Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
XLA2008
Topic Author
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:53 pm

737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:05 am

I know the title might seem a little odd, however my question is... for airlines such as the airlines operating in northern Canada, they still use specially adapted 737-200's that have gravel kits and equipment that's designed to deflect FOD from the engines and wings, I honestly do not know the ins and outs of the gravel kits design, however I understand what they are used for and why!

However these airlines still operate the 732 which at some point is going to reach the end of its shelf life, I'm suprised they are still economically viable to operate anyway, but what are these airlines going to do when they can no longer operate these birds anymore? What are their options and replacements!? And why the 737-200 at all, what qualities does this aircraft have that makes them still operational in northern Canada?

Excuse my ignorance on this matter, I have never really given this or the airlines operating these types too much thought and their for know little about this matter! So any explanations, info, facts etc is all welcome!

Thanks
“For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return.“
 
rocketPower
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:48 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:20 am

I'm pretty sure I heard the reason why they can't use CFM-equipped 737s is that the engines are too low for gravel runways.

So they would need smaller, high engine aircraft as a replacement, with decent range to go north. Maybe the KC390 would be a good contender? Old Avro RJs if new aircraft are out of the question, financially?

We can't underestimate the importance of these aircraft in supplying the north of Canada. It's a really good question to me and honestly have thought about it, too, since I saw them all the time living near YUL. Lots of fun to watch 732s take off in a cold, sunny morning. What a sound!
rocketPower

Life is about enjoying being uncomfortable. If you're complacent, something is wrong!
 
User avatar
XLA2008
Topic Author
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:53 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:25 am

rocketPower wrote:
I'm pretty sure I heard the reason why they can't use CFM-equipped 737s is that the engines are too low for gravel runways.

So they would need smaller, high engine aircraft as a replacement, with decent range to go north. Maybe the KC390 would be a good contender? Old Avro RJs if new aircraft are out of the question, financially?

We can't underestimate the importance of these aircraft in supplying the north of Canada. It's a really good question to me and honestly have thought about it, too, since I saw them all the time living near YUL. Lots of fun to watch 732s take off in a cold, sunny morning. What a sound!


Would 717's be any good alternative!? I mean I would assume should something newer, requiring less maintenance that's more economical would already be in service with those operators if it was out there, unless they have a really good reason not to consider alternatives?
“For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return.“
 
rocketPower
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:48 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:29 am

XLA2008 wrote:
Would 717's be any good alternative!? I mean I would assume should something newer, requiring less maintenance that's more economical would already be in service with those operators if it was out there, unless they have a really good reason not to consider alternatives?


Good point, any sizable, rear-engined aircraft with right cargo volume and range would do, as well.
rocketPower

Life is about enjoying being uncomfortable. If you're complacent, something is wrong!
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:40 am

MD80s are going through P2F programs, we gotta keep the Mad Dogs in the air! Isn't Airbus launching an A320 P2F program?

And there's always the Antonov 148/158. Don't those aircraft have a rear ramp option?
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:41 am

As I understand it, from having read past threads on this topic, is that the DC9 type, and all its descendants, actually have rather a propensity for throwing things back up at the engines.

The Avro RJ (and its relatives) are appropriate for moving people to unpaved airfields, but they can't possibly replace the cargo capabilities of the 732 combi's. Often, these planes are flying with 2/3 of the cabin full of cargo, and just a few rows of seats at the back, behind a moveable dividing wall. So, with the currently available options, there is no real replacement. After these 732 combi's are done, what could be done with one plane, lots of cargo and a few passengers, would have to be done by two separate planes, one for people, and another for cargo. That is, unless something new comes to market.
 
User avatar
NYCRuss
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:54 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:45 am

How much does a concrete runway cost?
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:52 am

NYCRuss wrote:
How much does a concrete runway cost?


I believe the real challenge is constructing runways in places with permafrost. I can't answer your question other than to say that permafrost greatly increases in engineering complexity, and thus the cost is significantly more than somewhere down south.
 
diverted
Posts: 1281
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:26 am

4N is down to 1 -200, they've replaced them with 735s and a 734.. 7F has retired their last few and are exclusively and ATR and 734 operator.,5T is down to a handful, maybe only one still flying, but mainly 733s.. Nolinor still has 5, some of which are ex 7F birds that are retired. but they've also acquired a 733. Lots more Tprops flying onto the gravel then 732s these days.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2339
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:37 pm

Nothing can replace the 737-200 in this unique operating environment. Boeing should restart production. Does P&W still have the JT8D tooling?
I was raised by a cup of coffee.
 
f4f3a
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 4:07 am

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 1:24 pm

Haven't the raf got some Avro 146 for cargo/combi cc2 that do similar job ?
 
