Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 3, posted (10 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3150 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.
Srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 16896 posts, RR: 51 Reply 7, posted (10 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3026 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.
Searpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, RR: 12 Reply 9, posted (10 years 11 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 2931 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"
Flyboy80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1858 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (10 years 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2820 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!!!!
Early Air From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 611 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (10 years 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2768 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.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29366 posts, RR: 61 Reply 14, posted (10 years 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2745 times:
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.