Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737  
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 15513 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...

59 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinereffado From Brazil, joined Feb 2012, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 15477 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?

User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3156 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 15428 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.

-Rampart


User currently offlineTK787 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4478 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 15200 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.


User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 15172 times:

Quoting TK787 (Reply 3):

Correct however Turkish airlines' longest 737 flights won't over water...

Has Alaska cancelled any flights to Hawaii due to strong head-winds?

[Edited 2013-02-04 06:46:59]

User currently offlineNobleRT From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 35 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 15010 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.

User currently offlineHiFlyerAS From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 1016 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14886 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!



Next trip...DL RJ SEA-LAX/AM LAX-MEX Dec 23
User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2707 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14865 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.



I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlineHNL-Jack From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14727 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.
User currently offlinemd3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 14626 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.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9827 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 14455 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!
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 14230 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.
User currently offlineGentFromAlaska From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 14128 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.
User currently offlineasmvpgold From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 13915 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.


721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,741/2/3/4,752/3,762/3/4,772,DC9/30/50/80/90,DC10,MD11,L1011,F100,319,320,332,CRJ,ERJ,DH8/2/4
User currently offlinerscaife1682 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 332 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 13644 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.

User currently offlinejetsetter629 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 461 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13539 times:

Quoting TK787 (Reply 3):
IST-Mombasa at 3171miles with a block time of 8:45 (I don't know why this long)

Stops in JRO first - 6:55 flight time to JRO, 1 ground time, then 1 hour flight to MBA


User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12898 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13491 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
Not a lot of room for error over water...

An ETOPS qualified A320 or 737 has exactly the same 'room for error' as any widebody twin flying the same route.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineValorien From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 52 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13433 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.


User currently offlineB727FA From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 817 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 13115 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.
User currently offlinerobsaw From Canada, joined Dec 2008, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 13085 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.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9827 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 12949 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!
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4416 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12379 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.


Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineyeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12282 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.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 11232 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.

FJ still operates the 738 HNL-NAN which is almost 400 nm further than YVR-HNL.

WestJet also operates almost 5 daily YVR-Hawaii (HNL/OGG/KOA) nonstops with 738s.


User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2707 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 10557 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 23):
FJ still operates the 738 HNL-NAN which is almost 400 nm further than YVR-HNL.

But that route isn't over open water with no diversion airport on the way.



I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2185 posts, RR: 5
Reply 25, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 10648 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...



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlineB737900 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 10562 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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!!
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4593 posts, RR: 8
Reply 27, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 10419 times:

Quoting NobleRT (Reply 5):
I don't understand the aversion to long flights on narrowbody,

It's psychological. Some people prefer being in a larger cabin.


User currently offlinemke717spotter From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2465 posts, RR: 5
Reply 28, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 10010 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.
User currently offlinedc1030cf From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 9977 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?  

User currently offlinen797mx From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9611 times:

What about NH 943? That's over 9 hours strapped into a -700ER going to BOM from FUK!


Clear skies and strong tail winds.
User currently offlinePassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9668 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)


User currently offlineHAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2572 posts, RR: 53
Reply 32, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9461 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.
User currently offlineAlnessW From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 620 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9249 times:

Quoting reffado (Reply 1):
Risky or not, I for one won't ever spend that much time inside a 737.
Quoting reffado (Reply 1):
Widebodies for long flights, please.

   I agree with you on both of those matters!  
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 10):
It’s only slightly longer, and people are accustomed to getting a 737 from SEA to any other destination.

Is this because of AS? Or other airlines as well?

Quoting asmvpgold (Reply 13):
I thought it was better than UAs old 772s in the config they used to Hawaii about 10 years ago.

What was UA's 772 configuration? 2-5-2?

Quoting asmvpgold (Reply 13):
I don't know why some people think a narrow body flight is all that different than a wide body.

I think it really just boils down to matter of preference. That's my thought here.
Another good reason:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 27):
It's psychological. Some people prefer being in a larger cabin.

  


User currently offlinewoodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1031 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9144 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.

User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8010 times:

Quoting woodsboy (Reply 34):

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


User currently offlineushermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2969 posts, RR: 16
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7838 times:

Quoting n797mx (Reply 30):
What about NH 943? That's over 9 hours strapped into a -700ER going to BOM from FUK!

Have you seen the configuration of those birds?



Where have all the tri-jets gone...
User currently onlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8513 posts, RR: 6
Reply 37, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7244 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlinemax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7035 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.