User avatar
tjwgrr
Posts: 2494
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2000 4:09 am

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 1:38 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
Nothing can replace the 737-200 in this unique operating environment. Boeing should restart production. Does P&W still have the JT8D tooling?


LOL.... best post of the day!
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 4649
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 2:57 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
Nothing can replace the 737-200 in this unique operating environment. Boeing should restart production. Does P&W still have the JT8D tooling?


They restarted JT8D-200 production for the E-8 conversion program, so clearly a 737-200NEO is something that could be- no, SHOULD be done.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
NYCRuss
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:54 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 3:01 pm

Spacepope wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
Nothing can replace the 737-200 in this unique operating environment. Boeing should restart production. Does P&W still have the JT8D tooling?


They restarted JT8D-200 production for the E-8 conversion program, so clearly a 737-200NEO is something that could be- no, SHOULD be done.


Why bother with a 737-200NEO when Boeing should clearly make a 737-200NEOMAXLRXWB?
 
diverted
Posts: 1281
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 3:02 pm

Spacepope wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
Nothing can replace the 737-200 in this unique operating environment. Boeing should restart production. Does P&W still have the JT8D tooling?


They restarted JT8D-200 production for the E-8 conversion program, so clearly a 737-200NEO is something that could be- no, SHOULD be done.


Why would they do that? To maybe sell a handful? Keep in mind the majority of frames that are flown in these remote places are picked up used, picked up cheap, and only do 1-2 cycles a day. These are operators that won't be going to Boeing and buying them brand new. They don't fly enough. The 732 will soldier on, even as it becomes more and more niche. Maintenance on those aging frames is getting pricy, as is insurance. (Rather than scheduled airline service like 7F or 5T, you'll see them places like Nolinor, charging a pretty penny for gravel work)

Judging from what's flying around up there, it seems the airlines would rather send 2 ATRs rather than a 732, or run an RJ85.
 
Pbb152
Posts: 644
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2000 2:57 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 3:26 pm

diverted wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
Nothing can replace the 737-200 in this unique operating environment. Boeing should restart production. Does P&W still have the JT8D tooling?


They restarted JT8D-200 production for the E-8 conversion program, so clearly a 737-200NEO is something that could be- no, SHOULD be done.


Why would they do that? To maybe sell a handful? Keep in mind the majority of frames that are flown in these remote places are picked up used, picked up cheap, and only do 1-2 cycles a day. These are operators that won't be going to Boeing and buying them brand new. They don't fly enough. The 732 will soldier on, even as it becomes more and more niche. Maintenance on those aging frames is getting pricy, as is insurance. (Rather than scheduled airline service like 7F or 5T, you'll see them places like Nolinor, charging a pretty penny for gravel work)

Judging from what's flying around up there, it seems the airlines would rather send 2 ATRs rather than a 732, or run an RJ85.


Good Lord man, look into buying a sarcasm meter.
 
ILNFlyer
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:11 pm

NYCRuss wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
Nothing can replace the 737-200 in this unique operating environment. Boeing should restart production. Does P&W still have the JT8D tooling?


They restarted JT8D-200 production for the E-8 conversion program, so clearly a 737-200NEO is something that could be- no, SHOULD be done.


Why bother with a 737-200NEO when Boeing should clearly make a 737-200NEOMAXLRXWB?


I know! They can use the 752. :lol:
 
User avatar
CARST
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:38 pm

ILNFlyer wrote:
I know! They can use the 752. :lol:


But only the new builds Boeing is producing these days...
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:55 pm

NYCRuss wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
Nothing can replace the 737-200 in this unique operating environment. Boeing should restart production. Does P&W still have the JT8D tooling?


They restarted JT8D-200 production for the E-8 conversion program, so clearly a 737-200NEO is something that could be- no, SHOULD be done.


Why bother with a 737-200NEO when Boeing should clearly make a 737-200NEOMAXLRXWB?


I'd wait for the 737-200NEOMAXLRXWB-Turbo.

Expectations are high that it is fit to wear the Turbo badge as made a mark of distinction by Streetfighter II.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:24 pm

The Soviet plane design philosophy was to have robust planes for cheap airfields, often gravel surface. Their northern airports were plenty and definitely no better than Canadian. There might be several second-hand Russian planes of any size around dirt cheap...
 
diverted
Posts: 1281
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:56 pm

Pbb152 wrote:
diverted wrote:
Spacepope wrote:

They restarted JT8D-200 production for the E-8 conversion program, so clearly a 737-200NEO is something that could be- no, SHOULD be done.


