g500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 751 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 13852 times:
I started a thread a few months back about Copa's 737 flights to South America, the longest 737 flights in the world, they have a couple of flights blocked for over 7 hours.. I guess they had a few fuel diversions due to winds
I was looking at Alaska Airlines ANC-HNL blocked for 6 hrs 20 mns and SEA-NHL blocked for 6 hrs 15 mns. Not a lot of room for error over water...
reffado From Brazil, joined Feb 2012, 81 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (4 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 13816 times:
Risky or not, I for one won't ever spend that much time inside a 737. Basically the same reason why I fly JJ to MIA rather than AA. Widebodies for long flights, please. I'm intrigued though, isn't the flight over water restricted in some way?
rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2871 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (4 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 13767 times:
Quoting reffado (Reply 1):
Risky or not, I for one won't ever spend that much time inside a 737.
From my point of view, 1:3 chance of a window on a 737, vs. >1:4 chance on a widebody. The seat is the same otherwise. I prefer the narrowbody. So long as it has a movie.
TK787 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4114 posts, RR: 13 Reply 3, posted (4 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 13539 times:
About 737s and long distance;
TK ordered 15 x 739ER (only 151 seats) with extra fuel tanks to start long, thin routes to Africa. Now operating 10 of the type, TK flies to some distant locations from Istanbul, many over 3000 miles.
IST-Mombasa at 3171miles with a block time of 8:45 (I don't know why this long) and the return at 6:45 hours.
There could be longer routes from IST, this one came to mind.
It is not that longer than West bound transcons but being an international flight it is loooong.
I wonder if there is a 3rd pilot on board.
NobleRT From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 25 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (4 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 13349 times:
I don't understand the aversion to long flights on narrowbody, especially those lucky ones in biz/first. Unless you want to get up and walk around a lot, you still get the same squarefootage so to speak whether it's got one aisle or two isles.
HiFlyerAS From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 617 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (4 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 13225 times:
I remember the first time I flew a 737 to Hawaii...it was on AQ from SNA-HNL. I couldn't believe I was getting on that 737-700 for that long of flight. After getting on board I realized it was really no different than flying on a 757...used for years to Hawaii and TATL and it was a very nice flight. AS offers a very nice service both in F and Y to Hawaii.
Yes, wide-bodies are nice but on thinner routes they're just not economically practical. You'll see 737's on AS and others to Hawaii for many years to come.
I imagine in the next 5-10 years you'll see AS bite the bullet and start flying 787's or some other smaller widebody. In the summer they fly close to 20x daily SEA-ANC and in the winter 3x daily SEA-HNL so the economics of a bigger plane make sense on some routes. I think they still need to grow a bit more and reach some sort of critical mass before adding another a/c type. I can't wait to see that day and what they could do!
2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2076 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (4 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 13204 times:
Fiji Air Pacific used to fly YVR-HNL-NAN w/B737; so B737 SEA-HNL isn't something out of the extraordinary.
When TAAG Angola DT got B737-700 it was discussed here on a.net that those had the range to fly transatlantic between Angola LAD and North East Brazil (REC/SSA) that would be +/-7h.
Now, if CM was to get B737-700ER and fly transatlantic 10hours between PTY and MAD, that surely would be another thing.
HNL-Jack From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 799 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (4 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 13066 times:
UA is also flying 738's to ITO and HNL from SFO and LAX. As was said earlier in this thread, I'm afraid that the Boeing 737 and Airbus NEO's are the future for travel to and from the West Coast and Hawaii.
Grew up in the business and continued the family tradition.
md3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 85 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (4 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 12965 times:
Quoting HNL-Jack (Reply 8): I'm afraid that the Boeing 737 and Airbus NEO's are the future for travel to and from the West Coast and Hawaii.
I would agree and add that, any flight simply needs the most appropriate aircraft for the specific mission. That would be based on historical load information, aircraft efficiency, network needs, etc.
As it's shaking out, and we see more and more of the 73G/73W/739/321Neo placed (or announced) for HI-mainland routes, it just shows what the most appropriate aircraft for the route really is.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8785 posts, RR: 52 Reply 10, posted (4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12793 times:
I’ve flown AS’ 737s to Hawaii. I’ve also flown on the 767s of the competition. The 767 2-3-2 seating is far more comfortable if you are flying with one other person, but I wouldn’t spend more money to get it. Hawaii is barely any different than a transcon route. It’s only slightly longer, and people are accustomed to getting a 737 from SEA to any other destination. Basically every domestic city served from SEA is on a 737 or A320 with the occasional 757 from DL and UA. There are almost no regional jets and few domestic widebodies in SEA. Excluding all the Horizon Q400s, 90% of SEA’s landings are on 737s or A320s, so people are used to it.
