G500
Posts: 1252
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:45 pm

Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:17 pm

I started a thread a few months back about Copa's 737 flights to South America, the longest 737 flights in the world, they have a couple of flights blocked for over 7 hours.. I guess they had a few fuel diversions due to winds

I was looking at Alaska Airlines ANC-HNL blocked for 6 hrs 20 mns and SEA-NHL blocked for 6 hrs 15 mns. Not a lot of room for error over water...
 
User avatar
reffado
Posts: 415
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:47 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:29 pm

Risky or not, I for one won't ever spend that much time inside a 737. Basically the same reason why I fly JJ to MIA rather than AA. Widebodies for long flights, please. I'm intrigued though, isn't the flight over water restricted in some way?
 
rampart
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:36 pm

Quoting reffado (Reply 1):

Risky or not, I for one won't ever spend that much time inside a 737.

From my point of view, 1:3 chance of a window on a 737, vs. >1:4 chance on a widebody. The seat is the same otherwise. I prefer the narrowbody. So long as it has a movie.

-Rampart
 
User avatar
TK787
Posts: 3066
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:43 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:30 pm

About 737s and long distance;
TK ordered 15 x 739ER (only 151 seats) with extra fuel tanks to start long, thin routes to Africa. Now operating 10 of the type, TK flies to some distant locations from Istanbul, many over 3000 miles.
IST-Mombasa at 3171miles with a block time of 8:45 (I don't know why this long) and the return at 6:45 hours.
There could be longer routes from IST, this one came to mind.
It is not that longer than West bound transcons but being an international flight it is loooong.
I wonder if there is a 3rd pilot on board.
 
G500
Posts: 1252
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:45 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:35 pm

Quoting TK787 (Reply 3):

Correct however Turkish airlines' longest 737 flights won't over water...

Has Alaska cancelled any flights to Hawaii due to strong head-winds?

[Edited 2013-02-04 06:46:59]
 
NobleRT
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:23 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:01 pm

I don't understand the aversion to long flights on narrowbody, especially those lucky ones in biz/first. Unless you want to get up and walk around a lot, you still get the same squarefootage so to speak whether it's got one aisle or two isles.
 
hiflyeras
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:48 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:24 pm

I remember the first time I flew a 737 to Hawaii...it was on AQ from SNA-HNL. I couldn't believe I was getting on that 737-700 for that long of flight. After getting on board I realized it was really no different than flying on a 757...used for years to Hawaii and TATL and it was a very nice flight. AS offers a very nice service both in F and Y to Hawaii.

Yes, wide-bodies are nice but on thinner routes they're just not economically practical. You'll see 737's on AS and others to Hawaii for many years to come.

I imagine in the next 5-10 years you'll see AS bite the bullet and start flying 787's or some other smaller widebody. In the summer they fly close to 20x daily SEA-ANC and in the winter 3x daily SEA-HNL so the economics of a bigger plane make sense on some routes. I think they still need to grow a bit more and reach some sort of critical mass before adding another a/c type. I can't wait to see that day and what they could do!
 
2travel2know2
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:01 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:29 pm

Fiji Air Pacific used to fly YVR-HNL-NAN w/B737; so B737 SEA-HNL isn't something out of the extraordinary.
When TAAG Angola DT got B737-700 it was discussed here on a.net that those had the range to fly transatlantic between Angola LAD and North East Brazil (REC/SSA) that would be +/-7h.
Now, if CM was to get B737-700ER and fly transatlantic 10hours between PTY and MAD, that surely would be another thing.
I'm not on CM's payroll.
 
hnl-jack
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 10:34 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:53 pm

UA is also flying 738's to ITO and HNL from SFO and LAX. As was said earlier in this thread, I'm afraid that the Boeing 737 and Airbus NEO's are the future for travel to and from the West Coast and Hawaii.
 
md3
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 7:40 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:07 pm

Quoting HNL-Jack (Reply 8):
I'm afraid that the Boeing 737 and Airbus NEO's are the future for travel to and from the West Coast and Hawaii.

I would agree and add that, any flight simply needs the most appropriate aircraft for the specific mission. That would be based on historical load information, aircraft efficiency, network needs, etc.