Why would they do that? To maybe sell a handful? Keep in mind the majority of frames that are flown in these remote places are picked up used, picked up cheap, and only do 1-2 cycles a day. These are operators that won't be going to Boeing and buying them brand new. They don't fly enough. The 732 will soldier on, even as it becomes more and more niche. Maintenance on those aging frames is getting pricy, as is insurance. (Rather than scheduled airline service like 7F or 5T, you'll see them places like Nolinor, charging a pretty penny for gravel work)

Judging from what's flying around up there, it seems the airlines would rather send 2 ATRs rather than a 732, or run an RJ85.


Good Lord man, look into buying a sarcasm meter.


*shrugs*

Ever since this place became free there seems to a be a lot more questions in that vein...asked completely seriously...
 
Leslieville
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:34 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:19 pm

The Avro RJ could be an interesting replacement to the B732 rough field models. I believe that the RJ can carry about 10 tons of cargo in a P2F conversion, and it definitely can handle short fields and so-so runway quality. Plus, flying in the high north, having engine redundancy and deep power reserves is critical.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Thu Oct 13, 2016 2:45 am

diverted wrote:
4N is down to 1 -200, they've replaced them with 735s and a 734.. 7F has retired their last few and are exclusively and ATR and 734 operator.,5T is down to a handful, maybe only one still flying, but mainly 733s.. Nolinor still has 5, some of which are ex 7F birds that are retired. but they've also acquired a 733. Lots more Tprops flying onto the gravel then 732s these days.


Air Inuit also has 2 732s as does mining company Glencore (formerly Xstrata).

The 732 has been popular in northern Canada for over 40 years since it was available as a combi and could operate from gravel runways. No other comparable aircraft had those capabilities. The 717 has been mentioned but like all DC-9 variants it can't use gravel runways and no CFM56-powered 737 can either.

Only a couple of airports with gravel runways still have scheduled passenger flights using the gravel kit equipped 732 combis. Most of those remaining mainly serve remote mine sites where workers are flown in and out every couple of weeks. When the last few 732 combis reach their maximum hours/cycles limits as quite a few already have, I expect the only option will be turboprops like the ATR-42/72 and much longer flight times. The Bae 146/Avro RJ can also be certified for gravel runway operations and a couple of those are already being used in northern Canada.
 
User avatar
csturdiv
Posts: 1991
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:33 am

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Thu Oct 13, 2016 3:11 am

You are overlooking the obvious plane, the Comac ARJ21. Sure there are a few slight problems that China has asked them to fix per Flightglobal, but once those are ironed out, this plane will sell like hotcakes around the world. They better get their orders in now.
An American expat from the ORD area living and working in SYD
 
kivalliqboy1
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 9:07 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Thu Oct 13, 2016 3:58 am

I live in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut and have worked for both First Air and Calm Air.

In reality there is only one scheduled route in Nunavut that requires a 737-200- Yellowknife-Kugluktuk-Cambridge Bay and that is really only done for political reasons.

The market has changed a lot up here. The primary driver for scheduled service is a contract with the Government of Nunavut mainly for transporting patients to southern hospitals and they require a minimum of four flights per week, and that required frequency has basically killed the need for larger aircraft. You are looking at an average pax load under 20 on most routes which makes the 737-200 overkill. ATRs seem to fill the sweet spot there and have basically replaced the old Boeings. Putting an ATR-42 (especially a -500) on YZF-YCO-YCB makes a lot of sense.

The biggest issues are going to be the regular mine flights that Nolinor flies to Meadowbank mine and the Mary River mine. The are extremely long legs Montreal-Val d'Or-Rankin Inlet-Meadowbank (close to 6 hours with the 737) and Montreal-Iqaluit-Mary River with gravel runways at the end. They will eventually have to move to their 737-300 to the closest paved runway and transfer to an ATR, I think.

The "mainline" routes are all now 737-400C and 737-300QC.

There are two interesting competing philosophies that are playing out in the Turboprop markets up here. Calm Air has focused entirely on combis and pushing freight through the system that way, while First Air and Air Inuit (sister companies) are moving towards all-pax ATRs and Dashes. A change in federal government policies cut freight prices for large customers by about 75% a few years ago, to the point where cargo is moving far below cost. Combis ensure the freight is moved cost effectively but puts pressure on pax prices, keeping them higher.

Having worked with the BAE 146 I really can't stand it- it can't really handle the required baggage and freight is always a pain.
 
CanadianNorth
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:41 am

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Thu Oct 13, 2016 4:17 am

The 737-200 has been the go to option for well over 40 years, an excellent design for their time and these birds certainly don't owe anyone anything at this point.

The unfortunate part is there really is no direct replacement. Many airports served by the old -200s have been paved and are now served by CFM powered 737s, for the most part 4N has gone with the -500s, 7F -400s, and 5T -300s. Realistically these work for the vast majority of these airlines' flying now.