Quoting g500 (Reply 4): Has Alaska cancelled any flights to Hawaii due to strong head-winds?
When the headwinds get bad on SEA-Hawaii, they will take a fuel stop in OAK. If the range is still a potential problem they will take weight restrictions and offload passengers. This is relatively rare, but a few times a year they do need to stop at OAK. OAK saves about 200 miles off the overwater crossing which can make the difference, but the fuel stop adds 400 more miles, so it is avoided if possible.
Quoting HiFlyerAS (Reply 6):
I imagine in the next 5-10 years you'll see AS bite the bullet and start flying 787's or some other smaller widebody. In the summer they fly close to 20x daily SEA-ANC and in the winter 3x daily SEA-HNL so the economics of a bigger plane make sense on some routes. I think they still need to grow a bit more and reach some sort of critical mass before adding another a/c type. I can't wait to see that day and what they could do!
It’s possible, but AS seems more interested in the 737-900ER than any new type. AS has a very conservative growth strategy. I don’t see them going for the 787.
Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
I was looking at Alaska Airlines ANC-HNL blocked for 6 hrs 20 mns and SEA-NHL blocked for 6 hrs 15 mns. Not a lot of room for error over water...
What error? ETOPS rules dictate how much extra fuel is required and stipulates the condition of the airplane prior to dispatch. They can lose an engine halfway to Hawaii and still have enough fuel to limp along on a single engine for 3 hours at 25,000ft. ETOPS requirements force the same fuel reserves for any airplane. Just because a 757 or 767 has more range, doesn’t mean the airlines are filling up the tanks. The weather is almost always perfect in Hawaii so there’s no need for a lot of holding fuel on board. You have the same safety margins on the 737 as any other plane.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4738 posts, RR: 25 Reply 11, posted (4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12569 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 10): ETOPS requirements force the same fuel reserves for any airplane. Just because a 757 or 767 has more range, doesn’t mean the airlines are filling up the tanks. The weather is almost always perfect in Hawaii so there’s no need for a lot of holding fuel on board. You have the same safety margins on the 737 as any other plane.
Completely agree, no less safe at all. Even if the weather at HNL was bad, diversion to a neighboring island is quite easy and little if any added distance.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
GentFromAlaska From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2102 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (4 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12467 times:
Quoting g500 (Reply 4): Has Alaska cancelled any flights to Hawaii due to strong head-winds?
Flying ANC-HNL; don't the winds aloft at some point beyond the Gulf of Alaska turn SSW favoring flights and fuel burn into the Hawaiian Islands. The same winds which create the the ginormous waves on Oahu's north and east shores.
We were lead to believe the islands giant waves more-so in Dec-Jan are generated by ocean currents and wind more than a thousand miles offshore.
Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
asmvpgold From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 45 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12254 times:
I flew HNL-SEA on Friday on a new AS 739ER... was a great flight. A million times more comfortable than the old DC10s NWA used on the route many years ago and I thought it was better than UAs old 772s in the config they used to Hawaii about 10 years ago. I agree with others... I don't know why some people think a narrow body flight is all that different than a wide body. It's a plane... they all have the same range when they plan out the proper fuel requirements for the flight and they certainly don't leave the ground without enough to get there as well as diverting somewhere else.
rscaife1682 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 319 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 11983 times:
This only issue I have with NB long haul flight is the long line in Y before arrival. Always nice a long on UA 757 TATL but I am mostly in biz which to me is no different than any other biz cabin.
Valorien From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 51 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11772 times:
Only flights from one large population center to another can support and/or substantiate large (widebody) aircraft. The cost per available seat mile (CASM) on a widebody aircraft is less than a full narrowbody aircraft only if the flight is full, so airlines will only deploy widebody aircraft if the demand is large enough to fill a widebody jet.
