Jcxp15 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 996 posts, RR: 6 Posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1656 times:
I was looking at the range chart of the 737-700/800/900's on the Boeing website, and saw that a 737-700 could easily make it from Boston to London. This led me to the question, why not fly that route with the 737-700 or even 800 (perhaps on flights that are less crowded).
Would it be hard for the airlines (or Boeing) to get ETOPS for the 737-700 or 800? Or would the plane be able to get over to England from the U.S., but not back? I've been on empty flights from JFK-LHR on 767's. THe same flight on a 737 would probably only have been 80% full.
HlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1591 times:
Some airlines do with the 757. Continental flies Cleveland- London with a 757, and a lot of European charters fly from Europe to points in the U.S. with 757s.
Although psychologically a lot of passengers might be nervous flying that distance on a narrow body
Lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3448 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1556 times:
Jcxp15, Imagine yourself flying on a 737 for 6+ hours or on any narrowbody! I dont think you will like it, although there are 757 transatlantic flights.
Auswnfan From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 114 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1542 times:
People flew trans-oceanic flight in narrow-bodies for years, there's no magic to the second aisle.
Steede From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1518 times:
Agree that there "is no magic to the middle row" on widebodies. In fact as much as I love the United 777, I would much rather be anywhere on a 757, than in the middle seat in the middle row of a UAL 777, which if I remember correctly is a 2-5-2 configuration in coach.
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7673 posts, RR: 18 Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1487 times:
I think the real issue is that slots at airports like LHR are so prized why waste them on a flight that could only support a 737-700, when routes that could support a 767/777/A330/A340 or larger can be more profitable.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
RoyalDutch From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 917 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1478 times:
I flew on an A320 over the gulf of Mexico this summer (MIA-MAO)..it was 6+ hours...and like I said in the "opinions of the 757" thread, I find the wide bodies, especially the 767 (2-3-2 config) to be far more apealing for longer flights (although I must admit that the prospect of sitting in the middle on a 2-5-2 does sound a lot worse... ). Also, it has to be far more economical to operate a larger plane than the smaller ones.
Penguinflies From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 975 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1440 times:
Air Fiji and other operaters operate the 737 across the pacific on flights that last 6+ hours, and so far I never heard of anything bad about those flights. IMO I would rather be on a 757 to or from HNL, less boarding time, less people picking up luggage or meeting their rides, better service, easier to get to the back of the aircraft or a lav on AA/TWA.
Scottb From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6363 posts, RR: 34 Reply 11, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1426 times:
I suspect that the convenience of a non-stop flight in a smaller market would probably trump any perceived advantage in comfort on a widebody - especially since a substantial number of passengers couldn't tell the difference between a 737 and a 747 to save their lives.
If you're flying BOS-MAN, for example (or even MHT-MAN ), why add two to three hours of travel time to your journey by flying through JFK, EWR, PHL, LHR, or LGW? And why deal with the hassle of flying through congested hub airports if you can avoid it? It's no pleasure waiting with 300-400 other passengers trying to find your bags on a luggage carousel, or having to board an hour before scheduled departure simply because it takes that long to get 400 people onboard.
BOS-LHR/LGW is a popular enough route to justify multiple daily widebodies. But there are some smaller markets in the Northeast U.S./Atlantic Canada which would benefit from 737 nonstops to the U.K. and/or Ireland. I believe there will be A319 service to STN from a couple of markets in Atlantic Canada this summer.
Afitch7881 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 812 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1404 times:
I have always said that cities like BDL, PVD and MHT could support 737's across the atlantic at least for a seasonal opperation.
B747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1414 times:
737 or 757 Oceanic Operations - why not if the planes are certified for ETOPs...
There are now 737s flying from California to Honolulu... the "swim" is 2,300 nautical miles... there is nothing to land on between the two points...
The distance beween, say Gander, Nfld and Shannon, Ireland on the Atlantic flight is merely 1,850 nautical miles... and with specific ETOPs routings, the track brings you close to Keflavik, Iceland, for contingencies, making the Atlantic route quite easy for a 737, 757 or any two engine aircraft...
My opinion... well, I am a 747 captain and I have my 4 engines... and rather be with 4 engines...
Just an opinion...
(s) Pablo
Jayhup From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 440 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1385 times:
BA used to operate two 757 transatlantics...JFK-BHX and JFK-GLA. Aircraft regs G-BPEA and G-BPEC. Nice in Club but not so nice in World Traveller.
When I worked there we had two incidents with the 75's...and engine shutdown and diversion to Gander and a bird ingetsed in the engine (and subsequent failure) on takeoff from GLA.
On the bird strike...my parents have a friend who is a priest who just happened to be on that flight. The captain was a woman who was the check captain for the 757 fleet. Coincidence??????
ATA L1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1361 posts, RR: 7 Reply 15, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1372 times:
Well 777-200LRpilot, Aloha uses the 737-700 not the 800 from Oak to HNL. I think its an image thing as well, you know the ol bigger is better menatlity, some airlines would not like to bee seen that far away with such small equipment.
Delta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7 Reply 17, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1346 times:
I flew across the Atlantic from Vienna to Moncton NB on a DC-4M North Star (with 2 fuel stops) ... in 1957. Very narrow body, but 4 engines!
Twa902fly From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 3048 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1344 times:
Finnair flies (or flew im not sure) HEL-BGR-PBI. That's Helsinki-Bangor-West Palm Beach.
As well as CO's service this summer on
EWR-STN
EWR-LIS
EWR-UK smaller cites
CLE-LGW, already mentioned
Alaska has the 6 1/2 hour ORD-ANC on a 73G. UA flies that with 757s. ANC-ORD however takes 5:45 to fly.
TWA902
life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 996 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7145 posts, 
From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3448 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 179 posts, 
). Also, it has to be far more economical to operate a larger plane than the smaller ones.
), why add two to three hours of travel time to your journey by flying through JFK, EWR, PHL, LHR, or LGW? And why deal with the hassle of flying through congested hub airports if you can avoid it? It's no pleasure waiting with 300-400 other passengers trying to find your bags on a luggage carousel, or having to board an hour before scheduled departure simply because it takes that long to get 400 people onboard.
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined May 1999, 3799 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