The BAe 146 does work on gravel, but it's not really a spring chicken either, and it neither matches the economics of the turboprops or the capacity and range of the 737s. Also many are of the opinion that two good engines are enough, four just means more things to break.

The CFM 737s do not work, the engines are simply too low to the ground for their size. The DC-9/MD-80/717 also aren't really an option because, or at least so I've been told, while the engines are up high they are also right in the line of fire for things being thrown up from the gear. One reason why the ATR-42 works great in the gravel and the ATR-72 not as much is simply because the operators that tried both found the gravel thrown up by the nose gear tended to go right into the props. As a side note this is one of the purposes of the ski on the nose gear of the gravel equipped 737s, to deflect the gravel spray back down before it has a change to head for the engines.


The few remaining ones are the real challenge, as there is sometimes little if any funding for a paved runway, and even if there was there is still the challenge of maintenance due to the climate, location, permafrost, etc. Many of these are simply being moved to ATRs and the like for scheduled service. It means longer flights with smaller loads but there are some advantages, such as lower operating costs and more frequency. When big things are needed there are still a handful of gravel kitted -200Cs available for charter.

Long story short there is no true 1:1 replacement, and there just isn't a large enough market to justify the development costs of a new one, so a couple are still around for the specialized work, and the majority of routes have moved on with paving the runways and/or are "making due" with turboprop equipment.
HS-748, like a 747 but better!
 
ILNFlyer
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:03 pm

CARST wrote:
ILNFlyer wrote:
I know! They can use the 752. :lol:


But only the new builds Boeing is producing these days...


All they really need is some good old USAF AM-72 matting for rapid runway repair and viola! No landing issues.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:27 pm

NYCRuss wrote:
How much does a concrete runway cost?


you will have difficulty creating a concrete runway on permafrost soil. ( IMU, all that jazz )

... and Airbus should send someone into the archives to get the VFW614 drawings.
a bit of scaling applied !?
all you can want for low tech airfields.
Murphy is an optimist
 
717atOGG
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:10 am

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:56 pm

What about the Sukhoi Superjet 100? *Puts flame suit on* It has the passenger capacity, but I don't know about the cargo capacity. It was designed in Russia, where there's many unprepared airfields. And, the engines appear to sit high on the fuselage, like the 737-200.
A320/321, A332, 712, 73G/8/9ER, 744, 752/3, E145, E175
 
nry
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:42 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:39 am

NYCRuss wrote:
Why bother with a 737-200NEO when Boeing should clearly make a 737-200NEOMAXLRXWB?


Man, what a fish hauler that would be.
B727, B737, B747, B757, B767, B777, B787, DC9/MD80, DC10, MD11
A319, A320 (+neo), A321, A330, A340
L1011
ATR77, CRJ200, CRJ700, E145, E170, E175
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:28 am

kivalliqboy1 wrote:
The "mainline" routes are all now 737-400C and 737-300QC.

There are two interesting competing philosophies that are playing out in the Turboprop markets up here. Calm Air has focused entirely on combis and pushing freight through the system that way, while First Air and Air Inuit (sister companies) are moving towards all-pax ATRs and Dashes. A change in federal government policies cut freight prices for large customers by about 75% a few years ago, to the point where cargo is moving far below cost. Combis ensure the freight is moved cost effectively but puts pressure on pax prices, keeping them higher.

Having worked with the BAE 146 I really can't stand it- it can't really handle the required baggage and freight is always a pain.


Hey kivalliqboy1 I'm an ex-7Fer myself, but I worked for them when the 727s were still around and the ATRs were just starting to replace the Hawkers. It's hard to believe that 7F are now JT8D-free...they've also shrunk their fleet/route network a lot in the past 3 years.

Canadian North have turned 2 of their 733s into combis with a movable bulkhead...something I thought was unthinkable for a jet in this day and age. YOW's 732 days are numbered as the 733 is currently subbing in for the 732 for a couple of weeks and then sometime in 2017 will permanently replace the 732s. See: http://www.canadiannorth.com/about/news ... 00-combi-s

BTW, do 7F still fly YWG-YRT on a 734 via Churchill or is it all codeshares now with Calm Air ATRs?

In the future, I wonder whether any northern carrier will look at the Q400 combi?

In addition to YCO and YCB, Dawson City and Old Crow are about the only other places where a 737 combi is still needed...hence I guess why Air North have hung on to 1 732. Speaking of which, Hawker pax days are numbered at 4N as they now have a couple ex-7F ATR-42-300 combis. Are they the world's last HS748 pax operator?
 
balair863
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2014 5:09 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:45 am

On/off topic question: what became of the Aloha fleet of 732's? We're that all taken over and converted by Aloha Cargo or were any stored as-is for resale in airworthy condition?
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 18, 2016 3:14 am

aerolimani wrote:
I believe the real challenge is constructing runways in places with permafrost. I can't answer your question other than to say that permafrost greatly increases in engineering complexity, and thus the cost is significantly more than somewhere down south.


