Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

BerenErchamion · Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:15 am

nine4nine wrote:
If an AS 738 departing SEA has to refuel in OAK before crossing the pacific due to strong headwinds then I don’t think that aircraft is cut out to run that type of route.

Except in when they're flying to remote locations where return fuel isn't available, or there's a major difference in fuel price between airports such that it's cheaper, planes don't carry more fuel than needed for the leg they're travelling. No matter what the capacity is, fuel is planned based on expected weather and regulatory contingency requirements for the specific flight it's about to take off and fly on. If the plane doesn't have enough fuel to meet those requirements, then it simply doesn't make the flight. The effect of unexpectedly strong headwinds enroute SEA-HNL won't change just because you're flying a plane with larger fuel capacity, because the larger plane isn't going to load more than planned for based on the same principles as the smaller one.

JackMeahoff · Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:44 am

GE90man wrote:
JackMeahoff wrote:
Aptivaboy wrote:

I hear what you're saying (and I don't totally disagree) but the comment I was replying too specifically had to do with the number of engines, not the size of the plane's interior. And no, its the public that makes flight choice arrangements, not the bean counters. Call it supply and demand, market research, the invisible hand, or whatever you want. If the public wants frequent service in a narrowbody, then they'll demand it and be willing to pay the cash for a ticket.

Flying was a much more enjoyable experience 20 years ago. Even better 30 years ago. Go back 50 years and flying was like a dream. The larger, gas guzzling planes of the previous decades were faster, roomier, and had more legroom. The flight attendants were hot, and they wore skirts. Now look where we are. 737s fill the skies going to Hawaii, and who knows, maybe to Europe soon. You are charged for checking a bag, and many cases for your carry on. Not to mention food and drinks. If consumers are in control as you say, why have consumers only lost ground as time goes on?

The consumer has only gained ground on lower prices. Following recent trends, it's becoming more and more obvious that the majority of travelers book their tickets based on who sells the cheapest ones. For those who don't want bare-minimum services, they can pay more.

When you account for all of the new fees airlines are creating there probably aren't any savings to speak of.

Current U.S. Airline fees, by carrier

+ Fees ($)
These carriers charge moderate fees on top of their regular fares.

Alaska Airlines ($)
Checked Baggage Fees: 1st Bag: $25 / 2nd Bag: $25 / 3rd Bag: $75
Seats: No extra charge. Select front and aisle seats reserved for premium customers

American/USAirways ($)
Checked Baggage Fees: 1st Bag: $25 / 2nd: $35 / 3rd Bag: $150
AAmerican Seats: No extra fee except for Preferred Seats $4-$59
USAirways Seating: No extra fee except for ChoiceSeats $5-$99; free for certain frequent flyers

Delta ($)
Checked Baggage Fees: 1st Bag: $25 / 2nd Bag: $35-$100 / 3rd Bag: $125
Seats: No extra fee except for Preferred seats: $9-$99 and Priority boarding: $10; free with Medallion Membership

jetBlue ($)
Checked Baggage Fees: 1st Bag: Free / 2nd Bag: $50 / 3rd Bag: $100
Seats: No extra fee except for “Even More Space” seats available $10-$70

United ($)
Checked Baggage Fees: 1st Bag: $25 / 2nd Bag: $35 / 3rd Bag: $100
Seats: No extra fee except for Economy Plus Seating: $9-$179; free for certain frequent flyers

Virgin America ($)
Checked Baggage Fees: 1st Bag: $25 / 2nd Bag: $25 / 3rd Bag: $25
Seats: No extra fee except for “Main Cabin Select” seats ($39-$129), includes free premium TV and meals

This list doesn't even count other new ways the airlines gouge their customers, like American Airlines charging $200 for a ticket change. I'm sure other airlines have similar scams.

birdbrainz · Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:49 am

I always go out of my way to see if a B-52 is on that route, and book that whenever possible. With eight engines, what could possibly go wrong?

KFLLCFII · Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:23 am

birdbrainz wrote:
I always go out of my way to see if a B-52 is on that route, and book that whenever possible. With eight engines, what could possibly go wrong?

That dreaded seven-engine landing...

A320FlyGuy · Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:33 am

birdbrainz wrote:
I always go out of my way to see if a B-52 is on that route, and book that whenever possible. With eight engines, what could possibly go wrong?

Oh come on....why not look for a B-36? With jet engines and rockets and reciprocating engines, you've got every base covered. It's just when they drop you out the bomb bay door and expect you to land on the beach at the resort that it can be a tad problematic.

WNwatcher · Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:44 am

Why not book on the Spruce Goose? 8 engines for redundancy, and in the event of a failure that requires going into the drink, you're already in a cruise ship....

FriscoHeavy · Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:06 am

nine4nine wrote:
I don’t see the CFM 56-7 issues being a concern in this topic. They are well proven and highly reliable given the media over sensationalism they have been receiving for the extremely small amount of failures.

But as I stated earlier I personally don’t feel the 738 739 and CEO320 (exception of MAX and NEO) were made with mainland-Hawaii routes in mind when they were designed and manufactured. It has nothing to do with 2 engines or 4. Those routes were added much later with those aircraft. It has to do with capabilities in an emergency and I think these planes are cutting it close as it is and I would really hate to see what happens in a real emergency in the middle of the pacific.

I know 757,767,A330 and 777 aren’t fully stocked with fuel but enough to cover the Mission plus reserves but those reserves far surpass a fully fueled 737 and have much more capability in an engine emergency and reliant on much more comfortable fuel reserves.

If an AS 738 departing SEA has to refuel in OAK before crossing the pacific due to strong headwinds then I don’t think that aircraft is cut out to run that type of route.

Your logic is just so flawed and misguided all the way around. You are simply wrong in regards to just about everything you say. It may be how you ‘feel’, but it simply isn’t reality.

Newbiepilot · Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:20 am

JackMeahoff wrote:
Aptivaboy wrote:
I will always select a widebody over a narrowbody if the price is equal. Who doesn't like high ceilings and open space?! If you don't operate this way, you are just playing into the hands of the airline bean counters who would fly the 737 to China if they could find a way.

I hear what you're saying (and I don't totally disagree) but the comment I was replying too specifically had to do with the number of engines, not the size of the plane's interior. And no, its the public that makes flight choice arrangements, not the bean counters. Call it supply and demand, market research, the invisible hand, or whatever you want. If the public wants frequent service in a narrowbody, then they'll demand it and be willing to pay the cash for a ticket.

