767-332ER
Topic Author
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 1:20 pm

737 On Long-hauls

Sat Mar 31, 2001 12:09 pm


I was reading over some articles and posts and found out that airlines such as Air Pacific and Aloha are flying 737NG's for very long flights, such as 7 hour-flights. What is the range for these aircraft and could we see in the near future a transatlantic flight operated by a 737?
Regards.
Twinjets...if one fails, work the other one twice as hard!!!
 
Guest

RE: 737 On Long-hauls

Sat Mar 31, 2001 1:03 pm

Southwest's longest flight is damn-near coast to coast with 2 daily PVD-PHXs. That flight lasts somewhere in the vicinity of 5.5 hours. The 73-700 has the longest range out of all the 737s at 3260Nm, followed by the Dash-600 with 3050Nm. The Dash-800 can go 2940Nm, and the Dash-900 can go 2750Nm. Most of the long-legged 737s would just be doing transcon flights. I don't think operators would want to mess around with too many US-Europe flights. I would assume Aloha gets off pretty easy with that OAK-HNL flight due to the lack of winds. Plus the route is only about 66% of the Dash-700s capability. Getting to Europe might not be a problem but the Jetstream is a lot stronger at higher latitudes and I would think even an ETOPS certification would not give the 737 the extra kick that you would need, should something go wrong on the way back. Remember, Boeing designed the 737NGs for Short-Medium range use only.
 
767-332ER
Topic Author
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 1:20 pm

RE: 737 On Long-hauls

Sat Mar 31, 2001 1:05 pm


Just wondering about that. I appreciate the answer and the facts.
Regards
Twinjets...if one fails, work the other one twice as hard!!!
 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: 737 On Long-hauls

Sat Mar 31, 2001 1:32 pm

I belive that teh 737NG are ETOPS certified...as they would have to be do to HNL-OAK.

A 737NG could do a pond crossing from pretty much any major north east city.
 
kevin
Posts: 1015
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 5:03 am

RE: 737 On Long-hauls

Sat Mar 31, 2001 1:41 pm

I guess the longest 737 flight is Air Pacific's (Fiji) Nadi-Honolulu-Vancouver. Across the whole Pacific Ocean
 
Guest

RE: 737 On Long-hauls

Sat Mar 31, 2001 2:33 pm

CO is operating the 73G from LAX to CLE and the 738 from LAX to EWR. Those flights are not as long as Hawaii, but they are still long.
 
User avatar
VIflyer
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 2:29 pm

RE: 737 On Long-hauls

Sat Mar 31, 2001 4:41 pm

I know AA uses 738 transcon, JFK-SAN, and LGA-SNA. So going across the pond wouldn't be a problem. I remeber a while back CO was thinking of using a 738 for the EWR-DUB run, but they never did.
I reject your reality and subsitute my own
 
ILOVEA340
Posts: 2064
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 1999 9:49 am

RE: 737 On Long-hauls

Sat Mar 31, 2001 4:44 pm

there is the ocasional trasatlantic flight. i Recall seeing a Continental 738 that I flew on from sfo-ewr was scedualed to go on to like dusseldorf I think. The range is somthing like 3,300 miles for the -700.
 
EIPremier
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 8:17 am

RE: 737 On Long-hauls

Sat Mar 31, 2001 4:46 pm

The AS ORD-ANC flight, operated with a 737-700, is 2,850 miles.
 
sevenair
Posts: 1486
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2001 7:18 am

RE: 737 On Long-hauls

Sat Mar 31, 2001 10:53 pm

Turkmenistan International AW operate flights from LHR-Turkmenistan with a stop in Kabul I think. Usually takes 6.5 hours. NCL-ATH is 4.5 non stop on 737-300 and ABZ-Tenerief = 5.05 hrs, longer fligths in europe on 737-500-FUA
 
COAatIAH
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2001 11:42 am

Comparison

Sat Mar 31, 2001 11:16 pm

Just a little comparison:

Alaska Airlines 737-700
ANC-ORD 2473 nm

Continental Airlines 737-800
EWR-SFO 2229 nm

American Airlines 737-800
JFK-SAN 2125 nm

Aloha Airlines 737-700
HNL-OAK 2093 nm

And pretty much the two major cities in Europe and the US that are closest to eachother:
Bangor, Maine - Shannon, Ireland 2370 nm

Thats compared to two gigantic American and European cities:
JFK-LHR 2999 nm
 
lmml 14/32
Posts: 2358
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 2:27 am

RE: 737 On Long-hauls

Sun Apr 01, 2001 2:54 am

NADI-HNL-YVR ? On a twin engined aircraft across the Pacific? That's a lot of water for me.
 
wolfpacker
Posts: 343
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 2:35 am

RE: 737 On Long-hauls

Sun Apr 01, 2001 2:56 am

Midway uses the 737-700 on RDUSJC and RDUDEN.
 
777gk
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2000 3:04 am

RE: 737 On Long-hauls

Sun Apr 01, 2001 8:14 am

Viflyer-

We never really thought of putting a 738 on EWR-DUB because if we did, we would have to put BusinessFirst in, which would take up a lot more room and not allow us to carry as large an economy load as we'd like to, even if higher-yield traffic is our goal. There has to be a correct mix of the two to make money. If all we were after was the business traveler, we'd be flying all-business-class planes and not serve any vacation destinations at all. But that's not what we are doing. Also, the government of Ireland has some restrictions on our EWR-DUB services, only allowing us to operate it through Shannon.

ILOVEA340-

The flight to DUS involves an aircraft change at EWR from the 738 to a DC-10/762/764, depending on when you saw it. On a recent trip to DEN, a flight to EWR had Newark/London as its destinations, and the number was 28. However, the aircraft was an MD-80, but at EWR it would switch over to a 777 and depart out Terminal B.