You are correct and it is a general construction issue. All construction, no matter what the type, be it buildings, houses or roads, needs the foundation to be in non-freezing soil. The ice in the soil means there is a lot of expansion and the ice will melt seasonally and with use. If it is built on to of the permafrost wouldn't last long before waves and cracks appear. It probably wouldn't take much more than a year before it became useless.

Incidentally this is why there are more houses with basements in northern states. Since the foundation needs to be in soil that doesn't freeze in places like Minnesota that could be six or more feet deep. Excavating the earth from the entire footprint rather than constructing just a trench doesn't cost much more and after that only a slab needs to be poured. It is a cheap way of potentially doubling the living space.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 18, 2016 8:33 am

balair863 wrote:
On/off topic question: what became of the Aloha fleet of 732's? We're that all taken over and converted by Aloha Cargo or were any stored as-is for resale in airworthy condition?


Aloha Airlines Flight 243 was the one plane where it failed but the remainder of the fleet was IMU not stressed any less.
I don't think that that fleet had much worth in a resale context :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
raylee67
Posts: 859
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:12 pm

For Canadian Arctic operations, there is no perfect replacement. If I try to summarize the characteristics/capabilities of the 737 in operation in Canada's North, they are:
- Jet (i.e. fly higher, further, with higher capacity than props)
- Capacity (full pax) is about 120
- Can use unpaved runway
- Certified for Combi ops
- Allow fully flexible quick change (i.e. this flight it has 10 seats + 6 pallets, and next flight it can change to 30 seats + 4 pallets, etc.)
- design and tech is 50 years old

So let's look at the possible replacement that can use unpaved runways:
- BAE146, close to 737 in terms of capacity, it also has Quick Change capabilities but it can only be changed to full pax or full cargo, not combi, which is important for flights to remote locations in the Arctic. It's also not exactly new so going to BAE146 now will mean the airlines will need to search for a replacement again in 10 years
- Q400, capacity is only about 60% of 737. Doesn't allow Quick Change, but it is certified for combi ops and combi aircraft is already delivered to JAL. Although it is a prop, it has near-Jet capabilities and it can potentially last another 30 years
- And then there is another choice: AN-158. Capacity is close to 737. Russia is using it in its Siberian airfields so should be OK in similar ops in Canada's north. It doesn't have combi or Quick Change capabilities but probably Antonov is willing to work it out with the airlines. The key problem is that whether it's certified in the West at all. I do think it has some potential for further consideration though.
319/20/21 332/33 342/43/45 359/51 388 707 717 732/36/3G/38/39 74R/42/43/44/4E/48 757 762/63 772/7L/73/7W 788/89 D10 M80 135/40/45 175/90 DH1/4 CRJ/R7 L10
AY LH OU SR BA FI
AA DL UA NW AC CP WS FL NK PD
CI NH SQ KA CX JL BR OZ TG KE CA CZ NZ JQ RS
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:21 pm

If the Q400 combi could be certified to become a combi with a movable bulkhead, it's the closest thing to a 732C combi replacement. With 1/2 the capacity, you'd then likely double the route's frequency. The more likely replacement though is Kugluktuk and Cambridge Bay eventually lose their scheduled (and charter) jet service in the same way as Resolute Bay and Nanisivik/Arctic Bay lost their jet service after 7F retired the 721s...this also largely coincided with the closure of the Nanisivik Airport and 7F relocating to the shorter runway Arctic Bay Airport. The end result was frequency was doubled when the ATRs replaced the 727s.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3385
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:55 pm

raylee67 wrote:
For Canadian Arctic operations, there is no perfect replacement. If I try to summarize the characteristics/capabilities of the 737 in operation in Canada's North, they are:
- Jet (i.e. fly higher, further, with higher capacity than props)
- Capacity (full pax) is about 120
- Can use unpaved runway
- Certified for Combi ops
- Allow fully flexible quick change (i.e. this flight it has 10 seats + 6 pallets, and next flight it can change to 30 seats + 4 pallets, etc.)
- design and tech is 50 years old

So let's look at the possible replacement that can use unpaved runways:
- BAE146, close to 737 in terms of capacity, it also has Quick Change capabilities but it can only be changed to full pax or full cargo, not combi, which is important for flights to remote locations in the Arctic. It's also not exactly new so going to BAE146 now will mean the airlines will need to search for a replacement again in 10 years
- Q400, capacity is only about 60% of 737. Doesn't allow Quick Change, but it is certified for combi ops and combi aircraft is already delivered to JAL. Although it is a prop, it has near-Jet capabilities and it can potentially last another 30 years
- And then there is another choice: AN-158. Capacity is close to 737. Russia is using it in its Siberian airfields so should be OK in similar ops in Canada's north. It doesn't have combi or Quick Change capabilities but probably Antonov is willing to work it out with the airlines. The key problem is that whether it's certified in the West at all. I do think it has some potential for further consideration though.


