Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No NG Boeing 737's Flying HI Inter-island?  
User currently offlineValorien From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 52 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10259 times:

I was wondering why we haven't seen any Next Generation Boeing 737's flying inter-island in Hawaii. In the past, Aloha only used their 737-700s for transoceanic flights and currently, Alaska Airlines flies their 737-800s transoceanic with no inter-island flying.

[Edited 2012-07-17 14:06:36]

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10259 times:

If I remember correctly, Aloha did operate some inter-island services with their 737NGs, but the duty was a bit rough on them in comparison to the 732s, which was really ideally suited for that sort of operation (Multiple takeoffs and landings a days, short range flights with short flight times). HA used the DC-9 and later the 717 as that sort of operation is what the a/c was designed for.

Quoting Valorien (Thread starter):
Alaska Airlines flies their 737-800s transoceanic with no inter-island flying.

Not really a valid example seeing as AS doesn't offer any services between airports in Hawaii.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10239 times:

IIRC it has to do with the NG's CFM56 engines and that fact they don't like the 20 minute turns of the inter-island trips. The Rolls-Royce motors the Hawaiian B712's and the JT8D that the Aloha B732's used required much less maintenance.


Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10234 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 1):
If I remember correctly, Aloha did operate some inter-island services with their 737NGs, but the duty was a bit rough on them in comparison to the 732s, which was really ideally suited for that sort of operation (Multiple takeoffs and landings a days, short range flights with short flight times). HA used the DC-9 and later the 717 as that sort of operation is what the a/c was designed for.

Quoting Valorien (Thread starter):
Alaska Airlines flies their 737-800s transoceanic with no inter-island flying.

Not really a valid example seeing as AS doesn't offer any services between airports in Hawaii.

Perhaps a better example is when AS phased out the 732-combis for the milk run flights through JNU YAK, CDV and other small towns along the inside passage they replaced them with 734s rather than NGs. Short legs (other than the flight to JNU) and 30-45 min flights between towns.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6346 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10188 times:

The CFM56 doesn't like flight profiles that include high power settings on climb and carrying power on descent without nice, cool, cruise air (and lower thrust settings) in between. You can do that for a few cycles, but as I understand it, operating the engines like this constantly significantly shortens the engine life, which is why AQ withdrew 737 Classics and NG's from inter-island flying...


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineQANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1927 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 10012 times:

I believe that the NGs aren't that great for interisland flying because the engine cores don't have enough time to cool down. The plane has such short flights at lower altitudes that the engines are stressed more than usual. There was something with the 737-200 engine design that made that engine more forgiveable for those flights, hence Aloha using them.


My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3507 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9715 times:

If you notice, WN use mostly 737 300/500s, on their inter California service, and flights to AZ and LAS. 737 NG, are more of a longer haul plane.      

User currently offlineValorien From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 52 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8912 times:

So in other words, we shouldn't expect Southwest Airlines to fly their B737-800's inter-island anytime soon?

User currently offlineEIDL From Ireland, joined Apr 2012, 414 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8779 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 2):

IIRC it has to do with the NG's CFM56 engines and that fact they don't like the 20 minute turns of the inter-island trips.

FR do extremely tight turnarounds on their entirely 738/CFM56 fleet fleet so I don't think that's a major factor in the list of reasons why.


User currently offlinecargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1260 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (2 years 18 hours ago) and read 8558 times:

Quoting EIDL (Reply 8):
FR do extremely tight turnarounds on their entirely 738/CFM56 fleet fleet so I don't think that's a major factor in the list of reasons why.

But how many 20-minute sectors does FR fly? The turnaround can be short if the sectors are longer, giving the engines more cool cruise air. I've seen FL, WN, and F9 do sub-25-minute turns with CFM-56 powered aircraft, but the sectors are far longer than inter-island Hawaii even if they aren't anything like U.S. Tracon.

These interisland distances are more like Shannon-Dublin or Shannon-Blackpool, which are sectors I don't think anybody would intentionally fly 7 times a day with a jet.


User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 617 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 14 hours ago) and read 8513 times:

What would be the largest route length (nm) wise to warrant flying a 737 inter island?

User currently offlineQANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1927 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 13 hours ago) and read 8499 times:

Quoting Valorien (Reply 7):
So in other words, we shouldn't expect Southwest Airlines to fly their B737-800's inter-island anytime soon?

More than likely, unless they do a routing such as LAX-HNL-OGG-LAX.