Flying was a much more enjoyable experience 20 years ago. Even better 30 years ago. Go back 50 years and flying was like a dream. The larger, gas guzzling planes of the previous decades were faster, roomier, and had more legroom. The flight attendants were hot, and they wore skirts. Now look where we are. 737s fill the skies going to Hawaii, and who knows, maybe to Europe soon. You are charged for checking a bag, and many cases for your carry on. Not to mention food and drinks. If consumers are in control as you say, why have consumers only lost ground as time goes on?

While being nostalgic can be fun, business class lie flats with on demand IFE is vastly superior to what flying was 20 or 30 years ago. Some areas have improved and others haven’t. Personally I prefer flying nowadays more than the past.

DarkSnowyNight · Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:48 am

JackMeahoff wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Why are you assuming that 4 engines would "increase the safety margin"... they don't.
There's no mathematical evidence of that, despite what you're assuming to be a common sense conclusion.

So you are saying more redundancy doesn't increase the safety margin?

In this case, no, not at all. Engines these days are generally reliable enough that there's nothing to be gained by adding more. There is more risk, though. An uncontained failure or disassembly in an outboard plant will very likely shed debris into the other. As well, being further outboard, anything that punctures a wing is likely to do a lot more damage than a further inboard mounted plant (a la twins) would. It isn't just the idea of still losing half your engines anyway, but also of incurring a lot more structural damage.

For whatever reason, it's not more widely known in aviation, but QF came very damned close to wiping out altogether on flt 32. Although it was actually the No2 engine that let go, the structural and systems damage was extreme and to the point that had it occurred on the No1, the leading edge spar would very likely have been critically compromised in flight. As it was, the damage isolated eng No1 to the point that crew had no control over it, including no ability whatsoever to shut it down upon landing.

None of that would have been a problem in a twin.

So yes, quads can be, and sometimes are, less safe than twins.

IPFreely · Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:55 am

nine4nine wrote:
I know 757,767,A330 and 777 aren’t fully stocked with fuel but enough to cover the Mission plus reserves but those reserves far surpass a fully fueled 737 and have much more capability in an engine emergency and reliant on much more comfortable fuel reserves.

Wow.

Flighty · Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:51 am

I always thought they should go back to the Convair B-36. You have the security of six giant, bus-sized piston engines. Plus, you also have four turbojet engines. Plus you can drop nukes.

DarkSnowyNight · Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:59 am

Flighty wrote:
I always thought they should go back to the Convair B-36. You have the security of six giant, bus-sized piston engines. Plus, you also have four turbojet engines. Plus you can drop nukes.

Six turnin', Four burnin'

dassal · Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:05 am

barney captain wrote:
The 737NG and -8MAX hold around 46,000 lbs of fuel so there not a lot of room left over for XTRA fuel.

..... I've only seen full tanks in an NG one time, and that was on a new delivery ferry flight from PAE to GEG.

You meant PAE to GIG...

XAM2175 · Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:22 am

WNwatcher wrote:
Why not book on the Spruce Goose? 8 engines for redundancy, and in the event of a failure that requires going into the drink, you're already in a cruise ship....

Heh, even eight engines is risky. Better with the twelve on the Do X :p

JackMeahoff wrote:
Flying was a much more enjoyable experience 20 years ago ... Go back 50 years and flying was like a dream ...The flight attendants were hot, and they wore skirts. ... If consumers are in control as you say, why have consumers only lost ground as time goes on?

Consumers have gotten exactly what they wanted - lower fares. If you need to leer at scantily-clad ladies as they serve you refreshments, go to Vegas.

stratclub wrote:
JackMeahoff wrote:
There was a time when no lifeboats were needed because "statistics" proved that a certain ship was unsinkable. .

The reason that "certain ship" did not have a full complement of life boats, was not statistical is was marketing by The White Star Line selling the idea that the Titanic was unsinkable even though there were (known by them) cost cutting design features of the ship that turned the iceberg mishap deadly. The most obvious was that the transverse water tight bulkheads did not extend much higher than the water line.

The root reasoning is even more mundane. Safety requirements for British-flagged vessels were imposed by the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 at the time RMS Titanic was designed and constructed, and this regulation had failed greatly to keep pace with advances in marine technology. Critically, the lifeboat capacity requirement for vessels of 10,000 gross register tonnes or greater was a flat 16 boats with a cumulative capacity not less than 272.5 m^3 (9625 ft^3), which was held to be sufficient for 960 people, and which did not scale with increases in vessel size - meaning that RMS Titanic, at 46328 GR tonnes, legally needed no greater lifeboat capacity than a hypothetical vessel of 10001 GRT.

It was found after the sinking that of the 39 other British liners exceeding 10000 GRT, 33 also had insufficient lifeboats for their occupancy. One, the RMS Carmania, had lifeboats sufficient only for 29% of her design occupancy.

On this basis the Titanic's fitout was legal, and this was coupled with the expectation that the ship's intended usage and design characteristics would make a complete evacuation highly unlikely. A good summary can be read here and can be expanded upon by recourse to one of many books and journals.

For this reason I avoid blind recourse to "it meets regulations" in all manner of fields, but ETOPS is one area where I feel confident that regulation has kept abreast of technological advances and changes in known risk - noting, for instance, that many four-holers will soon lose their go-anywhere freedom with the addition of fire containment and suppression measures to the diversion time requirements.

barney captain · Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:40 am

dassal wrote:
barney captain wrote:
The 737NG and -8MAX hold around 46,000 lbs of fuel so there not a lot of room left over for XTRA fuel.

..... I've only seen full tanks in an NG one time, and that was on a new delivery ferry flight from PAE to GEG.

You meant PAE to GIG...

No, I meant GEG - although Rio is more appealing. It was a new delivery that came from Boeing with full fuel - for a 38 minute flight to the paint shop in GEG. It was to be the first Heart One livery, although it was still green for this flight.

Chemist · Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:04 am

JackMeahoff wrote:
IPFreely wrote:
george77300 wrote:
How do you plan on getting to Hawaii then. I assume 757/777 has the same twin issue for you.

He most likely believes 757/777 twins are not twins like 737's/320's are, or are somehow safer twins. It makes as much sense as thinking 737's/320's are "landing on fumes" but people can believe whatever they want. It falls in the category of superstition, not science.

I like the ocean liner analogy. Cruise ships don't cross oceans, ocean liners do. More heavily built, higher bow, fewer windows near the water line, etc. The 737 was designed to be a regional jet, not a long range transoceanic jet.

Funny how so many commentators on here seem to be praising the use of narrowbody regional jets to cross oceans. As if this is some milestone to be celebrated.