User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6999 times:

I guess being a seasoned traveler, I don't consider 6 hours a long haul flight at all.

User currently offlineTK787 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4478 posts, RR: 12
Reply 40, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6838 times:

Quoting dc1030cf (Reply 29):
I once flew a DC-10-30 of RG from LAX to NRT in the 9 across Y-class middle seat.

Oh yes, remember those?
I have done EWR-AMS on a 2-5-2 NW DC-10, middle seat of the 5 across middle section, sucks.

Quoting checksixx (Reply 39):
I guess being a seasoned traveler, I don't consider 6 hours a long haul flight at all.

Even though my all time average flight is: 3:58hrs. I hate anything over 2.5 hours.


User currently offlineHiFlyerAS From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 1016 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6638 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.



Next trip...DL RJ SEA-LAX/AM LAX-MEX Dec 23
User currently offlinen797mx From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6569 times:

Quoting ushermittwoch (Reply 36):
Quoting n797mx (Reply 30):
What about NH 943? That's over 9 hours strapped into a -700ER going to BOM from FUK!

Have you seen the configuration of those birds?

32" pitch economy seats on some of them, although I know they are mostly business set up



Clear skies and strong tail winds.
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7199 posts, RR: 50
Reply 43, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6542 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
User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6501 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?


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4593 posts, RR: 8
Reply 45, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6387 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.


User currently offlineatct From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2350 posts, RR: 37
Reply 46, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6113 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



"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6616 posts, RR: 35
Reply 47, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6032 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting g500 (Reply 4):
Correct however Turkish airlines' longest 737 flights won't over water...

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.


User currently offlineB727FA From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 817 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5870 times:

Exactly, ETOPS is NOT about water...


My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5881 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.  Wow!


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4593 posts, RR: 8
Reply 50, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5645 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.

[Edited 2013-02-05 18:45:27]

User currently offlineHAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2572 posts, RR: 53
Reply 51, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 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

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.
User currently offlineHiFlyerAS From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 1016 posts, RR: 2
Reply 52, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5104 times:

Thank you, HAL. Close thread...let's move on.


Next trip...DL RJ SEA-LAX/AM LAX-MEX Dec 23
User currently offlinerobsaw From Canada, joined Dec 2008, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4872 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 50):
I'm sure the day is coming, though, when we'll see some kind of 737 / A32S variant finally flying trans-Atlantic

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.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4416 posts, RR: 2
Reply 54, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4759 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?



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 55, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4740 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?

Yes, daily starting April 25.


User currently offlineAlnessW From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 620 posts, RR: 1
Reply 56, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4481 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.

   You've hit the nail on the head!


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 57, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4313 times:

Quoting AlnessW (Reply 56):
What are the old and new configurations?

Here take a look:

http://ir.unitedcontinentalholdings....-newsArticle&ID=1704267&highlight=

http://www.united.com/web/en-US/cont...ht/aircraft/767/300ER/default.aspx

Version 2 in the second link is the new configuration of 14 of the B763.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineAlnessW From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 620 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3989 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 57):
Here take a look:

Thanks!  
Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 57):
Version 2 in the second link is the new configuration of 14 of the B763.

I do not see much difference other than the lack of first class.


User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 59, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3612 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.


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...
AS 851 SEA-HNL Stopping In OAK? posted Mon Dec 3 2007 11:10:44 by AirlineBrat
AS/AA ANC-SEA-DFW Interchange In The 80's posted Tue Apr 1 2003 19:57:46 by Tom in NO
Who Will Take Over T4 In MAD After IB Shrinks? posted Mon Dec 3 2012 03:39:49 by Gonzalo
Alaska Flights To HNL Are They Full? posted Fri Oct 28 2011 07:47:52 by GizmoNC
AAB In SEA On Fri, Tim Clark In On Mon. posted Wed Sep 28 2011 21:11:44 by cosmofly
Extra Hawaiian HNL-SEA And SEA-HNL Flights? posted Wed Sep 7 2011 16:17:50 by HNLPointShoot
UK Ban Printer Cartridges Over 500g In Carry On posted Mon Nov 1 2010 10:23:01 by Woof
SEA Bound UA 757 Lands In Montana Engine Failure posted Mon Sep 20 2010 14:03:18 by terryb99
Lufthansa Makes Investment In 737 Fleet posted Sat May 29 2010 01:09:03 by columba
Alaska Airlines SEA-KTN/JNU Inaugural Dates? posted Sun May 2 2010 13:27:42 by Tango-Bravo