Jcxp15 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 997 posts, RR: 5 Posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3234 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.
Steede From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3096 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, 7839 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3065 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: 2
Reply 8, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3056 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, 992 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3018 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, 6960 posts, RR: 31
Reply 11, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3004 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.
B747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2992 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...
ATA L1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1402 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2950 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.