In reality 737s and A320s crossing oceans is a sad indicator of the sorry state of the aviation industry. Gone are the days of faster, higher, bigger, better.

This is incorrect.
I personally had a discussion with the Captain of a mega-cruise ship from Royal Caribbean. Their largest ships are fully capable ocean vessels, they cross oceans and must conform to the same strength and storm-worthiness requirements as any other ship. Your "ocean liner analogy" is something you heard in error, or made up.

MildBlueYonder · Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:45 am

Personally, my preference is also to choose widebody over narrow if given the option, mainly because my chances of upgrade is better, the J seats might be lie-flat, and there's usually AVOD.

JackMeahoff wrote:
Flying was a much more enjoyable experience 20 years ago. Even better 30 years ago. Go back 50 years and flying was like a dream. The larger, gas guzzling planes of the previous decades were faster, roomier, and had more legroom.

Interesting comparison to bring up...flying now vs. flying 50 years ago...in a thread about aviation safety. I'd much rather fly in a 737 or A321 over water than a 707, DC-8, or God forbid a Stratocruiser from mainland to Hawaii. Give me modern weather radar, engine reliability, and effective CRM over a massive ego and poor transitions training into jets any day.

That said, the avgeek in me would absolutely relish the opportunity to ride in a 707, DC-8, or a B377 if examples were still flying today...sigh.

Back on topic, I feel that the chance of dying on board from a medical emergency due to pre-existing issues (e.g. heart attack or stroke) or acquired conditions (e.g., pulmonary embolism or pneumothorax if one is prone to such things) must be statistically higher than going down from engine failure. Which I guess begs the question, perhaps widebodies ARE safer because you're more likely to be riding with a health care professional? And the single-engine cruise speed might be higher so you can get to a hospital sooner?

32andBelow wrote:
It’s also more engines that could explode and destroy critical system

Agree wholeheartedly that hanging more fans on the wings just increases the probability one will catch fire or explode and send shrapnel into the fuse, wings, or neighboring engine. More opportunities for mechanics to forget to tighten something crucial. Reference QF32 and AF66, both involving A380s. Uncontained engine failure is the specific concern raised by WN1380, no?

Take home: if you start thinking of the engines as rigged Claymore mines rather than propulsive units, then you'll not have a problem stepping onto a twin in the future. And probably try to seat yourself forward of the wing. And go aisle over window...that should be a no brainer.

Fun thread.

rbavfan · Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:24 am

nine4nine wrote:
I don’t see the CFM 56-7 issues being a concern in this topic. They are well proven and highly reliable given the media over sensationalism they have been receiving for the extremely small amount of failures.

But as I stated earlier I personally don’t feel the 738 739 and CEO320 (exception of MAX and NEO) were made with mainland-Hawaii routes in mind when they were designed and manufactured. It has nothing to do with 2 engines or 4. Those routes were added much later with those aircraft. It has to do with capabilities in an emergency and I think these planes are cutting it close as it is and I would really hate to see what happens in a real emergency in the middle of the pacific.

I know 757,767,A330 and 777 aren’t fully stocked with fuel but enough to cover the Mission plus reserves but those reserves far surpass a fully fueled 737 and have much more capability in an engine emergency and reliant on much more comfortable fuel reserves.

If an AS 738 departing SEA has to refuel in OAK before crossing the pacific due to strong headwinds then I don’t think that aircraft is cut out to run that type of route.

You assume that because the 757/767 have greater fuel capacities that airlines just fill them up and T-O. Those 757 & 767's will be filled with the min needed fuel +required FAA min for the flight. So they could run into the same trouble fuel wise if winds are stronger. The airlines are no goeing to carry large amounts beyond the spec need. That would waste more fuel due to the extra unnecessary weight added.

rbavfan · Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:26 am

birdbrainz wrote:
I always go out of my way to see if a B-52 is on that route, and book that whenever possible. With eight engines, what could possibly go wrong?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=182AepOJjMs

ihmcallister · Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:51 am

JackMeahoff wrote:
IPFreely wrote:
george77300 wrote:
How do you plan on getting to Hawaii then. I assume 757/777 has the same twin issue for you.

He most likely believes 757/777 twins are not twins like 737's/320's are, or are somehow safer twins. It makes as much sense as thinking 737's/320's are "landing on fumes" but people can believe whatever they want. It falls in the category of superstition, not science.

I like the ocean liner analogy. Cruise ships don't cross oceans, ocean liners do. More heavily built, higher bow, fewer windows near the water line, etc. The 737 was designed to be a regional jet, not a long range transoceanic jet.

Funny how so many commentators on here seem to be praising the use of narrowbody regional jets to cross oceans. As if this is some milestone to be celebrated.

In reality 737s and A320s crossing oceans is a sad indicator of the sorry state of the aviation industry. Gone are the days of faster, higher, bigger, better.

Not so. Cruise ships can and do cross oceans all the time. In fact by the same design definitions you mention there is only one genuine Ocean Liner in service today; Cunard's Queen Mary 2.
The 737-100 / -200 was designed as a regional jet - in 1965. So was the A320, designed in 1980. The fourth generation MAX, and the second generation NEO, are both very capable medium-haulers, technically well suited to ocean crossings.

airportugal310 · Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:32 am

barney captain wrote:
The 737NG and -8MAX hold around 46,000 lbs of fuel so there not a lot of room left over for XTRA fuel.

Which equates to roughly 10+ hours of fuel. I'd wager tank capacity is never an issue - ATOG is. There's likely always room for more fuel, but some folks and/or their bags are getting left behind. In my entire career, I've only seen full tanks in an NG one time, and that was on a new delivery ferry flight from PAE to GEG.

My colleague at a competing airline told me repeatedly that their 737 flights to/from Hawaii always flew at the edge of their range, fuel wise.

Here’s the best part...were both fuel guys for our respective airlines. Knowing what I know, he’s correct...

Doesn’t change anything factually. Just know it’s the way it is. Taking ETOPS into account, it still works and that’s what matters.

barney captain · Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:47 am

airportugal310 wrote:
barney captain wrote:
The 737NG and -8MAX hold around 46,000 lbs of fuel so there not a lot of room left over for XTRA fuel.

Which equates to roughly 10+ hours of fuel. I'd wager tank capacity is never an issue - ATOG is. There's likely always room for more fuel, but some folks and/or their bags are getting left behind. In my entire career, I've only seen full tanks in an NG one time, and that was on a new delivery ferry flight from PAE to GEG.

My colleague at a competing airline told me repeatedly that their 737 flights to/from Hawaii always flew at the edge of their range, fuel wise.