As it's shaking out, and we see more and more of the 73G/73W/739/321Neo placed (or announced) for HI-mainland routes, it just shows what the most appropriate aircraft for the route really is.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:37 pm

I’ve flown AS’ 737s to Hawaii. I’ve also flown on the 767s of the competition. The 767 2-3-2 seating is far more comfortable if you are flying with one other person, but I wouldn’t spend more money to get it. Hawaii is barely any different than a transcon route. It’s only slightly longer, and people are accustomed to getting a 737 from SEA to any other destination. Basically every domestic city served from SEA is on a 737 or A320 with the occasional 757 from DL and UA. There are almost no regional jets and few domestic widebodies in SEA. Excluding all the Horizon Q400s, 90% of SEA’s landings are on 737s or A320s, so people are used to it.

Quoting g500 (Reply 4):
Has Alaska cancelled any flights to Hawaii due to strong head-winds?

When the headwinds get bad on SEA-Hawaii, they will take a fuel stop in OAK. If the range is still a potential problem they will take weight restrictions and offload passengers. This is relatively rare, but a few times a year they do need to stop at OAK. OAK saves about 200 miles off the overwater crossing which can make the difference, but the fuel stop adds 400 more miles, so it is avoided if possible.

Quoting HiFlyerAS (Reply 6):

I imagine in the next 5-10 years you'll see AS bite the bullet and start flying 787's or some other smaller widebody. In the summer they fly close to 20x daily SEA-ANC and in the winter 3x daily SEA-HNL so the economics of a bigger plane make sense on some routes. I think they still need to grow a bit more and reach some sort of critical mass before adding another a/c type. I can't wait to see that day and what they could do!

It’s possible, but AS seems more interested in the 737-900ER than any new type. AS has a very conservative growth strategy. I don’t see them going for the 787.

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):

I was looking at Alaska Airlines ANC-HNL blocked for 6 hrs 20 mns and SEA-NHL blocked for 6 hrs 15 mns. Not a lot of room for error over water...

What error? ETOPS rules dictate how much extra fuel is required and stipulates the condition of the airplane prior to dispatch. They can lose an engine halfway to Hawaii and still have enough fuel to limp along on a single engine for 3 hours at 25,000ft. ETOPS requirements force the same fuel reserves for any airplane. Just because a 757 or 767 has more range, doesn’t mean the airlines are filling up the tanks. The weather is almost always perfect in Hawaii so there’s no need for a lot of holding fuel on board. You have the same safety margins on the 737 as any other plane.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3941
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:27 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 10):
ETOPS requirements force the same fuel reserves for any airplane. Just because a 757 or 767 has more range, doesn’t mean the airlines are filling up the tanks. The weather is almost always perfect in Hawaii so there’s no need for a lot of holding fuel on board. You have the same safety margins on the 737 as any other plane.



Completely agree, no less safe at all. Even if the weather at HNL was bad, diversion to a neighboring island is quite easy and little if any added distance.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
 
GentFromAlaska
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:21 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:43 pm

Quoting g500 (Reply 4):
Has Alaska cancelled any flights to Hawaii due to strong head-winds?

Flying ANC-HNL; don't the winds aloft at some point beyond the Gulf of Alaska turn SSW favoring flights and fuel burn into the Hawaiian Islands. The same winds which create the the ginormous waves on Oahu's north and east shores.

We were lead to believe the islands giant waves more-so in Dec-Jan are generated by ocean currents and wind more than a thousand miles offshore.
Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
 
ASMVPGOLD
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:36 pm

I flew HNL-SEA on Friday on a new AS 739ER... was a great flight. A million times more comfortable than the old DC10s NWA used on the route many years ago and I thought it was better than UAs old 772s in the config they used to Hawaii about 10 years ago. I agree with others... I don't know why some people think a narrow body flight is all that different than a wide body. It's a plane... they all have the same range when they plan out the proper fuel requirements for the flight and they certainly don't leave the ground without enough to get there as well as diverting somewhere else.
721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,741/2/3/4,752/3,762/3/4,772,DC9/30/50/80/90,DC10,MD11,L1011,F100,319,320,332,CRJ,ERJ,DH8/2/4
 
rscaife1682
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:15 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:51 pm

This only issue I have with NB long haul flight is the long line in Y before arrival. Always nice a long on UA 757 TATL but I am mostly in biz which to me is no different than any other biz cabin.
 
jetsetter629
Posts: 390
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:07 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:11 pm

Quoting TK787 (Reply 3):
IST-Mombasa at 3171miles with a block time of 8:45 (I don't know why this long)

Stops in JRO first - 6:55 flight time to JRO, 1 ground time, then 1 hour flight to MBA
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13230
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:19 pm

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
Not a lot of room for error over water...