My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8414 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8346 times:

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 5):
There was something with the 737-200 engine design that made that engine more forgiveable for those flights, hence Aloha using them.

Another thing; high bipass turbofans offer much less advantage on fuel burn during takeoff and climb AFAIK. So the 732 would be just as good for that mission.

I can remember being in Hawaii in the 80s and seeing the flat-bottom engine cowling you see on 733/735. So that was tried by Hawaiian or Aloha probably.


User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2997 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 8226 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 12):
I can remember being in Hawaii in the 80s and seeing the flat-bottom engine cowling you see on 733/735. So that was tried by Hawaiian or Aloha probably.

That would have been Aloha. HA has never flown 737s. Aloha tried 733s and 734s intra-island. I don't think they ever leased a 735.


User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1347 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7985 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 6):
737 NG, are more of a longer haul plane.      

So... You stick you tongue out at them?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 12):

Another thing; high bipass turbofans offer much less advantage on fuel burn during takeoff and climb AFAIK. So the 732 would be just as good for that mission.

Yes and no. There isn't much of a consumption win there, true. But they are able to lift a great deal more given the much higher TSFC, so even then, there is still a significant advantage.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7825 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 3):
Perhaps a better example is when AS phased out the 732-combis for the milk run flights through JNU YAK, CDV and other small towns along the inside passage they replaced them with 734s rather than NGs.

I'm not sure that's entirely why.

I am more inclined to believe that their 734 combis were certified, and certifying a new 737NG combi not possible. There is a 737-700QC, but no combi.

NS


User currently offlineSXDFC From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 2298 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7475 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 6):
If you notice, WN use mostly 737 300/500s, on their inter California service, and flights to AZ and LAS. 737 NG, are more of a longer haul plane

WRONG, that's a coincidence, WN does fly their -700s on shorter routes, although you mentioned California service, Ive seen, flown , and even worked the ISP-BWI flights which sometimes take less than an hour and operated by 737-700 equipment. Ive even flown DAL-LIT on a -700 before as well. From what I understand some of those intra- HI flights sometimes take less than a 30 mins from gate to gate. I could be wrong though!

Quoting Valorien (Reply 7):
So in other words, we shouldn't expect Southwest Airlines to fly their B737-800's inter-island anytime soon?

Never say never, however I doubt it, IMHO any WN flights out of HI will be strictly to and from the mainland..



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 7434 times:

Quoting SXDFC (Reply 16):
From what I understand some of those intra- HI flights sometimes take less than a 30 mins from gate to gate. I could be wrong though!

Most of the intra-hi flights are ~100 miles with the longest possible flight (ITO-LIH) at ~300 miles. A lot of those flights spend more time loading/unloading/taxing than actually in the air.


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 7385 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 15):
I am more inclined to believe that their 734 combis were certified, and certifying a new 737NG combi not possible. There is a 737-700QC, but no combi.

Not all flights on that route are 734-combis. It's not uncommon during off peak cargo season for those to be flown by a 734.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlinecargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1260 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7347 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 15):

I am more inclined to believe that their 734 combis were certified, and certifying a new 737NG combi not possible. There is a 737-700QC, but no combi.

The real reason is that AS had -400s to convert, and there is no conversion program for the -700/-800 yet, nor was there an MD-80SF Conversion at that time. Even if AS had wanted to use newer aircraft for these conversions, there were no STC's for any cargo door mod for any of them at that time (the MD-80 now has a conversion program, but Alaska no longer flies the MD-80).

Furthermore, there is no -700 Combi. There's only the -700C, which in it's current form is either all pax or all cargo and not a mixture. To have it be a combi these days, you need to install a permanent barrier between pax and cargo (which is why Alaska's 734 Combis are not true "QC"s). This could be done on the -700C but nobody ever has, and the -700 isn't big enough to fulfill the role of the Combi with a fixed barrier like the -200QC could without the barrier.

Like gigneil, I don't believe engines were a factor in AS' decision, because the NG was off the table completely at that time (and would also be today).


User currently offlineValorien From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 52 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5911 times:

Thanks for the information guys. I also JUST found this information in an old thread from 2010. I originally searched for "inter-island" so I didn't create a new topic on this issue, but failed to search for "interisland". Oh well, here's the thread:

The CFM56 And Hawaii Interisland Flights (by HNLPointShoot Jun 17 2010 in Tech Ops)


User currently onlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1097 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5796 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cargolex (Reply 19):

Beg to Differ with you, The Navy C40's are operated as combi's , full passenger and full freight those are 737-700 Ng airframes.