Here’s the best part...were both fuel guys for our respective airlines. Knowing what I know, he’s correct...

Doesn’t change anything factually. Just know it’s the way it is. Taking ETOPS into account, it still works and that’s what matters.

Edge of their range for a given payload - sure. The context was whether the 737NG has the fuel capacity, and it absolutely does - and then some. Fill the tanks and you're good for over 10 hours - you're just not carrying many pax.

joeycapps · Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:17 am

I'm a little confused, and I'll admit I didn't read every single response on this thread, but I just want to clarify something... The aircraft and its engines don't know they're ETOPS. ETOPS doesn't make the aircraft fly over an ocean; it certifies it. There's a huge difference.

LAX-HNL is about ~2,550mi and LAX-JFK is about ~2,450 miles, per GCM. I assure those of you panicked about flying a twin across the ocean that the aircraft chosen to fly the route is qualified to fly at least that amount, and more, irrespective of what it's flying over. I'd love nothing more than to sip a drink on the upper deck of a Pan Am 747 back in "the day" for nostalgia, but truth be told, I'll take today's advancements in aviation any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. If your plane is going to plummet - as some fear - it doesn't matter if you hit a farm in the middle of Kansas, or the Pacific halfway between the mainland and Hawaii... The end result would be, tragically, the same.

The safety aspect of daily ops isn't one size fits all; it's to scale. There are government minimums that have to be met, be it a 773 or a 738. Sure, the numbers (fuel pounds, etc) may differ, but that safety margin is custom tailored, if you will, for each aircraft and the associated variables on a flight-by-flight basis.

If you really don't like flying on twins, then you can easily forget visiting 3/4 of the world. Alternately, you can take a 17 day cruise from LA to HI. I'd like to echo the few posts that question how someone so scared of twins can be a member of this community. A majority of aircraft in service today in the commercial sector, at least in the US are twin engine aircraft. If that's a fact that scares someone away from air travel then good luck flying anyone other than QF, AF, Emirates, LH and a handful of others.

But I will say this, at 6'6" and 240 pounds - I do agree that widebodies are the way to go for longer flights, at least as far as comfort goes.

c933103 · Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:24 am

nine4nine wrote:
I don’t see the CFM 56-7 issues being a concern in this topic. They are well proven and highly reliable given the media over sensationalism they have been receiving for the extremely small amount of failures.

But as I stated earlier I personally don’t feel the 738 739 and CEO320 (exception of MAX and NEO) were made with mainland-Hawaii routes in mind when they were designed and manufactured. It has nothing to do with 2 engines or 4. Those routes were added much later with those aircraft. It has to do with capabilities in an emergency and I think these planes are cutting it close as it is and I would really hate to see what happens in a real emergency in the middle of the pacific.

I know 757,767,A330 and 777 aren’t fully stocked with fuel but enough to cover the Mission plus reserves but those reserves far surpass a fully fueled 737 and have much more capability in an engine emergency and reliant on much more comfortable fuel reserves.

If an AS 738 departing SEA has to refuel in OAK before crossing the pacific due to strong headwinds then I don’t think that aircraft is cut out to run that type of route.

Aircrafts get performance improvement down the production line.
And of course 757/767/A330/777 would carry more fuel than 737, they carry more passengers and consume more fuel to fly

BravoOne · Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:16 am

joeycapps wrote:
I'm a little confused, and I'll admit I didn't read every single response on this thread, but I just want to clarify something... The aircraft and its engines don't know they're ETOPS. ETOPS doesn't make the aircraft fly over an ocean; it certifies it. There's a huge difference.

LAX-HNL is about ~2,550mi and LAX-JFK is about ~2,450 miles, per GCM. I assure those of you panicked about flying a twin across the ocean that the aircraft chosen to fly the route is qualified to fly at least that amount, and more, irrespective of what it's flying over. I'd love nothing more than to sip a drink on the upper deck of a Pan Am 747 back in "the day" for nostalgia, but truth be told, I'll take today's advancements in aviation any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. If your plane is going to plummet - as some fear - it doesn't matter if you hit a farm in the middle of Kansas, or the Pacific halfway between the mainland and Hawaii... The end result would be, tragically, the same.

The safety aspect of daily ops isn't one size fits all; it's to scale. There are government minimums that have to be met, be it a 773 or a 738. Sure, the numbers (fuel pounds, etc) may differ, but that safety margin is custom tailored, if you will, for each aircraft and the associated variables on a flight-by-flight basis.

If you really don't like flying on twins, then you can easily forget visiting 3/4 of the world. Alternately, you can take a 17 day cruise from LA to HI. I'd like to echo the few posts that question how someone so scared of twins can be a member of this community. A majority of aircraft in service today in the commercial sector, at least in the US are twin engine aircraft. If that's a fact that scares someone away from air travel then good luck flying anyone other than QF, AF, Emirates, LH and a handful of others.

But I will say this, at 6'6" and 240 pounds - I do agree that widebodies are the way to go for longer flights, at least as far as comfort goes.

"Full the tanks" on the 737-8MAX or -800NG and then fill all the pax seats and your going to be over weight for T.O.

Estimated ZFW = 138900 + 46000lbs fuel = 184700 which is 3500 over MTOW or roughly 16 pax to many. The figures don't lie.

The good news is this imaginary flight only requires 43000/8+39, for the 6+12 minute flight today so we are good to go:)

Max Q · Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:49 am

joeycapps wrote:
I'm a little confused, and I'll admit I didn't read every single response on this thread, but I just want to clarify something... The aircraft and its engines don't know they're ETOPS. ETOPS doesn't make the aircraft fly over an ocean; it certifies it. There's a huge difference.

LAX-HNL is about ~2,550mi and LAX-JFK is about ~2,450 miles, per GCM. I assure those of you panicked about flying a twin across the ocean that the aircraft chosen to fly the route is qualified to fly at least that amount, and more, irrespective of what it's flying over. I'd love nothing more than to sip a drink on the upper deck of a Pan Am 747 back in "the day" for nostalgia, but truth be told, I'll take today's advancements in aviation any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. If your plane is going to plummet - as some fear - it doesn't matter if you hit a farm in the middle of Kansas, or the Pacific halfway between the mainland and Hawaii... The end result would be, tragically, the same.

The safety aspect of daily ops isn't one size fits all; it's to scale. There are government minimums that have to be met, be it a 773 or a 738. Sure, the numbers (fuel pounds, etc) may differ, but that safety margin is custom tailored, if you will, for each aircraft and the associated variables on a flight-by-flight basis.