Well a few points:

146/ARJ= expensive operating costs. Summit already has a couple. Also can not confirm if they are certified for below -40 ops? AirBC did fly 146-200s into Whitehorse for years but the minimum temp there tends to be a little warmer than the other centers further east.

Q400= expensive compared to the alternatives. Used Dash 8-300s are cheaper and can be converted to full cargo, and the ATR42 and 72 are already available. The whole Dash8 family is restricted to -40* min operating ground temp which is a problem in the territories.

AN-158= no way... Antonov has production issues and no Canadian airline is going to invest in a parts store for a small fleet like that or depend on such a difficult trade environment to supply needed parts.

Other options:

F100s (an F70s)= theres been some excperience with them in northern ops, Canadian North had a few for a few years, disposed of when they lost the MacKenzie local service contract to First (who used ATRs/HS748s). Production currently discontinued, restart mooted many times.F.28s were used for many years up as far as Inuvik by Time Air/Canadian Regional.

Civilian MD-17 or A400M= way too expensive and the MD-17 is probably no longer available.

DC-9/MD-80/MD-90/717= as i recall there is a minimum temp issue with the whole line... AC attempted ops into Yellowknife with DC-9s in the summer only, never in the winter... and even then once they signed up Northwest Territorial as a connector they stopped completely... Electras and 737s were apparently better suited.

and on that line...

A passenger P-3... yea how about an Electra Next Gen? The L-188 can operate off of gravel/ice, carries a load close to a 737, cargo door already exists, fuel burn on the modern P-3C is quite good...
Nah...
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 18, 2016 8:04 pm

northstardc4m wrote:
Q400= expensive compared to the alternatives. Used Dash 8-300s are cheaper and can be converted to full cargo, and the ATR42 and 72 are already available. The whole Dash8 family is restricted to -40* min operating ground temp which is a problem in the territories.


Not sure about the 300's, but according to BBD, the Q400 is suitable for cold weather operations down to -54°C.

http://commercialaircraft.bombardier.co ... ure-en.pdf

As to the ATR's, I've always been curious about whether the lack of an APU is a limiting factor for airlines operating in the north, such as 7F. Acquisition cost is a factor, of course, but are there enough situations where the Q400's APU might give it a worthwhile advantage over the ATR?
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4242
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:05 pm

YIMBY wrote:
The Soviet plane design philosophy was to have robust planes for cheap airfields, often gravel surface. Their northern airports were plenty and definitely no better than Canadian. There might be several second-hand Russian planes of any size around dirt cheap...


Indeed the Tu-154 was also constructed with gravel kits so if really needed they can put one of them on this route. Otherwise you'd end up with the Lockheed L-100, which is the civilian version of the military C-130 Hercules. The Hercules is often used on dirt strips and airports in bad condition, so no doubt it can do the job.
 
bhill
Posts: 1804
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 8:28 am

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:38 pm

The answer has already been posted...from someone that works up there...RJ for the self loading cargo and turbo-props for the regular cargo...

The C-130 fits the bill....and is designed from the get go for unimproved airfields. As for China and Russia?? Nope, stick with yer NATO friends...
Carpe Pices
 
Kilopond
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:08 am

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:53 pm

XLA2008 wrote:
[...]What are their options and replacements!?[...]


They shouldn't bother but just look at the opposite (and even worse) polar region. The Australian authorities have been sucsessfully scheduling A319 operations to Antarctica for quite some time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qi1umnfNPI
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Wed Oct 19, 2016 3:05 am

Kilopond wrote:
They shouldn't bother but just look at the opposite (and even worse) polar region. The Australian authorities have been sucsessfully scheduling A319 operations to Antarctica for quite some time.

I am not so sure it is "worse".

On what was that A319 landing? Low temperatures notwithstanding, the big issue is the unprepared runway. It isn't a matter of "why don't they just pave Canadian Arctic runways?" The gravel runways in Canada's north, are so finished as that is the only option.