User currently offlineyeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5745 times:

Everything Cargolex said is spot on.

The Navy C40 is not a commercially certified aircraft. The 737-700C which is the commercial equivalent, is a Convertible not a Combi. It cannot fly freight and passengers on the main deck at the same time.

Think of the -200QC as a convertible/variable combi, the -400C as a fixed combi and the -700C as a convertible.

The current question, and one for another thread, is what will replace the -400C's and -400F in the AS fleet.

[Edited 2012-10-02 07:44:01]

User currently offlineha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3636 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5583 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I was working at AQ when they were flying the 73Gs interisland to cover a shortage of 732s that were down for maintenance and to give reserve pilots the flying time to remain current. Increased ground time was built into the schedule, but there was still many times when delays would occur due to engine problems being reported.

Quoting yeelep (Reply 22):
The Navy C40 is not a commercially certified aircraft. The 737-700C which is the commercial equivalent, is a Convertible not a Combi. It cannot fly freight and passengers on the main deck at the same time.

Actually, the C-40A is a commercially certified 737-700C. The U.S. Navy Reserve was the first and launch customer for the type. Boeing just doesn't offer the combi as a factory option. The added combi capability is a FAA certified kit, which means it can be commercially certified as a combi via an STC.

Quote:
The 737-700 aircraft is manufactured by Boeing Commercial Airplanes in Renton, Wash., before moving on to the company's Integrated Defense Systems facility in Wichita, Kan., where an FAA-certified kit is installed to provide the "combi" capability.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c40/index.html


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9295 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5190 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 3):

Perhaps a better example is when AS phased out the 732-combis for the milk run flights through JNU YAK, CDV and other small towns along the inside passage they replaced them with 734s rather than NGs. Short legs (other than the flight to JNU) and 30-45 min flights between towns.

.....both engines are CFM56s? I don't thin the 3 and 7 are that different as far as cool down time goes.

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 5):
There was something with the 737-200 engine design that made that engine more forgiveable for those flights, hence Aloha using them.

that and the JT8D is just a beast.....much like the 737/727/DC9 types it was used on.   they don't make them like that anymore.

Quoting EIDL (Reply 8):

FR do extremely tight turnarounds on their entirely 738/CFM56 fleet fleet so I don't think that's a major factor in the list of reasons why.

You can do tight turns if you have air time to cool down. The problem with intra-HA is air-time is pretty short and thus you have to give the CFM56s time to cool down while on the ground. HA and AQ like(d) to do quick turns which makes it a problem for the 737-3 and up.

And I believe the Airbus with V2500s would have the same problem...but i'm not sure.



yep.
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6769 posts, RR: 76
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5215 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 2):
IIRC it has to do with the NG's CFM56 engines and that fact they don't like the 20 minute turns of the inter-island trips. The Rolls-Royce motors the Hawaiian B712's and the JT8D that the Aloha B732's used required much less maintenance.

It's the lack of cooling time between climb and descent... the turnaround itself isn't a problem.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 4):
The CFM56 doesn't like flight profiles that include high power settings on climb and carrying power on descent without nice, cool, cruise air (and lower thrust settings) in between. You can do that for a few cycles, but as I understand it, operating the engines like this constantly significantly shortens the engine life, which is why AQ withdrew 737 Classics and NG's from inter-island flying...

On the 737, the need for cooling in cruise power prior to descent, is a problem for the CFM56-7s... the -3s on the classics are more resistant and durable on shorter cruise times, I'll have to check on the short trip fuel burn numbers too... could be interesting...

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 24):
And I believe the Airbus with V2500s would have the same problem...but i'm not sure.

The 320s with the old CFM56-5As, like the -3s, have less of a problem on short cruise time (3 mins min, recomm 5 IIRC) than the newer -5Bs (5mins min, recomm 7, again, IIRC)... the V2500-A1s I dunno, but one carrier on the V2500-A5 cited 5 & 10, or was it 7 & 10... can't remember, it has been a while back.

The 732's JT8Ds however, don't need much cooling time.

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9295 posts, RR: 14
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5103 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 25):

The 320s with the old CFM56-5As, like the -3s, have less of a problem on short cruise time (3 mins min, recomm 5 IIRC) than the newer -5Bs (5mins min, recomm 7, again, IIRC)... the V2500-A1s I dunno, but one carrier on the V2500-A5 cited 5 & 10, or was it 7 & 10... can't remember, it has been a while back.