If you really don't like flying on twins, then you can easily forget visiting 3/4 of the world. Alternately, you can take a 17 day cruise from LA to HI. I'd like to echo the few posts that question how someone so scared of twins can be a member of this community. A majority of aircraft in service today in the commercial sector, at least in the US are twin engine aircraft. If that's a fact that scares someone away from air travel then good luck flying anyone other than QF, AF, Emirates, LH and a handful of others.

But I will say this, at 6'6" and 240 pounds - I do agree that widebodies are the way to go for longer flights, at least as far as comfort goes.

You’re missing an important point

If you have a decompression at any point
on your route from JFK to LAX there are numerous airports to choose from where you can land almost immediately

ETOPS planning demands that not only should you be able to lose an engine at any
point during the flight and be able to proceed to your ETOPS alternate but also,
in the event of a decompression that you can complete this diversion at 10,000 feet
significantly increasing your fuel burn

I’m sure the 737 can comply with these requirements, it must as it’s already flying to HNL, I know at my airline however they
do go out with empty seats sometimes as the payload must be restricted to meet fuel
burn requirements

So comparing a transcon flight to a west coast- HNL run is not realistic, the ETOPS
portion is far more restrictive and demanding

While bigger aircraft certainly won’t be ‘filling their tanks’ on a similar route they
do have the performance (and fuel tank capacity) to operate with no weight restrictions

77H · Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:28 am

Max Q wrote:
joeycapps wrote:
I'm a little confused, and I'll admit I didn't read every single response on this thread, but I just want to clarify something... The aircraft and its engines don't know they're ETOPS. ETOPS doesn't make the aircraft fly over an ocean; it certifies it. There's a huge difference.

LAX-HNL is about ~2,550mi and LAX-JFK is about ~2,450 miles, per GCM. I assure those of you panicked about flying a twin across the ocean that the aircraft chosen to fly the route is qualified to fly at least that amount, and more, irrespective of what it's flying over. I'd love nothing more than to sip a drink on the upper deck of a Pan Am 747 back in "the day" for nostalgia, but truth be told, I'll take today's advancements in aviation any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. If your plane is going to plummet - as some fear - it doesn't matter if you hit a farm in the middle of Kansas, or the Pacific halfway between the mainland and Hawaii... The end result would be, tragically, the same.

The safety aspect of daily ops isn't one size fits all; it's to scale. There are government minimums that have to be met, be it a 773 or a 738. Sure, the numbers (fuel pounds, etc) may differ, but that safety margin is custom tailored, if you will, for each aircraft and the associated variables on a flight-by-flight basis.

If you really don't like flying on twins, then you can easily forget visiting 3/4 of the world. Alternately, you can take a 17 day cruise from LA to HI. I'd like to echo the few posts that question how someone so scared of twins can be a member of this community. A majority of aircraft in service today in the commercial sector, at least in the US are twin engine aircraft. If that's a fact that scares someone away from air travel then good luck flying anyone other than QF, AF, Emirates, LH and a handful of others.

But I will say this, at 6'6" and 240 pounds - I do agree that widebodies are the way to go for longer flights, at least as far as comfort goes.

You’re missing an important point

If you have a decompression at any point
on your route from JFK to LAX there are numerous airports to choose from where you can land almost immediately

ETOPS planning demands that not only should you be able to lose an engine at any
point during the flight and be able to proceed to your ETOPS alternate but also,
in the event of a decompression that you can complete this diversion at 10,000 feet
significantly increasing your fuel burn

I’m sure the 737 can comply with these requirements, it must as it’s already flying to HNL, I know at my airline however they
do go out with empty seats sometimes as the payload must be restricted to meet fuel
burn requirements

So comparing a transcon flight to a west coast- HNL run is not realistic, the ETOPS
portion is far more restrictive and demanding

While bigger aircraft certainly won’t be ‘filling their tanks’ on a similar route they
do have the performance (and fuel tank capacity) to operate with no weight restrictions

Depends on what WB aircraft type is being operated and what you’re loading on it. UA’s 77A fleet and DL’s 763 (non-ER flights) weight restrict quite often both too and from HNL. As a matter of fact, I’ve seen flights operated by UA’s 77A depart with less useable payload than the 753 when both have full passenger loads. That said, I’ve never heard of a WB leaving rev passengers behind due to weight restrictions like the 737s.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of the 737 operating NA-WC to HI but I’ve never felt they were any less safe than a WB or 757.

77H

ro1960 · Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:36 pm

ltbewr wrote:
Of course, some of the complaining here of long over water flights on narrow-body a/c's, even if fully capable anyway, is for comfort.

What difference in comfort do you have on a 5-hour flight over water vs over land?

lightsaber · Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:25 pm

BravoOne wrote:
joeycapps wrote:
I'm a little confused, and I'll admit I didn't read every single response on this thread, but I just want to clarify something... The aircraft and its engines don't know they're ETOPS. ETOPS doesn't make the aircraft fly over an ocean; it certifies it. There's a huge difference.

LAX-HNL is about ~2,550mi and LAX-JFK is about ~2,450 miles, per GCM. I assure those of you panicked about flying a twin across the ocean that the aircraft chosen to fly the route is qualified to fly at least that amount, and more, irrespective of what it's flying over. I'd love nothing more than to sip a drink on the upper deck of a Pan Am 747 back in "the day" for nostalgia, but truth be told, I'll take today's advancements in aviation any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. If your plane is going to plummet - as some fear - it doesn't matter if you hit a farm in the middle of Kansas, or the Pacific halfway between the mainland and Hawaii... The end result would be, tragically, the same.

The safety aspect of daily ops isn't one size fits all; it's to scale. There are government minimums that have to be met, be it a 773 or a 738. Sure, the numbers (fuel pounds, etc) may differ, but that safety margin is custom tailored, if you will, for each aircraft and the associated variables on a flight-by-flight basis.

If you really don't like flying on twins, then you can easily forget visiting 3/4 of the world. Alternately, you can take a 17 day cruise from LA to HI. I'd like to echo the few posts that question how someone so scared of twins can be a member of this community. A majority of aircraft in service today in the commercial sector, at least in the US are twin engine aircraft. If that's a fact that scares someone away from air travel then good luck flying anyone other than QF, AF, Emirates, LH and a handful of others.

But I will say this, at 6'6" and 240 pounds - I do agree that widebodies are the way to go for longer flights, at least as far as comfort goes.

"Full the tanks" on the 737-8MAX or -800NG and then fill all the pax seats and your going to be over weight for T.O.