On flights from one large population center to a smaller population center or small population center to another small population center, narrowbody aircraft may be the only smart choice if the demand isn't there to fill a widebody. In turn, the fares on flights to/from smaller population centers can garnish a premium (higher than average) fare because of passengers willing to pay for the convenience of flying to/from their preferred airport.
B727FA From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 562 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 11454 times:
6:40 minute block over turf is 6:40 block over surf. The ETOPS bird has had a more rigorus pre-flight than the land bird anyway. Sure, if we "had to land" we could over Montana, but for a medical, which could happen on any size a/c, why would we? The plane doesn't "feel better" and have a better reliability over the ground v/s water.
Ultimately, ETOPS doesn't, in and of itself, have anything to do with water. ETOPS can be over land, too.
My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
robsaw From Canada, joined Dec 2008, 188 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 11424 times:
Quoting scbriml (Reply 16): An ETOPS qualified A320 or 737 has exactly the same 'room for error' as any widebody twin flying the same route.
Based on ALL the operational and risk factors in play, I'd say that the "error probability" is nominally identical regardless of narrow/wide and 2/3/4 engine aircraft.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8785 posts, RR: 52 Reply 20, posted (4 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 11288 times:
Quoting B727FA (Reply 18):
Ultimately, ETOPS doesn't, in and of itself, have anything to do with water. ETOPS can be over land, too.
ETOPS does require more fuel to be carried, which makes a narrowbody at the edge of its range a little more challenging. On a SEA-HNL flight, there might be weight restrictions due to the ETOPS rules that wouldn't be there if the flight was over land and had the same winds & same distance filed on the flight plan.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3271 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 10718 times:
How do those aircraft differ from a 757? I have flown to HNL from YVR on WS's 738 and it has no first class and every seat is the same. What I don't understand is the aversion to a 6 hour flight over water in a 737 and people don't seem to complain as much to be shoe horned into an ERJ for four hours. You fly from YUL-YVR in what is the same cabin and I never read how it is too small. Personally, I prefer a smaller plane, 130 passengers loads a lot quicker then 300 passengers. I don't have to say what would be preferred by most FF's.
yeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 531 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 10621 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 20): ETOPS does require more fuel to be carried, which makes a narrowbody at the edge of its range a little more challenging. On a SEA-HNL flight, there might be weight restrictions due to the ETOPS rules that wouldn't be there if the flight was over land and had the same winds & same distance filed on the flight plan.
Whether over water or ground makes no difference. ETOPS or EDTO is all about diversion times. Flying over land more than 1 hour from an airport is also a ETOPS flight.
YULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2115 posts, RR: 6 Reply 25, posted (4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 8983 times:
There is nothing wrong about a 737 flying that far. If anything, it shows how great of an airplane it is.
A widebody will indeed have more range, but under one and only one condition: that the fuel tanks are full enough! If the widebody is scheduled to do a 6hr 20 min flights, it won't have more fuel that what is required to fly this 6 hrs 20 min flight (plus a safety margin, which is also carried on the 737 no matter what).
Quoting rampart (Reply 2): From my point of view, 1:3 chance of a window on a 737, vs. >1:4 chance on a widebody. The seat is the same otherwise. I prefer the narrowbody. So long as it has a movie.
For a long over water flight, I would see it as 1:3 chance of an aisle on the 737, vs a 4:8, or 4:9 chance of an aisle on a widebody (A330 or B777, to use the two most popular ones) so I would take the widebody. This said, so long as I can choose my seat at booking and there is better than a middle seat left...
B737900 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 147 posts, RR: 0 Reply 26, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 8894 times:
Just last week flew Bellingham-Maui AS 807 on a 738. We were an hour early landing in OGG! Not a bad flight at all in F class. The ac was #512 which is in Boeing livery withour the lei. Talking to the FA about AS using the 739 and he just raised his hands and said "just more people".
Sounds like a Beaver on floats..........we're saved!!
mke717spotter From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2327 posts, RR: 5 Reply 28, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8336 times:
I know its not over water, but I'm thinking AS's ANC-ORD flights must be over six hours as well?
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 23): WestJet also operates almost 5 daily YVR-Hawaii (HNL/OGG/KOA) nonstops with 738s.
Didn't AQ used to fly this route too?
Will you watch the Cleveland Browns and the Detroit Lions on Sunday? Only if coach Eric Mangini resigned after a loss.
dc1030cf From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 34 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8306 times:
reffado： I once flew a DC-10-30 of RG from LAX to NRT in the 9 across Y-class middle seat. Now compare that to even the middle seat on a narrow body. Which one would you prefer?
PassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 156 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7995 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 10): When the headwinds get bad on SEA-Hawaii, they will take a fuel stop in OAK. If the range is still a potential problem they will take weight restrictions and offload passengers. This is relatively rare, but a few times a year they do need to stop at OAK. OAK saves about 200 miles off the overwater crossing which can make the difference, but the fuel stop adds 400 more miles, so it is avoided if possible.
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 10): What error? ETOPS rules dictate how much extra fuel is required and stipulates the condition of the airplane prior to dispatch. They can lose an engine halfway to Hawaii and still have enough fuel to limp along on a single engine for 3 hours at 25,000ft.
This is a very often misunderstood issue with the 737's even amongst pilots who should know better.
It is never the actual range of the flight that is the problem, it is the contingency fuel. The most restrictive ETOPS scenario is the two engine rapid-d. You assume a rapid-d at the half-way point, emergency descend to 10,000 feet, and then fly in either direction to your ETOPS diversion airports.
In actuality, a 737-800 has plenty of range to make it from the west coast/Alaska to Hawaii...no problem. A typical lower-48 flight has us landing with about 60 minutes of fuel on a nice day. A typical flight to Hawaii lands with over 2 hours in the tanks when we get to Hawaii.
SEA/BLI does tend to be the most fuel critical but stopping for fuel and restricting weight are not the only two options, what is often done is instead of flying the direct tracks to Hawaii, a route more southerly down the coast is first flow until we get closer to the CA-bulge before we start our more direct track across to Hawaii.
AS's longest flight is now ANC-KOA. Hawaii-ANC is usually not a problem fuel wise because of CDB which gives a real nice diversion airport very close in (in comparison to the options available on a direct SEA/BLI-Hawaii)
HAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2472 posts, RR: 53 Reply 32, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7789 times:
Quoting reffado (Reply 1): isn't the flight over water restricted in some way?
As several people above have noted, any flight more than 1 hour away from a suitable airport requires special ETOPS rules for fuel, and for system redundancy. There has to be enough fuel to fly from from the Equal Time Point (equal flight time in either direction) at 10,000 feet - assuming a pressurization problem - on either one or both engines (whichever burns more fuel) to either of your diversion airports, hold, and make an approach. There are also rules about the number of electrical generators and other systems available. The aircraft are also subject to much stricter maintenance and inspection rules. Any aircraft that can fly ETOPS is safe for the flight, whether it is a 737, 767, or A330.
Quoting HiFlyerAS (Reply 6): Yes, wide-bodies are nice but on thinner routes they're just not economically practical.
That's right. It's also why an airline like Hawaiian doesn't go to the smaller markets. Every airline has its own niche, and if an airline tries to be an 'everything to everyone' carrier, it runs the risk of doing everything poorly. What most good CEO's have learned in the past decade is that you need to concentrate on what you do best, and don't spend too much money trying to compete with everyone in every market.
HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1015 posts, RR: 3 Reply 34, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7468 times:
Just flew to Hawaii and back on AS from Anchorage, ANC-KOA was 5h50 min and KOA-ANC was 5h 32min, perfectly comfortable, as expected. Whats the difference between being on a wide body and on a narrow body? Do you all remember the horror of being on a 747 or DC-10 stuck in the middle of the middle and then having to queue up for the lavs? No huge lines on a 737, quick meal and beverage service and the best part is getting to Hawaii in only five and half hours rather than spending an entire day en-route going through Seattle or LAX.
The diference between being in a wide-body and a narrow-body is that if you have a emergency in a 767/757/A330 and you have to descend half way there, you will be fine
If you're in a 737, half way there and you have an emergency and you have to descend, is going to get spooky with the fuel.
This thread is not about comfort, is about fuel reserves
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7411 posts, RR: 7 Reply 37, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5573 times:
Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 7): Fiji Air Pacific used to fly YVR-HNL-NAN w/B737; so B737 SEA-HNL isn't something out of the extraordinary.
When TAAG Angola DT got B737-700 it was discussed here on a.net that those had the range to fly transatlantic between Angola LAD and North East Brazil (REC/SSA) that would be +/-7h.