I wasn't sure if HA could say use A320 or M90s on its shorthaul. I don't know nearly as much about the V2500 as i would like.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 25):
the -3s on the classics are more resistant and durable on shorter cruise times, I'll have to check on the short trip fuel burn numbers too... could be interesting...

so the CFM56-3 is better for shorter flights. I didn't know this.



yep.
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6769 posts, RR: 76
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5084 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 26):
so the CFM56-3 is better for shorter flights. I didn't know this.

DL should have the data on this. I think it was in the case of the DL shuttle reverting back to 734s a few years back due to engine maintenance & cruise cooling time. IIRC, DL decided it was better to send the 738s elsewhere for a while.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 26):
I wasn't sure if HA could say use A320 or M90s on its shorthaul. I don't know nearly as much about the V2500 as i would like.

One M90 carrier here used it for very short haul here, the V2500-Ds (?), the problem they had was typical MD... asymmetric reverser deployment...   

I dunno much about Hawaii Ops... but, if Average Hours per cycle is less than 1.00, in the next foreseeable future, better off with 737 Classics... and wouldn't touch the NG or 320 with the -A5/B6s until it's 1.25 or above... start getting the benefits at average 1.5 above. Pure very short haul ops, isn't having a nice set of aircraft choices for the foreseeable future.

HA's 717s, nice for down to 0.75.. don't now about below that... All I know is that MD originally wanted the 95 to be able to do 0.66 - 0.75 hrs per cycle ops. The engine choice was due to this...



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9295 posts, RR: 14
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5066 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 27):
IIRC, DL decided it was better to send the 738s elsewhere for a while.

maybe...but Delta didn't have 734s. They had 733s, which i assumed went to the shuttle due to its lower capacity.
never really thought about cool down time.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 27):

I dunno much about Hawaii Ops... but, if Average Hours per cycle is less than 1.00, in the next foreseeable future, better off with 737 Classics... and wouldn't touch the NG or 320 with the -A5/B6s until it's 1.25 or above... start getting the benefits at average 1.5 above. Pure very short haul ops, isn't having a nice set of aircraft choices for the foreseeable future.

HA's 717s, nice for down to 0.75.. don't now about below that... All I know is that MD originally wanted the 95 to be able to do 0.66 - 0.75 hrs per cycle ops. The engine choice was due to this...

thanks for the info.



yep.
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6769 posts, RR: 76
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5031 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 28):
maybe...but Delta didn't have 734s. They had 733s, which i assumed went to the shuttle due to its lower capacity.

D'OH! Yeah, 733s... My mistake.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 28):
never really thought about cool down time.

Dunno about over there, but over here, it's also a relatively "new" thing... and it's important here due to higher air temps even at cruise heights.

For the short flights below 1.25H/Cycle, the carriers here rotate them around even within the same day to obtain that average... Does wonders to the engine MX... and also fuel burn... beancounters love it...   



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3636 posts, RR: 5
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4942 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 27):
I dunno much about Hawaii Ops... but, if Average Hours per cycle is less than 1.00, in the next foreseeable future, better off with 737 Classics... and wouldn't touch the NG or 320 with the -A5/B6s until it's 1.25 or above... start getting the benefits at average 1.5 above. Pure very short haul ops, isn't having a nice set of aircraft choices for the foreseeable future.

HA's 717s, nice for down to 0.75.. don't now about below that... All I know is that MD originally wanted the 95 to be able to do 0.66 - 0.75 hrs per cycle ops. The engine choice was due to this...

The longest scheduled block time is HNL-ITO at 50 minutes. Actual time in the air, about 40 minutes. Shortest scheduled block time is OGG-KOA at 32 minutes. Actual time in the air, about 20 minutes. HNL-OGG/LIH is scheduled at 37 minutes with a similar in air time.

When HA was flying to MKK and LNY, the MKK-LNY block time was scheduled at 12 minutes.


User currently offlinetom355uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4910 times:

Quoting ha763 (Reply 30):
The longest scheduled block time is HNL-ITO at 50 minutes. Actual time in the air, about 40 minutes. Shortest scheduled block time is OGG-KOA at 32 minutes. Actual time in the air, about 20 minutes. HNL-OGG/LIH is scheduled at 37 minutes with a similar in air time.

When HA was flying to MKK and LNY, the MKK-LNY block time was scheduled at 12 minutes.