An ETOPS qualified A320 or 737 has exactly the same 'room for error' as any widebody twin flying the same route.   
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
Valorien
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:39 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:30 pm

Only flights from one large population center to another can support and/or substantiate large (widebody) aircraft. The cost per available seat mile (CASM) on a widebody aircraft is less than a full narrowbody aircraft only if the flight is full, so airlines will only deploy widebody aircraft if the demand is large enough to fill a widebody jet.

On flights from one large population center to a smaller population center or small population center to another small population center, narrowbody aircraft may be the only smart choice if the demand isn't there to fill a widebody. In turn, the fares on flights to/from smaller population centers can garnish a premium (higher than average) fare because of passengers willing to pay for the convenience of flying to/from their preferred airport.
 
User avatar
b727fa
Posts: 1042
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:21 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:30 pm

6:40 minute block over turf is 6:40 block over surf. The ETOPS bird has had a more rigorus pre-flight than the land bird anyway. Sure, if we "had to land" we could over Montana, but for a medical, which could happen on any size a/c, why would we? The plane doesn't "feel better" and have a better reliability over the ground v/s water.

Ultimately, ETOPS doesn't, in and of itself, have anything to do with water. ETOPS can be over land, too.
My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
 
robsaw
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:14 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:35 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 16):
An ETOPS qualified A320 or 737 has exactly the same 'room for error' as any widebody twin flying the same route.

Based on ALL the operational and risk factors in play, I'd say that the "error probability" is nominally identical regardless of narrow/wide and 2/3/4 engine aircraft.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:09 pm

Quoting B727FA (Reply 18):

Ultimately, ETOPS doesn't, in and of itself, have anything to do with water. ETOPS can be over land, too.

ETOPS does require more fuel to be carried, which makes a narrowbody at the edge of its range a little more challenging. On a SEA-HNL flight, there might be weight restrictions due to the ETOPS rules that wouldn't be there if the flight was over land and had the same winds & same distance filed on the flight plan.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
brilondon
Posts: 3014
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:30 am

How do those aircraft differ from a 757? I have flown to HNL from YVR on WS's 738 and it has no first class and every seat is the same. What I don't understand is the aversion to a 6 hour flight over water in a 737 and people don't seem to complain as much to be shoe horned into an ERJ for four hours. You fly from YUL-YVR in what is the same cabin and I never read how it is too small. Personally, I prefer a smaller plane, 130 passengers loads a lot quicker then 300 passengers. I don't have to say what would be preferred by most FF's.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
yeelep
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:53 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:36 am

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 20):
ETOPS does require more fuel to be carried, which makes a narrowbody at the edge of its range a little more challenging. On a SEA-HNL flight, there might be weight restrictions due to the ETOPS rules that wouldn't be there if the flight was over land and had the same winds & same distance filed on the flight plan.

Whether over water or ground makes no difference. ETOPS or EDTO is all about diversion times. Flying over land more than 1 hour from an airport is also a ETOPS flight.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18834
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:49 am

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 7):
Fiji Air Pacific used to fly YVR-HNL-NAN w/B737; so B737 SEA-HNL isn't something out of the extraordinary.

FJ still operates the 738 HNL-NAN which is almost 400 nm further than YVR-HNL.

WestJet also operates almost 5 daily YVR-Hawaii (HNL/OGG/KOA) nonstops with 738s.
 
2travel2know2
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:01 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:43 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 23):
FJ still operates the 738 HNL-NAN which is almost 400 nm further than YVR-HNL.

But that route isn't over open water with no diversion airport on the way.
I'm not on CM's payroll.
 
YULWinterSkies
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:22 am

There is nothing wrong about a 737 flying that far. If anything, it shows how great of an airplane it is.
A widebody will indeed have more range, but under one and only one condition: that the fuel tanks are full enough! If the widebody is scheduled to do a 6hr 20 min flights, it won't have more fuel that what is required to fly this 6 hrs 20 min flight (plus a safety margin, which is also carried on the 737 no matter what).

Quoting rampart (Reply 2):
From my point of view, 1:3 chance of a window on a 737, vs. >1:4 chance on a widebody. The seat is the same otherwise. I prefer the narrowbody. So long as it has a movie.