Estimated ZFW = 138900 + 46000lbs fuel = 184700 which is 3500 over MTOW or roughly 16 pax to many. The figures don't lie.

The good news is this imaginary flight only requires 43000/8+39, for the 6+12 minute flight today so we are good to go:)

Out of curiosity, which wingtips for 43,000. Does anyone have the same numbers for the MAX and NEO?

Aviano789 · Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:41 pm

A320FlyGuy wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

How is any of what you cited different on a 757 or widebody twin from on a 737 or 320? While the larger aircraft have more range, carriers don’t fill up the tanks just for the sake of helping passengers sleep better at night. To the extent that uncontained engine failures are some sort of systemic problem (which is debatable at best), note that they generally do not occur hours into cruise.

I’m not saying they aren’t safe. Obviously they went thru the ETOPS cert process and proving runs. I’m just stating a personal preference that I prefer not to fly one of those birds halfway across the Pacific especially in an emergency scenario. I think there are more variables with aircraft that are flying missions they weren’t designed for. That’s all.

Then you are seriously going to be limiting yourself in terms of where you can travel in the future. Airlines aren't buying 747-8 and A380s - twins are the way of the future and unless the L-1011 and DC-10/MD-11 suddenly come back in vogue, you are going to be on a twin. There is a whole generation of passengers who have never flown on anything BUT a twin. The engineers at Airbus and Boeing don't simply cobble a plane together and hope for the best - the plane is designed and engineered and pushed far beyond ANYTHING it will ever experience in passenger service before it is released to the airlines. I have absolute faith in the engineering that goes into the A300/A310/A320/A330/A350 and 737/757/767/777/787. The WN1380 incident is tragic - no question. But that being said, the CFM56 has been around for a very, very long time. It has seen more service in both commercial and military applications than just about any other engine ever built. You have to compare one incident against a 40-year service record that has been, for the most part, impeccable. I think at the end of the day, the investigation will show that this was a maintenance failure on the part of WN and not a problem with the engine. Now, by comparison, look at the CF6 which has a history of blade/turbine failures that have occurred with a much higher frequency - yet it is still an airline favorite.

Airlines don't like major incidents - they are bad for business. No airline no matter how bad they may be is going to operate an engine that is of questionable reliability and quality. Nobody wants to be the next Valujet (except maybe Allegiant) and to that end - while the CFM56 is in the spotlight right now, people aren't considering the sheer number of 737s and A320s that are flying around with these engines - and that's only 2 applications. So factor in all of the military aircraft with CFM56s, the DC-8 Series 70 and the A340. It's an engine that airlines and passengers can put their confidence in. It has been for 40 years and it will continue to be. I'd be far more concerned about flying with a PW GTF slung under the wing.

Don't be afraid of ETOPS or twins - they are here to stay and will continue to be here - for now, and for the foreseeable future. Unless warp drive becomes an available option...

All aircraft engines were designed, manufactured and maintained by humans. We humans are prone to mistakes. For example there is recent FAA Obscure Mechanical Interruption Summary of a low cost air carrier which highlighted more than 100 serious in flight mechanical incident that carrier had from January 2016 to October 2017. Remember airplanes or engines by themselves don’t crash and kill innocent Pax, it’s always the human factor.

wave46 · Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:03 pm

Aviano789 wrote:
All aircraft engines were designed, manufactured and maintained by humans. We humans are prone to mistakes. For example there is recent FAA Obscure Mechanical Interruption Summary of a low cost air carrier which highlighted more than 100 serious in flight mechanical incident that carrier had from January 2016 to October 2017. Remember airplanes or engines by themselves don’t crash and kill innocent Pax, it’s always the human factor.

Flying - just like most things in life - involves risk. I believe that all the processes to make flying safer have mitigated that risk to an acceptable level given the rewards.

If you cannot accept the risk, I suggest you refrain from flying.

Flow2706 · Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:10 pm

Planes usually (exception: tankering) don't take off with significantly more fuel than the legally required minimum fuel on the flight plan (which already includes a lot of reserves, especially for ETOPS flights). The commander is authorized to add extra fuel when he deems it necessary, but in normal conditions this won't be more than 10 or 15 minutes worth of fuel. It does not matter if its an A380 or an A320 - if pilots would routinely add excessive quantities of extra fuel they would have a talk with management rather sooner than later. There is also a requirement to carry (EASA/ICAO rules, not sure about the FAA ones) 5% of the trip fuel as contingency fuel (can be reduced under certain circumstances). On a 3 hour flight this is an additional 9 minutes - enough to cover any unexpectedly strong headwind etc. My company routinely does 5 to 6 hour flights with A320s (within Europe, so no ETOPS but the basic point remains) and it usually works out quite well. There is absolutely no benefit (except comfort) of using a quad. It doesn't really matter what the airplane was "intended" for in first place, the aircraft is certified for ETOPS and can do it easily.

birdbrainz · Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:24 pm

nine4nine wrote:

I know 757,767,A330 and 777 aren’t fully stocked with fuel but enough to cover the Mission plus reserves but those reserves far surpass a fully fueled 737 and have much more capability in an engine emergency and reliant on much more comfortable fuel reserves.

Reserves for *any* twin going OAK-HNL are computed the same way. Either the 737 carries reserves using the same calculation as a 777, or it doesn't make the trip. The rules are the rules.

GalaxyFlyer · Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:28 pm

The fuel planning for quads isn’t appreciably different, either. They too plan on the worst case of the three models—depressurization, OEI, and both at the CP.

GF

catiii · Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:38 pm

nine4nine wrote:
767333ER wrote:
What you have to ask yourself is how long this type of engine has been in service and how much use in total such as hours have been put on it. Just because one operator has had some trouble for whatever reason doesn’t mean the engine is suddenly unsafe if everyone else’s is fine still.

No, but given range issues due to fuel I wouldn’t feel comfortable being down an engine and flying lower altitude with higher fuel burn or even the added drag. I’d imagine any issue on a mainland-Hawaii flight to the likes of the WN issue would have resulted in a major tragedy.

I will never book a Hawaii flight personally on an 320/321 or 737. Have heard stories about planes arriving on fumes after stronger than expected headwinds. Couple that with an engine issue. I think it’s a disaster in the making.

"Fumes?" My gosh, this post takes the hyperbole on this site to a whole new level.

Enlighten us, where did you hear about these potential catastrophes?

hOMSaR · Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:09 pm

Max Q wrote:
You’re missing an important point

If you have a decompression at any point
on your route from JFK to LAX there are numerous airports to choose from where you can land almost immediately

ETOPS planning demands that not only should you be able to lose an engine at any
point during the flight and be able to proceed to your ETOPS alternate but also,
in the event of a decompression that you can complete this diversion at 10,000 feet
significantly increasing your fuel burn

Does a four-engine plane not also have to have enough fuel to complete a flight if they lose cabin pressure halfway through and need to complete the diversion at 10,000?

