Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
717's For Alaska Airlines? Would It Work?  
User currently offline717fan From Switzerland, joined Nov 2001, 2017 posts, RR: 6
Posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3950 times:

The 717 could be a good replacement for the 732. What do you think?

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN521NA From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 513 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3935 times:

Maybe, but Alaska Airlines wants an all 737-fleet.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29705 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3926 times:

No.

The 717 does not have a topside combi configuration available, and it not gravel certified.

I don't think they could land at Dutch Harbor, Alaska either.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 3, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3883 times:

The 717 does not work as a 732 replacement for Alaska for several reasons, the most important of which is that the 717 is not available in a combi configuration, and certainly not in the "flexible" combi-confirguation of the AS 732s - AS can change the number of seats and cargo-pallets carried in the main cabin almost on demand with the 732; very useful in the Alaska enviornment. Also, the 732s are all equipped with gravel kits which allow them to operate into unpaved and unimproved runways.

AS does want to stay all 737, the 732s will be around for a very long time, long after the MD80s are gone and retired. There is really no replacement at the moment for the 732C - maybe Boeing, at some point, will develop a special version of the 73G specific to Alaska's needs, but the problem with the low-slung CFM engines on the 2nd and 3rd generation 737 remain an issue.


User currently offlineDPrush From United States of America, joined May 2002, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3864 times:

What's a 732? Links?

User currently offlineFrequentflier From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 422 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3861 times:

I would think that the 717 doesn't have the range that Alaska needs.

Don't forget, Alaska is more than twice the size of California, Oregon, and Washington combined.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29705 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3843 times:

DPrush. Actually it is shorthand for a Boeing 737-200QC, or Quick Change.

Frequentflyer. Range isn't really an issue, I can get to 80% of the places where I need to go with the medivac Lear I dispatch without having to buy fuel at outstations or having an intermediate stop.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3759 times:

My guess as for a 732QC replacement would be a 736 QC, which Boeing would have to develop, but if they could get a good enough order for them, it might be worth it. Since AS is looking to maintain one fleet type in the future, they'll probably just get the newest 732s they could and have them modified for QC use.

User currently onlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13255 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3744 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Just FYI, the code for the B-737-200C is "73M"  Smile


"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3664 times:

The FAA has made it pretty clear that if an aircraft isn't already a 'combi' aircraft, it isn't going to be allowed to become one. Even the 737-700C that was being talked about (and has since been dropped), would not have been a changeable combi as the 200 is. It would have had a permanent fixed 'wall' separating cargo/pax compartments. So, Alaska will continue to take very good care of the ones they have, maybe pick up one or two more if they come on the market, and that will be that for some time to come.


"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineSoku39 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1797 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3649 times:

Range isn't really an issue when you consider that the communities might not be that far apart. Thing is its immpossble to build roads out there.


The Ohio Player
User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4537 posts, RR: 42
Reply 11, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 3570 times:

Searpqx - what's the reasoning behind that FAA regulation? Could you go into a bit more detail, or give me a link please?

Cheers

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineFlyboy80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1875 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 3553 times:

yes it would work! Expecially on routes between california, nevada, Oreogn, and washington, including provinces in Canada, but unfourtunetly Alaska Air group uses Horizon Airlines and there F28/CRJ-700 regional jets for the majority of short range services, and if theres a little to much people for the RJs it goes to Alaska's 73G's and some MD-83s (BTW AS & QX ASSISIT EACHOTHER ON ROUTES AS DO OTHER AIRLINES) because they are fuel effiant enough to fly with lower load factors on those routes while being able to also play with the big boyS on longer heavier competed routes, the 717 just dosn't fit into the Alaska system!!!!
Bri


User currently offlineEarly Air From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 611 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (11 years 9 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3501 times:

Would it work? Yes
Should they get it? No

I think they America West should stick to all 737's after their MD-80's are gone. If anything I think they should invest in a larger aircraft, rather than a smaller one. It seems that all AK flgihts I am on are oversold.

Rgds,
Early Air


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29705 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (11 years 9 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3478 times:

VirginFlyer:

I don't know what the actual rule is but it is true.

It is fallout from that SAA crash a few years back where they lost a 747 combi to what is belived to have been a cargo fire.

The FAA since then has really tighted up the rules on hauling freight. Freight now can't stick out from beyond the edges of an igloo, your flats with loads on them have to be covered in pretty expensive fireproof blankets.

It is actually a pain in the ass.

I know a company up here that operates a rather large bush airplane, 19 seats. They wanted it to operate as a 9 seat combi, that way they could fly in hunting parties and their four-wheelers and other bulky gear.

They where able to get a copy of an STC from another operator on the field that flew the same aircraft. The STC involved doign just what the company wanted, and was allready approved in the other operators equiptment. The STC convered mainly installation of smoke detection equiptment and a partion to seperate the passengers from the freight.

Using that data the first company put in for the STC, and where reject. Didn't matter that it was allready approved and in use on another aircraft. So now the first company is at a distinct disadvantage on chartering out aircraft to the other company.

I still haven't figured out what made the installation in company B's aircraft so much safer then the one that was proposed in company A's airplane.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 9 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3475 times:

I think they America West should stick to all 737's after their MD-80's are gone

Wonderful. Except that America West has never had MD80s. And they are replacing their 737s with Airbuses. And this thread is about Alaska. So your point is......?


User currently offlineMiami1 From Australia, joined Feb 2001, 706 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 years 9 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3457 times:

Excuse me for assuming but I guess he means Alaska and and just got side tracked. I am sure he needed a legend like you to point it out. Thank you. You are so cool.

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...
New Idea For The Airlines... Would It Work? posted Sun Jun 29 2003 03:33:20 by Kjet12
Anyone Here Work For Alaska Airlines? posted Mon May 15 2006 15:09:30 by 7E72004
SkyValue Airlines - Will It Work? posted Tue Oct 24 2006 22:58:21 by Nopeotone
VoIP On A/C, Would It Work posted Wed May 31 2006 05:38:04 by Airbus3801
SK....DEN-ARN....would It Work? posted Fri Jan 20 2006 05:15:56 by OOer
GA Topic; Chain Aircraft Rental..would It Work? posted Mon Jan 9 2006 19:36:58 by Pilottj
Predictions For Alaska Airlines posted Sun Jan 1 2006 00:56:03 by Wedgetail737
N-number Request For Alaska Airlines posted Fri Sep 30 2005 13:55:56 by AA737-823
NW/UA Merger, Would It Work? posted Mon Jun 27 2005 00:38:40 by COERJ145
Great March Numbers For Alaska Airlines posted Tue Apr 6 2004 19:20:35 by EA CO AS