For a long over water flight, I would see it as 1:3 chance of an aisle on the 737, vs a 4:8, or 4:9 chance of an aisle on a widebody (A330 or B777, to use the two most popular ones) so I would take the widebody. This said, so long as I can choose my seat at booking and there is better than a middle seat left...
When I doubt... go running!
 
B737900
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 10:44 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:35 am

Just last week flew Bellingham-Maui AS 807 on a 738. We were an hour early landing in OGG! Not a bad flight at all in F class. The ac was #512 which is in Boeing livery withour the lei. Talking to the FA about AS using the 739 and he just raised his hands and said "just more people".
Sounds like a Beaver on floats..........we're saved!!
 
N62NA
Posts: 3994
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:53 am

Quoting NobleRT (Reply 5):
I don't understand the aversion to long flights on narrowbody,

It's psychological. Some people prefer being in a larger cabin.
 
User avatar
mke717spotter
Posts: 1945
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:32 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:36 am

I know its not over water, but I'm thinking AS's ANC-ORD flights must be over six hours as well?

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 23):
WestJet also operates almost 5 daily YVR-Hawaii (HNL/OGG/KOA) nonstops with 738s.

Didn't AQ used to fly this route too?
Will you watch the Cleveland Browns and the Detroit Lions on Sunday? Only if coach Eric Mangini resigned after a loss.
 
dc1030cf
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:27 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:44 am

reffado: I once flew a DC-10-30 of RG from LAX to NRT in the 9 across Y-class middle seat. Now compare that to even the middle seat on a narrow body. Which one would you prefer?  
 
User avatar
n797mx
Posts: 359
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:40 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:17 am

What about NH 943? That's over 9 hours strapped into a -700ER going to BOM from FUK!
Clear skies and strong tail winds.
 
Passedv1
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:19 am

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 10):
When the headwinds get bad on SEA-Hawaii, they will take a fuel stop in OAK. If the range is still a potential problem they will take weight restrictions and offload passengers. This is relatively rare, but a few times a year they do need to stop at OAK. OAK saves about 200 miles off the overwater crossing which can make the difference, but the fuel stop adds 400 more miles, so it is avoided if possible.
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 10):
What error? ETOPS rules dictate how much extra fuel is required and stipulates the condition of the airplane prior to dispatch. They can lose an engine halfway to Hawaii and still have enough fuel to limp along on a single engine for 3 hours at 25,000ft.

This is a very often misunderstood issue with the 737's even amongst pilots who should know better.

It is never the actual range of the flight that is the problem, it is the contingency fuel. The most restrictive ETOPS scenario is the two engine rapid-d. You assume a rapid-d at the half-way point, emergency descend to 10,000 feet, and then fly in either direction to your ETOPS diversion airports.

In actuality, a 737-800 has plenty of range to make it from the west coast/Alaska to Hawaii...no problem. A typical lower-48 flight has us landing with about 60 minutes of fuel on a nice day. A typical flight to Hawaii lands with over 2 hours in the tanks when we get to Hawaii.

SEA/BLI does tend to be the most fuel critical but stopping for fuel and restricting weight are not the only two options, what is often done is instead of flying the direct tracks to Hawaii, a route more southerly down the coast is first flow until we get closer to the CA-bulge before we start our more direct track across to Hawaii.





AS's longest flight is now ANC-KOA. Hawaii-ANC is usually not a problem fuel wise because of CDB which gives a real nice diversion airport very close in (in comparison to the options available on a direct SEA/BLI-Hawaii)
 
HAL
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:32 am

Quoting reffado (Reply 1):
isn't the flight over water restricted in some way?

As several people above have noted, any flight more than 1 hour away from a suitable airport requires special ETOPS rules for fuel, and for system redundancy. There has to be enough fuel to fly from from the Equal Time Point (equal flight time in either direction) at 10,000 feet - assuming a pressurization problem - on either one or both engines (whichever burns more fuel) to either of your diversion airports, hold, and make an approach. There are also rules about the number of electrical generators and other systems available. The aircraft are also subject to much stricter maintenance and inspection rules. Any aircraft that can fly ETOPS is safe for the flight, whether it is a 737, 767, or A330.

Quoting HiFlyerAS (Reply 6):
Yes, wide-bodies are nice but on thinner routes they're just not economically practical.