The only time you will see us using a 737 across the Atlantic is when we start serving those third-tier cities such as Nice, Newcastle, Belfast, Venice, Berlin, etc., most likely with the new 737-700ER (on the shelf, will be dusted off for any interested customers, AFAIK). But that's not a fact yet, and might not happen.

Now, for the real topic of this thread, here are our longest hauls with the 737.

IAH-UIO
2350mi 737-800
5h8min CO750 (1st leg)

EWR-SJD
2392mi 737-700
6hr20min CO691 (Saturdays-only)

GYE-IAH (Northbound Only)
2435mi 737-800
5h30min CO750 (3rd Leg)

GUM-DPS
2544mi 737-800
5h20min CO900 (Tue/Thur/Fri, Op'd by CO Micronesia)

EWR-SFO
2595mi 737-800
6hr20min CO37 (Continuation of DUS-EWR, op'd by 762)


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Joe Pries



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Michael F. McLaughlin



 
toxtethogrady
Posts: 1693
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2000 12:33 pm

There Was An Aer Lingus 738 At BWI Once

Sun Apr 01, 2001 8:24 am

So I think there is no problem getting a 737 across the Pond.
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: 737 On Long-hauls

Sun Apr 01, 2001 8:59 am

The Air Pacific flight is really impressive. Imagine getting to the gate at Vancouver to board at the beginning of your journey to the south Pacific, and looking through the windows expecting to see a 747 or at least a 767, and it's a 737. Jesus of Nazereth!
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6409
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: 737 On Long-hauls

Sun Apr 01, 2001 10:00 am

Remember that the ranges given by the airliner manufacturers cannot always be achieved in normal operation.
The figures are based on zero wind. Operating a route on a regular basis you will sometimes experience headwind. Or you will opt for less than optimum altitude or even small diversions, to avoid the worst headwind.
Range with full pax load is based on take off at max take-off weight (MTOW). MTOW is again based on ambient temperature at 15 deg. C (59 deg. F). If it is much warner, which it often is in summer, then you reduce weight, meaning load less fuel.
If you take off on a runway which is placed much higher than sea level, and the air therefore thinner, then you need to take off faster, but engine power is lower. So often the runway isn't long enough for a MTOW take-off. Again you reduce fuel load to be able to get off the ground.
Of course the adverticed range is based on cruise at optimum altitude. In the congested air space of today that's often not available. Instead ATC tells you your altitude, and in one flight you may be ordered to change altitude up or down a few times. It all costs extra fuel.
So at least with short or medium range planes you will hardly ever see airlines go further than 75 or 80% of the adverticed range of the plane. Going further would too often result in diversions for fuel stops and therefore irregular service. Or when the unfavourable conditions are known in advance, the airline would have to reduce the pax load to much less than full cabin.
Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
EIPremier
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 8:17 am

RE: Toxtethogrady

Sun Apr 01, 2001 10:00 am

Didn't Delta fly a 737-800 from JFK-SNN for a while after they broke off with Aer Lingus?

Anyway, the answer is yes, you can fly a 737NG across the pond, and the 737-700 is the best plane to fly, as it has the most range.

I remember there was a new Swiss carrier that was going to start trans-atlantic service with 737-700s. I don't remember the company, but if anyone has any details, fill me in.

BTW, Toxtethogrady, Aer Lingus doesn't operate 737-800s, so I think it highly unlikely that you would have seen one there.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: 737 On Long-hauls

Sun Apr 01, 2001 10:00 am

One of the reasons why a number of 737-800 operators are installing the Aviation Partners winglets is to allow the 738 to fly nearly 3,200 nautical miles. That would allow SA to fly very long routes out of JNB/CPT to most of the African continent, and HF to fly longer flights for their charter operations from Germany.

Remember, the 738 has been designed almost as a perfect 727-200 replacement with longer range and lower fuel burn on a seat-mile basis. That's why AA, CO and DL are buying them in droves. and why AA, CO and DL 738's are getting to be increasingly common sights at SFO and SJC.
 
EIPremier
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 8:17 am

RE: Toxtethogrady

Sun Apr 01, 2001 10:00 am

What you might have seen was an Aer Lingus 737-400 being flown on its delivery flight to EI. Otherwise I don't know. Did Aer Lingus ever lease it's 737-400s out to other carriers?
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6409
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: 737 On Long-hauls

Sun Apr 01, 2001 10:00 am

Bigmikenice wrote:
The 73-700 has the longest range out of all the 737s at 3260Nm, followed by the Dash-600 with 3050Nm

Just for curiosity, a SAS 737-600 has a range of 1900km or just over 1000Nm only. Their 737-700s have a range of just 1400km or 750Nm.
The reason is that SAS has their 737NGs registered with a lower MTOW, that way they pay a lower landing fee on airports where the fee is based on MTOW.
Since Europe is so small, then these short ranges are still sufficient for routes from Oslo/stockholm to northern Norway/Sweden, or from Copenhagen to most European destinations. Even Rome in Italy is an easy target.
Where they need a longer range they use other plane types, MD-80/-90, some of which have range up to 2300Nm. That's gives plenty to spare on flight to the Canary Islands, or Bagdad in case that should become interesting.
Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
taliban
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:41 pm

RE: 737 On Long-hauls

Sun Apr 01, 2001 1:23 pm

PIA (Pakistan) operates 737 from Karachi to Khatmandu which is more than 1000 kilometers.
 
Guest

RE: 737 On Long-hauls

Sun Apr 01, 2001 1:32 pm

I wouldn't want to be on one of thoes flights. Personally, I dont care for the 737 at all. I might consider the new 737-900 that Boeing is putting out, but I perfer more wide-bodied aircraft. More room to streach and relax. Especially on thoes "Long-Haul" flights.