandfathered them in. The terminal is too close to the runways. WN also had an accident where they skidded off the runway and across the street.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22863 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4420 times:

Quoting EWRandMDW (Reply 16):
What, may I ask, is the "problem" with the operator (I presume you mean WN)?

I don't know. That's why I said what I said - but the airplane is absolutely capable of using MDW and BUR in all sorts of weather (as we've hashed out, it may or may not be capable of parking at BUR's terminal).



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinemir2069 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4313 times:

was it all weather or pilot error or just one of those things???
the way FAA has microscope out looking to take attention away from themselves over the controllers sleep habits.dont look good for the pilot nor WN


User currently offlineDeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8897 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4243 times:

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 14):
Yep. All NG's have the same wingspan.

Wrong. -800/900 series have about 5 feet more wingspan than the -600/-700. (source is the aircraft data section conveniently located at the top of every page on this website).

One of the improvements of the BBJ-1 (which is a 737-700 fuselage) is that it uses the 737-800 wings to improve performance.


User currently offlinewedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5893 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4200 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Kind of off the subject. SNA's runway is only 5701 feet and 738's routinely fly in and out of SNA. BUR or MDW should be a non-issue for the most part.

User currently offlineTZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1451 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4172 times:

Quoting DeltAirlines (Reply 22):
Wrong. -800/900 series have about 5 feet more wingspan than the -600/-700. (source is the aircraft data section conveniently located at the top of every page on this website).

Wrong again. All NGs without winglets have the same wingspan and those with winglets also have the same span. The difference is only between those with or without winglets.



35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
25 BMI727 : Don't know for sure, but I'm inclined to think not. I think it is a given that BUR and MDW will see 738s when Southwest gets them, but just how well
26 QANTAS747-438 : SFP = Short Field Performance, for anyone who doesn't know. (I didn't know!)
27 IAHFLYR : Not off the subject at all, SNA is a perfect example of an airport with the longest runway being shorter than BUR shortest runway and at a minimum CO
28 laca773 : The performance and range capabilities of the 73G is much more optimal out of SNA. I think that's why we saw DL douwngauge their ATL-SNA-ATL flights
29 phllax : You also have to remember that there are more terrain and temperature issues at BUR than at SNA.
30 Post contains images KELPkid : This is to allow the aircraft to carry a greater fuel load. Externally, the -700 and -800 wings are almost identical. The differences between the two
31 OklahomaSooner : Alaska does not have an parking issue at BUR since their primary gate is B5 located on the B terminal. B5 and B4 can even fit 737-900s at both gates,
32 IAHFLYR : The 700's were not mentioned out of SNA in my post, it was all about 800's!!! The temperatures seem to be fairly close, within 3-5 degrees which can
33 mdword1959 : Not to mention 752s & 753s. Nothing quite like a 753 takeoff from MDW!
34 DCA-ROCguy : WN has vastly more operations out of MDW than any other airline, and thus is statistically more likely to eventually have an overrun there. We all kn
35 laca773 : Thanks for the information, OklahomaSooner. I didn't know that about those particular gates. All I know that it is pretty tight there when it comes t
36 wedgetail737 : It really depends on the time of year. During the summer, most of the flights operate with 73H's. Some of those flights drop back down to 73G's durin
37 Post contains images OklahomaSooner : Very true. Sorry I misread your post the first time. Lately, the majority of the flights have been 73Gs. I do wish AS would bring back the mid aftern
38 jreuschl : We could also use this analogy with FX. By their MD-11 accident rate, someone could claim they have a "problem." However, they operate many more MD-1
39 Kcrwflyer : All the evidence tells me is that WN operates a hell of a lot more flights there than anyone else. "stuff" happens at every airport.. and who it happ
40 SurfandSnow : Of course the 738s will be at MDW! They will be needed to fly the prime routes into slot-restricted airports like LGA, EWR, and DCA. I imagine they wi
41 EA CO AS : Here's the thing to keep in mind - WN is getting a small number of 738s when compared to the rest of their fleet types. As such, they're only likely t
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...
WN 737 Incident At BUR On NBC Now! posted Tue May 15 2001 03:18:29 by Mah4546
WN To Buy 737-800 posted Tue Dec 14 2010 21:09:24 by Blueman87
What Will Happen To WN 737 In MDW? posted Wed Dec 14 2005 19:08:35 by B777A340Fan
WN: Ns BUR-MDW Starting 9/14... posted Fri Jul 15 2005 00:26:14 by LGBFltTrainer
WN 737 And Food Truck Collide At MDW posted Sun Jul 10 2005 00:28:57 by AirNaskar380
WN 737 Type MDW-LAX posted Sun Apr 17 2005 04:08:36 by Venuscat2
American 737-800 At MDW? posted Sun Oct 10 2004 11:25:04 by Chicago757
Is The 737-800/900 Totally Ruled Out For WN? posted Sat Apr 10 2004 06:08:08 by John
WN & 737-800/900 posted Wed Jan 7 2004 20:02:38 by Jblake1
WN 737 @ BUR Written Off posted Tue Mar 7 2000 20:18:16 by Scooter