Now, if CM was to get B737-700ER and fly transatlantic 10hours between PTY and MAD, that surely would be another thing.
Copa should buy a bigger plane so it can fly to Madrid, other European cities and launch another pioneering flight from Latin America to Tokyo. 787 should become common in Panama, one can wish.
max550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1114 posts, RR: 0 Reply 38, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5358 times:
Quoting g500 (Reply 35): The diference between being in a wide-body and a narrow-body is that if you have a emergency in a 767/757/A330 and you have to descend half way there, you will be fine
If you're in a 737, half way there and you have an emergency and you have to descend, is going to get spooky with the fuel.
This thread is not about comfort, is about fuel reserves
Why would a 737 be spooky while a widebody would be fine? Are you suggesting that a 757, 767 or A330 would be able to fly further on 7 hrs of fuel than a 737 with 7 hrs of fuel?
There seems to be a perception among some people that a larger plane is a safer plane because it has the ability to carry more fuel. That's simply untrue and if the 737 were in any way unfit for these missions they wouldn't be flying them.
HiFlyerAS From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 617 posts, RR: 1 Reply 41, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4966 times:
Quoting g500 (Reply 35): The diference between being in a wide-body and a narrow-body is that if you have a emergency in a 767/757/A330 and you have to descend half way there, you will be fine
If you're in a 737, half way there and you have an emergency and you have to descend, is going to get spooky with the fuel.
Did you READ the previous threads? Apparently not. No airline operates an ETOPS flight without enough fuel to operate on one engine in a depressurization scenario to the destination. It has NOTHING to do with it being a WB or NB.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6302 posts, RR: 39 Reply 43, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4869 times:
Quoting max550 (Reply 38): Why would a 737 be spooky while a widebody would be fine? Are you suggesting that a 757, 767 or A330 would be able to fly further on 7 hrs of fuel than a 737 with 7 hrs of fuel?
Just because a widebody CAN carry more fuel does not mean that it always does. To put in in simpler terms than PassedV1 did (not meaning to cast any aspersions; your explanation was excellent) you can run out of fuel in any plane, on any route, if you don't carry enough (just ask the crew of the Gimli Glider-which, by the way, was a widebody.) Fuel left on the ground is every bit as useful as runway behind you. Total capacity is only relevant when you reach "full."
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
clydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1022 posts, RR: 0 Reply 44, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4829 times:
Quoting g500 (Thread starter): I was looking at Alaska Airlines ANC-HNL blocked for 6 hrs 20 mns and SEA-NHL blocked for 6 hrs 15 mns. Not a lot of room for error over water...
It's about the same as MAN to the Cape Verde Islands. Don't see what the big deal is?
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3755 posts, RR: 4 Reply 45, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4716 times:
Quoting woodsboy (Reply 34): Just flew to Hawaii and back on AS from Anchorage, ANC-KOA was 5h50 min and KOA-ANC was 5h 32min, perfectly comfortable, as expected Whats the difference between being on a wide body and on a narrow body?
It's psychological. Some people prefer being in a larger cabin.
atct From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2044 posts, RR: 40 Reply 46, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4439 times:
Quoting N62NA (Reply 45):
It's psychological. Some people prefer being in a larger cabin.
Yep thats all it is. Ive flown 737's ANC-IAH (6 hours) and I have no problem with it. Id actually rather fly a CO 752 across the pond vs. a UA 763 in the old config. With the new config, its 50/50. I work Alaska's flights to HI everyday from ANC and I dont recall any of them ever diverting to Homer, Kodiak, or somewhere else due to inadequate fuel.
atct
Real pilots fly planes that take and measure oil in gallons
But they do go over the Sahara, which is the same, I believe, in terms of ETOPS. Many EU-Asia flights are ETOPS and they are over land, specially when routing over certain parts of China. Anyway, it´s been better explained up-thread.
Quoting NobleRT (Reply 5): I don't understand the aversion to long flights on narrowbody, especially those lucky ones in biz/first. Unless you want to get up and walk around a lot, you still get the same squarefootage so to speak whether it's got one aisle or two isles.
I have none. However, the only reaon I do not fly MTY/MEX-PTY-EZE/COR/SCL is because CM´s BIZ cabin is pretty much a domestic First US cabin. I won´t spend so much money on a close to 8 hr. flight to get a cabin like that. I wouldn´t have trouble flying them if they installed a better C class seat for such long fliights.