I don't see why the lack of diversion points is something that would be specific to twins.

I’m sure the 737 can comply with these requirements, it must as it’s already flying to HNL, I know at my airline however they
do go out with empty seats sometimes as the payload must be restricted to meet fuel
burn requirements

So comparing a transcon flight to a west coast- HNL run is not realistic, the ETOPS
portion is far more restrictive and demanding

While bigger aircraft certainly won’t be ‘filling their tanks’ on a similar route they
do have the performance (and fuel tank capacity) to operate with no weight restrictions

Taking payload restrictions on a smaller plane vs. flying a larger one are an economic decision, not a safety one. Now, *not* taking payload restrictions would be a safety issue, but taking them and dispatching within MTOW just means the flight earns less revenue for the airline. If that was a consistent enough problem, they'd either drop the flight or change airplane types for economic reasons.

For those thinking of comfort, I'd think a flight that is payload restricted would be better, as it means a greater chance of empty seats next to you.

Either way, the plane has to be able to fly to the nearest diversion airport if some failure occurs at the point where it is farthest from a suitable landing point.

Aviano789 · Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:21 pm

BerenErchamion wrote:
dwachdorf wrote:
Would having 4 engines actually increase the risk of having something like a catastrophic fan blade / disk failure? Also, I’d much rather have a proven engine like the CFM56, than a Trent 1000 or PW engine that’s having issues on the A321neo.

Yes. Whether this is enough to offset the lower likelihood of every engine failing in a contained manner depends on the specific failure rates of the engines in question, but there is such a point where that becomes the case.

Consider the case where a given engine has an uncontained, catastrophic failure rate of one every twenty hours, and a contained, non-catastrophic failure rate of one every two hours. If you mount two of those engines on a plane, you would expect a catastrophic failure of a single engine once every ten hours, and a contained failure of all engines once every four hours. If you mount three, you'd expect a catastrophic failure of a single engine once every 6 2/3 hours, and a contained failure of all engines once every eight hours. With four, it's a single catastrophic failure expected every 5 hours, and a contained all-engine failure every 16 hours. With 5, it's single catastrophic every 4 hours, and contained all-engine every 32.

If we translate this to probability of failure per hour, then:
With two engines, the probability of an uncontained failure in a given hour is 0.1, and the probability of all engines experiencing a contained failure in a given hour is 0.25, or a 35% chance of a fatal failure of some sort per hour. With three, it's 0.15 for single uncontained, and 0.125 for all uncontained, so 27.5% chance. With four, it's 0.2 for single uncontained, and 0.0625 for all uncontained, so a 26.25% chance of a failure of any sort. Finally, with five engines, it's 0.25 for single catastrophic, and 0.03125 for all uncontained, so 28.125% chance of failure every hour--so five engines is actually less safe than four.

Obviously, this is a simplified example--as you add more engines, you're probably going to be using a different type which will have different failure rates, for one, and also not all uncontained engine failure scenarios are equally fatal, but the point is that there is a point where adding more engines makes the plane less safe.

The original post by me was intended for single isle twins like the B737 series aircraft flying from the west coast to Hawaii. It was not meant for the WB like 757, 767,A330 and 777 series designed specifically with extended overwater operations in mind. My Bad. Please accept my apology for the confusion.

Aviano789 · Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:33 pm

joeycapps wrote:
I'm a little confused, and I'll admit I didn't read every single response on this thread, but I just want to clarify something... The aircraft and its engines don't know they're ETOPS. ETOPS doesn't make the aircraft fly over an ocean; it certifies it. There's a huge difference.

LAX-HNL is about ~2,550mi and LAX-JFK is about ~2,450 miles, per GCM. I assure those of you panicked about flying a twin across the ocean that the aircraft chosen to fly the route is qualified to fly at least that amount, and more, irrespective of what it's flying over. I'd love nothing more than to sip a drink on the upper deck of a Pan Am 747 back in "the day" for nostalgia, but truth be told, I'll take today's advancements in aviation any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. If your plane is going to plummet - as some fear - it doesn't matter if you hit a farm in the middle of Kansas, or the Pacific halfway between the mainland and Hawaii... The end result would be, tragically, the same.

The safety aspect of daily ops isn't one size fits all; it's to scale. There are government minimums that have to be met, be it a 773 or a 738. Sure, the numbers (fuel pounds, etc) may differ, but that safety margin is custom tailored, if you will, for each aircraft and the associated variables on a flight-by-flight basis.

If you really don't like flying on twins, then you can easily forget visiting 3/4 of the world. Alternately, you can take a 17 day cruise from LA to HI. I'd like to echo the few posts that question how someone so scared of twins can be a member of this community. A majority of aircraft in service today in the commercial sector, at least in the US are twin engine aircraft. If that's a fact that scares someone away from air travel then good luck flying anyone other than QF, AF, Emirates, LH and a handful of others.

But I will say this, at 6'6" and 240 pounds - I do agree that widebodies are the way to go for longer flights, at least as far as comfort goes.

The original post by me was intended for single isle twins like the B737 series aircraft flying from the west coast to Hawaii. It was not meant for the WB like 757, 767,A330 and 777 series designed specifically with extended overwater operations in mind. My Bad. Please accept my apology for the confusion.

bananaboy · Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:09 pm

ihmcallister wrote:

Not so. Cruise ships can and do cross oceans all the time. In fact by the same design definitions you mention there is only one genuine Ocean Liner in service today; Cunard's Queen Mary 2...

Not to derail the thread but that's not accurate. MS Marco Polo is still in service (though operated as a cruise ship rather than a liner. One could also argue RMS St. Helena is a liner as designed specifically for transoceanic travel.

Mark

Aptivaboy · Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:10 pm

Not to be pedantic, but a 757 isn't a widebody. Whether all of the others were originally designed for extended overwater operations from the very start is also debatable. The A330 and 777 sure, but the historians on the site will doubtless add in the design briefs on the 757 and 767.

2122M · Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:13 pm

JackMeahoff wrote:
I like the ocean liner analogy. Cruise ships don't cross oceans, ocean liners do. More heavily built, higher bow, fewer windows near the water line, etc. The 737 was designed to be a regional jet, not a long range transoceanic jet.