Unlike the Antarctic, for most of the year, the permafrost is always moving. It is very hard to put a hard surface on something that wont sit still! Landing on hard frozen ice is a breeze. I have done it many times in the B737-200. (Also in Canada's north).
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
CanadianNorth
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:41 am

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Wed Oct 19, 2016 3:34 am

Dominion301 wrote:
kivalliqboy1 wrote:
In addition to YCO and YCB, Dawson City and Old Crow are about the only other places where a 737 combi is still needed...hence I guess why Air North have hung on to 1 732. Speaking of which, Hawker pax days are numbered at 4N as they now have a couple ex-7F ATR-42-300 combis. Are they the world's last HS748 pax operator?


4N's "north sked" to Dawson, Old Crow and Inuvik is mainly HS-748 still, the 732 is occasionally used if there is a big load but only maybe five or six times per year, if that. I've been told it is the last regularly scheduled passenger flight with the Hawkers anywhere, It is currently set to go over to the "new" ATRs sometime this winter. Two HS-748s are being kept for freight, fuel hauls, charters, and might see the occasional north sked when the ATRs are down for maintenance or whatever.

The only real regular gravel work the 4N 737-200 sees is the daily flights between Dawson City and Fairbanks between May and September, flying for Holland America as part of their Yukon/Alaska cruise tours.
HS-748, like a 747 but better!
 
kivalliqboy1
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 9:07 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Wed Oct 19, 2016 3:39 am

Dominion301 wrote:
kivalliqboy1 wrote:
The "mainline" routes are all now 737-400C and 737-300QC.

There are two interesting competing philosophies that are playing out in the Turboprop markets up here. Calm Air has focused entirely on combis and pushing freight through the system that way, while First Air and Air Inuit (sister companies) are moving towards all-pax ATRs and Dashes. A change in federal government policies cut freight prices for large customers by about 75% a few years ago, to the point where cargo is moving far below cost. Combis ensure the freight is moved cost effectively but puts pressure on pax prices, keeping them higher.

Having worked with the BAE 146 I really can't stand it- it can't really handle the required baggage and freight is always a pain.


Hey kivalliqboy1 I'm an ex-7Fer myself, but I worked for them when the 727s were still around and the ATRs were just starting to replace the Hawkers. It's hard to believe that 7F are now JT8D-free...they've also shrunk their fleet/route network a lot in the past 3 years.

Canadian North have turned 2 of their 733s into combis with a movable bulkhead...something I thought was unthinkable for a jet in this day and age. YOW's 732 days are numbered as the 733 is currently subbing in for the 732 for a couple of weeks and then sometime in 2017 will permanently replace the 732s. See: http://www.canadiannorth.com/about/news ... 00-combi-s

BTW, do 7F still fly YWG-YRT on a 734 via Churchill or is it all codeshares now with Calm Air ATRs?

In the future, I wonder whether any northern carrier will look at the Q400 combi?

In addition to YCO and YCB, Dawson City and Old Crow are about the only other places where a 737 combi is still needed...hence I guess why Air North have hung on to 1 732. Speaking of which, Hawker pax days are numbered at 4N as they now have a couple ex-7F ATR-42-300 combis. Are they the world's last HS748 pax operator?


Yeah- there have been some huge changes recently... and looks like more on the way.

First Air and Calm Air code share on YWG-YYQ-YRT- its a Calm Air flight, wetleasing a First Air 734 on a codeshare with 7F :)

I don't think that the Q400 would work very well as a combi here- especially when the Calm Air setup on the ATR 42/72 combis are so amazing. Its all palletized and is really slick. First Air has doubled down on the ATR, as has Calm Air and Canadian North seems to be getting out of turboprops altogether. As an all pax machine, the Q400 would make the most sense to me in Central/Western Nunavut but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
 
kivalliqboy1
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 9:07 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Wed Oct 19, 2016 3:46 am

aerolimani wrote:
northstardc4m wrote:
Q400= expensive compared to the alternatives. Used Dash 8-300s are cheaper and can be converted to full cargo, and the ATR42 and 72 are already available. The whole Dash8 family is restricted to -40* min operating ground temp which is a problem in the territories.


Not sure about the 300's, but according to BBD, the Q400 is suitable for cold weather operations down to -54°C.

http://commercialaircraft.bombardier.co ... ure-en.pdf

As to the ATR's, I've always been curious about whether the lack of an APU is a limiting factor for airlines operating in the north, such as 7F. Acquisition cost is a factor, of course, but are there enough situations where the Q400's APU might give it a worthwhile advantage over the ATR?


Having worked with combi ATRs I think that they are really hard to beat. Most scheduled destinations have GPUs and the aircraft is really quite reliable. I love the roller floors on the Calm Air ATRs- it was always hard to get guys to come to work and load a First Air ATR, where you are basically hand bombing a few thousand pounds.
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Wed Oct 19, 2016 1:38 pm

kivalliqboy1 wrote:
Dominion301 wrote:
kivalliqboy1 wrote:
The "mainline" routes are all now 737-400C and 737-300QC.