That's right. It's also why an airline like Hawaiian doesn't go to the smaller markets. Every airline has its own niche, and if an airline tries to be an 'everything to everyone' carrier, it runs the risk of doing everything poorly. What most good CEO's have learned in the past decade is that you need to concentrate on what you do best, and don't spend too much money trying to compete with everyone in every market.

HAL
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
 
AlnessW
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:23 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:53 am

Quoting reffado (Reply 1):
Risky or not, I for one won't ever spend that much time inside a 737.
Quoting reffado (Reply 1):
Widebodies for long flights, please.

   I agree with you on both of those matters!  
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 10):
It’s only slightly longer, and people are accustomed to getting a 737 from SEA to any other destination.

Is this because of AS? Or other airlines as well?

Quoting asmvpgold (Reply 13):
I thought it was better than UAs old 772s in the config they used to Hawaii about 10 years ago.

What was UA's 772 configuration? 2-5-2?

Quoting asmvpgold (Reply 13):
I don't know why some people think a narrow body flight is all that different than a wide body.

I think it really just boils down to matter of preference. That's my thought here.
Another good reason:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 27):
It's psychological. Some people prefer being in a larger cabin.

  
 
woodsboy
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 5:59 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:13 am

Just flew to Hawaii and back on AS from Anchorage, ANC-KOA was 5h50 min and KOA-ANC was 5h 32min, perfectly comfortable, as expected. Whats the difference between being on a wide body and on a narrow body? Do you all remember the horror of being on a 747 or DC-10 stuck in the middle of the middle and then having to queue up for the lavs? No huge lines on a 737, quick meal and beverage service and the best part is getting to Hawaii in only five and half hours rather than spending an entire day en-route going through Seattle or LAX.
 
G500
Posts: 1252
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:45 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:28 am

Quoting woodsboy (Reply 34):

The diference between being in a wide-body and a narrow-body is that if you have a emergency in a 767/757/A330 and you have to descend half way there, you will be fine

If you're in a 737, half way there and you have an emergency and you have to descend, is going to get spooky with the fuel.

This thread is not about comfort, is about fuel reserves
 
ushermittwoch
Posts: 2530
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:18 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:44 am

Quoting n797mx (Reply 30):
What about NH 943? That's over 9 hours strapped into a -700ER going to BOM from FUK!

Have you seen the configuration of those birds?
Where have all the tri-jets gone...
 
jfk777
Posts: 5820
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:55 pm

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 7):
Fiji Air Pacific used to fly YVR-HNL-NAN w/B737; so B737 SEA-HNL isn't something out of the extraordinary.
When TAAG Angola DT got B737-700 it was discussed here on a.net that those had the range to fly transatlantic between Angola LAD and North East Brazil (REC/SSA) that would be +/-7h.
Now, if CM was to get B737-700ER and fly transatlantic 10hours between PTY and MAD, that surely would be another thing.

Copa should buy a bigger plane so it can fly to Madrid, other European cities and launch another pioneering flight from Latin America to Tokyo. 787 should become common in Panama, one can wish.
 
max550
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:46 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:21 pm

Quoting g500 (Reply 35):
The diference between being in a wide-body and a narrow-body is that if you have a emergency in a 767/757/A330 and you have to descend half way there, you will be fine

If you're in a 737, half way there and you have an emergency and you have to descend, is going to get spooky with the fuel.

This thread is not about comfort, is about fuel reserves

Why would a 737 be spooky while a widebody would be fine? Are you suggesting that a 757, 767 or A330 would be able to fly further on 7 hrs of fuel than a 737 with 7 hrs of fuel?

There seems to be a perception among some people that a larger plane is a safer plane because it has the ability to carry more fuel. That's simply untrue and if the 737 were in any way unfit for these missions they wouldn't be flying them.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:21 pm

I guess being a seasoned traveler, I don't consider 6 hours a long haul flight at all.
 
User avatar
TK787
Posts: 3066
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:43 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:43 pm

Quoting dc1030cf (Reply 29):
I once flew a DC-10-30 of RG from LAX to NRT in the 9 across Y-class middle seat.

Oh yes, remember those?
I have done EWR-AMS on a 2-5-2 NW DC-10, middle seat of the 5 across middle section, sucks.

Quoting checksixx (Reply 39):
I guess being a seasoned traveler, I don't consider 6 hours a long haul flight at all.