Cruise Ships regularly do oceanic crossings. Just a quick search found me the 30 Tonne Seabourn Sojourn doing a 56 day San Diego to Australia cruise later this month. It happens all the time. Looks at Windstar trans-Atlantic cruises.

I know that's not the point of this thread, but worth pointing out the error.

CplKlinger · Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:14 pm

Aviano789 wrote:
The original post by me was intended for single isle twins like the B737 series aircraft flying from the west coast to Hawaii. It was not meant for the WB like 757, 767,A330 and 777 series designed specifically with extended overwater operations in mind. My Bad. Please accept my apology for the confusion.

How do you know that they new 737 models weren't designed with extended over water operations in mind? Just because it's got the 737 bit in the name, doesn't mean that it's built the same as a -100 or -200 model. The FAA has made Boeing and Airbus submit these new models to certification testing AND ETOPS testing, just as larger wide body twins. Period. They are not held by the FAA to different, lesser standards. While some people like to dog on the FAA, if they truly didn't think they were safe, they'd never have given them the certification to fly these missions.

If WN, AS, UA or anyone else has enough issues, the FAA will pull their ETOPS certs and they are done flying those missions. The FAA is already looking into what happened with the WN flight, and positive change will come from it. But this hate for single aisle twins borders on fanaticism. It's proven, with hard, cold data that they are just as safe as larger twins and 3 and 4 engine aircraft. Irrefutable proof of the fact that air travel today is safer than at any point in history. To continue to state that they are less safe is not only ignorant of that data, it is an insult to the pilots, mechanics, dispatchers, flight crews and on and on that ensure these aircraft fly safely from points A to B to C every day. They work hard every day to ensure that you get there in one piece. To doubt that work with unfounded accusations, innuendo and ignorance is frankly offensive.

I would posit that if you can't accept this, then you should avoid flying altogether.

Western727 · Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:30 pm

barney captain wrote:
dassal wrote:
barney captain wrote:
..... I've only seen full tanks in an NG one time, and that was on a new delivery ferry flight from PAE to GEG.

You meant PAE to GIG...

No, I meant GEG - although Rio is more appealing. It was a new delivery that came from Boeing with full fuel - for a 38 minute flight to the paint shop in GEG. It was to be the first Heart One livery, although it was still green for this flight.

You got my curiosity piqued. Why would anyone want to fill the tanks for a quick hop to the paint shop? GEG is by no means a remote airport with limited services.

...Or is it SOP to fill the tanks on delivery like I'm starting to suspect now?

Elementalism · Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:40 pm

JackMeahoff wrote:
rbavfan wrote:

The early models of the 737 were designed for shorter flights. However as they have evolved, like us humans did. What they could accomplish has increased with technology. Otherwise we would be waiting a week of more for your response to this. After all we did not have telephones or computer networks 500 years ago, but we had people traveling for days to send a message.

And yet for some reason the safety requirements for flying the President of the United States didn't evolve. Four engines then, four engines now. The Air Force must know something the bean counters at the airlines and their lackeys at the FAA don't. Trump can afford to lose two engines on Air Force One but I can only afford to lose one on my 737 before I go in the drink.

The US govt has near endless supply of money lol Also Trump wanted to cancel the latest version of AF One. And AF One is not in the business of generating income. It transports the president and his staff and is a symbol of American power. A 747 is a natural aircraft for such a display.

In case you didnt know. When Trump leaves office he will go back to flying in his 757 across the Ocean.

birdbrainz · Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:42 pm

rbavfan wrote:
birdbrainz wrote:
I always go out of my way to see if a B-52 is on that route, and book that whenever possible. With eight engines, what could possibly go wrong?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=182AepOJjMs

I was referring to the B-52's not piloted as though they are F-15s. This guy was a goon, just like the dude who augured in his C-17 at an airshow.

I have to laugh. I knew someone was going to go after my "what could possibly go wrong?" comment.

Elementalism · Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:50 pm

[url][/url]

WNwatcher wrote:
Why not book on the Spruce Goose? 8 engines for redundancy, and in the event of a failure that requires going into the drink, you're already in a cruise ship....

Spruce Goose would be nice. With a cruising altitude of 35 feet, if it looses an engine it only has to drop down to 23 feet. The worst that will happen as you noted is it drops 35 feet and turns into a cruise ship.

Elementalism · Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:57 pm

I have found the most safe aircraft every built. I honestly dont even know how many engines this thing has. Seems like they stuck one wherever they could.

flyingclrs727 · Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:05 pm

2122M wrote:
JackMeahoff wrote:
I like the ocean liner analogy. Cruise ships don't cross oceans, ocean liners do. More heavily built, higher bow, fewer windows near the water line, etc. The 737 was designed to be a regional jet, not a long range transoceanic jet.

Cruise Ships regularly do oceanic crossings. Just a quick search found me the 30 Tonne Seabourn Sojourn doing a 56 day San Diego to Australia cruise later this month. It happens all the time. Looks at Windstar trans-Atlantic cruises.

I know that's not the point of this thread, but worth pointing out the error.

flyingclrs727 · Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:06 pm

2122M wrote:
JackMeahoff wrote:
I like the ocean liner analogy. Cruise ships don't cross oceans, ocean liners do. More heavily built, higher bow, fewer windows near the water line, etc. The 737 was designed to be a regional jet, not a long range transoceanic jet.

Cruise Ships regularly do oceanic crossings. Just a quick search found me the 30 Tonne Seabourn Sojourn doing a 56 day San Diego to Australia cruise later this month. It happens all the time. Looks at Windstar trans-Atlantic cruises.

I know that's not the point of this thread, but worth pointing out the error.

Don't you mean 32,000 tonne or 32K tonne?

barney captain · Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:22 pm

Western727 wrote:
barney captain wrote:
dassal wrote:
You meant PAE to GIG...

No, I meant GEG - although Rio is more appealing. It was a new delivery that came from Boeing with full fuel - for a 38 minute flight to the paint shop in GEG. It was to be the first Heart One livery, although it was still green for this flight.

You got my curiosity piqued. Why would anyone want to fill the tanks for a quick hop to the paint shop? GEG is by no means a remote airport with limited services.

...Or is it SOP to fill the tanks on delivery like I'm starting to suspect now?

I think it's a "gift" from Boeing for new aircraft - at least that's what we were told. I don't know if it's SOP, but we certainly didn't want that much fuel. The a/c was delivered form RNT to PAE, where it had wifi and a few other mods done, then we ferried it to GEG for paint. The irony of full tanks for a 38 min flight with only two pilots wasn't lost on us. The double irony is that (according to the pain shop at least) they have to defuel the a/c prior to paint.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net