Surely given those sort of block times, a Q400 would be a much better fit for Inter HI flying?



on Twitter @tombeckett2285
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6769 posts, RR: 76
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4847 times:

Quoting ha763 (Reply 30):
The longest scheduled block time is HNL-ITO at 50 minutes. Actual time in the air, about 40 minutes. Shortest scheduled block time is OGG-KOA at 32 minutes. Actual time in the air, about 20 minutes. HNL-OGG/LIH is scheduled at 37 minutes with a similar in air time.

Excellent Info... MANY THANKS !   
I guess down to the last moment, Long Beach still ruled the super short legs!



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinesyncmaster From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 2020 posts, RR: 10
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4803 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting gigneil (Reply 15):
I am more inclined to believe that their 734 combis were certified, and certifying a new 737NG combi not possible. There is a 737-700QC, but no combi.

I'm willing to bet this had more to do with the fact that the -400's were cheaper to convert and the -700's are better suited for other operations, not to mention they are considerably newer.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24906 posts, RR: 22
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4775 times:

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 31):
Surely given those sort of block times, a Q400 would be a much better fit for Inter HI flying?

You'd have to increase frequency significantly and current frequency is already high. I think you need the jets to meet the demand. If there was a 120 seat turboprop then it would probably make sense. For example, the 87 nm sector HNL-OGG currently has 31 daily HA 717s, often just a few minutes apart. Departure times from Friday's schedule:

0505, 0605, 0629, 0712, 0744, 0800, 0829, 0952, 1010, 1033, 1048, 1131, 1158, 1229, 1234, 1303, 1335, 1410, 1423, 1445, 1516, 1620, 1646, 1710, 1733, 1817, 1845, 1919, 1937, 2016, 2155

HNL-OGG has long been one of the highest frequency U.S. domestic routes. It was probably even higher before Aloha went bust. Above doesn't include another 7 daily CRJs and 3 Dash 8s on the other 2 carriers (Go! and IslandAir)


User currently offlineklemmi85 From Germany, joined Mar 2009, 210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4700 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 34):
0505, 0605, 0629, 0712, 0744, 0800, 0829, 0952, 1010, 1033, 1048, 1131, 1158, 1229, 1234, 1303, 1335, 1410, 1423, 1445, 1516, 1620, 1646, 1710, 1733, 1817, 1845, 1919, 1937, 2016, 2155

That's more like a bus connection timetable than an aircraft one   Very interesting.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why No NG Boeing 737's Flying HI Inter-island?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No 737 NG With IAE V2500 posted Tue Jan 22 2002 17:39:19 by 9Q-CLI
Why No Douglas Competitor To The Boeing 727? posted Mon Jul 31 2006 21:51:50 by 747400sp
737 Why No More Eyebrow Windows? posted Tue Mar 8 2005 14:41:01 by Thrust
Why No Winglets On The 737-600 posted Sun Sep 28 2003 00:41:25 by Cancidas
Why No Main Landing Gear Doors On The 737? posted Sat Sep 23 2000 22:57:00 by Starship
Flaps: Why No Automatic Deployment/Retraction? posted Wed Apr 18 2012 04:59:55 by faro
Why No Curved Windshields On The A380? posted Tue Mar 6 2012 17:12:16 by 747400sp
Why No Double Lane Slide On The 748 Cargo U/Deck? posted Sat Dec 17 2011 06:16:19 by mikey72
Why No Winglets On 747-830? posted Wed Aug 31 2011 12:52:08 by EASTERN747
Why No A320 Family Retrofitted With Sharklets? posted Tue Aug 9 2011 13:44:37 by SandroMag
737 Why No More Eyebrow Windows? posted Tue Mar 8 2005 14:41:01 by Thrust
Why No Winglets On The 737-600 posted Sun Sep 28 2003 00:41:25 by Cancidas
Why No Main Landing Gear Doors On The 737? posted Sat Sep 23 2000 22:57:00 by Starship
Boeing 737 MAX FBW Spoiler System posted Sun Jan 26 2014 11:20:08 by aerotech777
YV CRJ 900: Why No Window RH Side Back Row? posted Mon Jan 20 2014 12:32:11 by KELPkid
Why No White Spiral On The RR RB.211-535? posted Fri Dec 6 2013 20:40:40 by 1337Delta764
Boeing 737 MAX FBW Spoiler System posted Sun Jan 26 2014 11:20:08 by aerotech777
YV CRJ 900: Why No Window RH Side Back Row? posted Mon Jan 20 2014 12:32:11 by KELPkid
Why No White Spiral On The RR RB.211-535? posted Fri Dec 6 2013 20:40:40 by 1337Delta764

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format