Quoting rscaife1682 (Reply 14): but I am mostly in biz which to me is no different than any other biz cabin.
The seat does make a difference in long haul 737 flights.
cornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 226 posts, RR: 1 Reply 49, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4210 times:
Quoting N62NA (Reply 45):
It's psychological. Some people prefer being in a larger cabin.
Yeah, my mom gets claustrophic in a narrowbody. She can tolerate it for an hour or two, but if she had to do, say, ATL-NRT in a narrowbody, she'd need Valium.
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3755 posts, RR: 4 Reply 50, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3972 times:
Quoting cornutt (Reply 49):
Yeah, my mom gets claustrophic in a narrowbody. She can tolerate it for an hour or two, but if she had to do, say, ATL-NRT in a narrowbody, she'd need Valium.
Many people do, and you don't have to officially suffer from claustrophobia.
Quoting atct (Reply 46): Yep thats all it is. Ive flown 737's ANC-IAH (6 hours) and I have no problem with it. Id actually rather fly a CO 752 across the pond vs. a UA 763 in the old config.
But... psychological factors can make the difference between enjoying a flight and not enjoying a flight - something many here overlook as they merely focus on the physical seat space, which is a mistake.
I'm sure the day is coming, though, when we'll see some kind of 737 / A32S variant finally flying trans-Atlantic*, just as we're seeing 737s now flying West Coast to Hawaii.
* BA A318 and those BBJ premium services notwithstanding - I'm talking about "regular" flights.
HAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2472 posts, RR: 53 Reply 51, posted (4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3687 times:
Quoting g500 (Reply 35): The diference between being in a wide-body and a narrow-body is that if you have a emergency in a 767/757/A330 and you have to descend half way there, you will be fine
To repeat what I and several others have said - every ETOPS flight is calculated so that if an engine quits at the worst possible time, there's still enough fuel onboard to take you safely either direction to an airport. There's nothing 'spooky' about a 737 vs. a widebody - we all fly under the same rules.
HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3271 posts, RR: 1 Reply 54, posted (4 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3089 times:
Quoting AR385 (Reply 47): But they do go over the Sahara, which is the same, I believe, in terms of ETOPS. Many EU-Asia flights are ETOPS and they are over land, specially when routing over certain parts of China. Anyway, it´s been better explained up-thread.
Quoting B727FA (Reply 48): Exactly, ETOPS is NOT about water...
ETOPS is how far from an airport you can be if your flight suffers an emergency and they have to land at the nearest airport.
Quoting robsaw (Reply 53): Air Canada has flown St Johns to LHR on A319. Granted, that's about a short a route as you can get from NA to Europte.
That is kind of a neat flight actually. I like to take it when I have the time and I need to go on business. BTW is that flight going to operate this summer?
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 55, posted (4 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3070 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 54): Quoting robsaw (Reply 53):
Air Canada has flown St Johns to LHR on A319. Granted, that's about a short a route as you can get from NA to Europte.
That is kind of a neat flight actually. I like to take it when I have the time and I need to go on business. BTW is that flight going to operate this summer?
AlnessW From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 618 posts, RR: 1 Reply 56, posted (4 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2812 times:
Quoting atct (Reply 46): Id actually rather fly a CO 752 across the pond vs. a UA 763 in the old config. With the new config, its 50/50.
What are the old and new configurations?
Quoting N62NA (Reply 50): Many people do, and you don't have to officially suffer from claustrophobia.
Exactly.
Quoting N62NA (Reply 50): But... psychological factors can make the difference between enjoying a flight and not enjoying a flight - something many here overlook as they merely focus on the physical seat space, which is a mistake.
cornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 226 posts, RR: 1 Reply 59, posted (4 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1941 times:
Quoting N62NA (Reply 50): But... psychological factors can make the difference between enjoying a flight and not enjoying a flight - something many here overlook as they merely focus on the physical seat space, which is a mistake.
Last night, I was reviewing a book published in 1988 which has a writeup of the Boeing 7J7 project. I had forgotten that the 7J7, among other things, was to have been a widebody for the 150-seat market. In the context of this discussion, I thought that was interesting.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 751 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Feb 2012, 81 posts, 
From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2076 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11438 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2008, 188 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, 
I agree with you on both of those matters! 
From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2890 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1022 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 4926 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