Even though my all time average flight is: 3:58hrs. I hate anything over 2.5 hours.
 
hiflyeras
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:48 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:25 pm

Quoting g500 (Reply 35):
The diference between being in a wide-body and a narrow-body is that if you have a emergency in a 767/757/A330 and you have to descend half way there, you will be fine

If you're in a 737, half way there and you have an emergency and you have to descend, is going to get spooky with the fuel.

Did you READ the previous threads? Apparently not. No airline operates an ETOPS flight without enough fuel to operate on one engine in a depressurization scenario to the destination. It has NOTHING to do with it being a WB or NB.
 
User avatar
n797mx
Posts: 359
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:40 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:45 pm

Quoting ushermittwoch (Reply 36):
Quoting n797mx (Reply 30):
What about NH 943? That's over 9 hours strapped into a -700ER going to BOM from FUK!

Have you seen the configuration of those birds?

32" pitch economy seats on some of them, although I know they are mostly business set up
Clear skies and strong tail winds.
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4914
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:55 pm

Quoting max550 (Reply 38):
Why would a 737 be spooky while a widebody would be fine? Are you suggesting that a 757, 767 or A330 would be able to fly further on 7 hrs of fuel than a 737 with 7 hrs of fuel?

Just because a widebody CAN carry more fuel does not mean that it always does. To put in in simpler terms than PassedV1 did (not meaning to cast any aspersions; your explanation was excellent) you can run out of fuel in any plane, on any route, if you don't carry enough (just ask the crew of the Gimli Glider-which, by the way, was a widebody.) Fuel left on the ground is every bit as useful as runway behind you. Total capacity is only relevant when you reach "full."
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Clydenairways
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:27 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:05 pm

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
I was looking at Alaska Airlines ANC-HNL blocked for 6 hrs 20 mns and SEA-NHL blocked for 6 hrs 15 mns. Not a lot of room for error over water...

It's about the same as MAN to the Cape Verde Islands. Don't see what the big deal is?
 
N62NA
Posts: 3994
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:34 pm

Quoting woodsboy (Reply 34):
Just flew to Hawaii and back on AS from Anchorage, ANC-KOA was 5h50 min and KOA-ANC was 5h 32min, perfectly comfortable, as expected Whats the difference between being on a wide body and on a narrow body?

It's psychological. Some people prefer being in a larger cabin.
 
atct
Posts: 2472
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:42 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:24 pm

Quoting N62NA (Reply 45):

It's psychological. Some people prefer being in a larger cabin.

Yep thats all it is. Ive flown 737's ANC-IAH (6 hours) and I have no problem with it. Id actually rather fly a CO 752 across the pond vs. a UA 763 in the old config. With the new config, its 50/50. I work Alaska's flights to HI everyday from ANC and I dont recall any of them ever diverting to Homer, Kodiak, or somewhere else due to inadequate fuel.

atct
Trikes are for kids!
 
AR385
Posts: 6735
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:49 pm

Quoting g500 (Reply 4):
Correct however Turkish airlines' longest 737 flights won't over water...

But they do go over the Sahara, which is the same, I believe, in terms of ETOPS. Many EU-Asia flights are ETOPS and they are over land, specially when routing over certain parts of China. Anyway, it´s been better explained up-thread.

Quoting NobleRT (Reply 5):
I don't understand the aversion to long flights on narrowbody, especially those lucky ones in biz/first. Unless you want to get up and walk around a lot, you still get the same squarefootage so to speak whether it's got one aisle or two isles.

I have none. However, the only reaon I do not fly MTY/MEX-PTY-EZE/COR/SCL is because CM´s BIZ cabin is pretty much a domestic First US cabin. I won´t spend so much money on a close to 8 hr. flight to get a cabin like that. I wouldn´t have trouble flying them if they installed a better C class seat for such long fliights.

Quoting rscaife1682 (Reply 14):
but I am mostly in biz which to me is no different than any other biz cabin.

The seat does make a difference in long haul 737 flights.
 
User avatar
b727fa
Posts: 1042
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:21 pm

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:26 am

Exactly, ETOPS is NOT about water...
My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
 
cornutt
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:57 am

RE: Alaska's ANC/SEA-HNL. 6+ Hrs Over Water In A 737

Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:27 am

Quoting N62NA (Reply 45):

It's psychological. Some people prefer being in a larger cabin.

Yeah, my mom gets claustrophic in a narrowbody. She can tolerate it for an hour or two, but if she had to do, say, ATL-NRT in a narrowbody, she'd need Valium.  Wow!

Who is online