There are two interesting competing philosophies that are playing out in the Turboprop markets up here. Calm Air has focused entirely on combis and pushing freight through the system that way, while First Air and Air Inuit (sister companies) are moving towards all-pax ATRs and Dashes. A change in federal government policies cut freight prices for large customers by about 75% a few years ago, to the point where cargo is moving far below cost. Combis ensure the freight is moved cost effectively but puts pressure on pax prices, keeping them higher.

Having worked with the BAE 146 I really can't stand it- it can't really handle the required baggage and freight is always a pain.


Hey kivalliqboy1 I'm an ex-7Fer myself, but I worked for them when the 727s were still around and the ATRs were just starting to replace the Hawkers. It's hard to believe that 7F are now JT8D-free...they've also shrunk their fleet/route network a lot in the past 3 years.

Canadian North have turned 2 of their 733s into combis with a movable bulkhead...something I thought was unthinkable for a jet in this day and age. YOW's 732 days are numbered as the 733 is currently subbing in for the 732 for a couple of weeks and then sometime in 2017 will permanently replace the 732s. See: http://www.canadiannorth.com/about/news ... 00-combi-s

BTW, do 7F still fly YWG-YRT on a 734 via Churchill or is it all codeshares now with Calm Air ATRs?

In the future, I wonder whether any northern carrier will look at the Q400 combi?

In addition to YCO and YCB, Dawson City and Old Crow are about the only other places where a 737 combi is still needed...hence I guess why Air North have hung on to 1 732. Speaking of which, Hawker pax days are numbered at 4N as they now have a couple ex-7F ATR-42-300 combis. Are they the world's last HS748 pax operator?


Yeah- there have been some huge changes recently... and looks like more on the way.

First Air and Calm Air code share on YWG-YYQ-YRT- its a Calm Air flight, wetleasing a First Air 734 on a codeshare with 7F :)

I don't think that the Q400 would work very well as a combi here- especially when the Calm Air setup on the ATR 42/72 combis are so amazing. Its all palletized and is really slick. First Air has doubled down on the ATR, as has Calm Air and Canadian North seems to be getting out of turboprops altogether. As an all pax machine, the Q400 would make the most sense to me in Central/Western Nunavut but I don't see that happening anytime soon.


Wow so 7F contact out YZF-YEG (plus Inuvik/Norman Wells?) to Summit's 146s and now they wet-lease a 734 to Calm Air for the YWG run with a 7F codeshare on their own aircraft? Beyond weird. Do 7F sill have below-the-wing staff in YWG? I'm assuming the 734 is still in full 7F livery though?

5T is see are down to 3 DH1s from 4. So I guess that means 2 are still YFB-based and the third is YZF-based, complementing their 7F codeshare to Gjoa Haven, Taloyoak and Kugaaruk?
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:51 pm

bhill wrote:
The answer has already been posted...from someone that works up there...RJ for the self loading cargo and turbo-props for the regular cargo...

The C-130 fits the bill....and is designed from the get go for unimproved airfields. As for China and Russia?? Nope, stick with yer NATO friends...


Well I think the LM-100J is in the end just too big and to expensive. Is L2 operating with their L100-30's also in Canada?
Last edited by SQ22 on Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Typo fixed
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2781
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:26 pm

SQ22 wrote:
bhill wrote:
The answer has already been posted...from someone that works up there...RJ for the self loading cargo and turbo-props for the regular cargo...

The C-130 fits the bill....and is designed from the get go for unimproved airfields. As for China and Russia?? Nope, stick with yer NATO friends...


Well I think the LM-100J is in the end just too big and to expensive. Is L2 operting with their L100-30's also in Canada?


Considering 7F got rid of their two and transferred them to Linden says there wasn't enough business to keep them active any longer. As a result, yes Linden can be chartered when needed. I'm amazed that First Air is now a two aircraft type fleet operator...that's fewer than 'all-737' WestJet. ;)
 
drgmobile
Posts: 988
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:06 am

Re: 737-200 Replacement

Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:20 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
Nothing can replace the 737-200 in this unique operating environment. Boeing should restart production. Does P&W still have the JT8D tooling?


It is not even remotely likely that "new" aircraft AND engine programs would be launched -- which is essentially what you are talking about now that two programs have been out of service for decades -- to serve a total market of probably fewer than 30 aircraft. It's not like resurrecting plans to start building a lazy boy recliner you stopped making a few years back. Modern commercial aircraft are billion dollar programs and even variations on existing models are expensive endeavours in their own right.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos