Page 5 of 6

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

Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 7:40 pm
by Aviano789
CallmeJB wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
It sounds like we are saying the same thing: it’s a trickier question than merely counting the number of redundancies. Look at fly by wire, for instance. Without manual reversion the aircraft need more redundancies.

When it comes to the Hydraulic systems, yes. The additional redundancies to account for the lack of manual reversion is an engineering debate. One may not be better than the other.

When it comes to the electrical system, there is no doubt: the 767 has more backups than the 737.

But, again, the 2000 mile leg simply is not that long! The 737 and A320 are both, now, adequate at handling those legs from the west coast. It's not a walk in the park, but it's within the design capabilities.

At my airline, a west coast to HI leg IS a walk in the park. A more typical route would be East Coast USA to Western Europe, where the 2000 mile overwater leg is only half the journey; that's the bread and butter of what wide body aircraft do.

The longest leg I've operated in the 767 was a ferry flight from TLV straight to MEM... 15+ hours in flight. The 1500 mile oceanic portion was a relatively small part of that total flight. We didn't coast out in Shanwick until we were past the halfway point in the flight, and when we coasted in over Canada there was still four hours of flying left. If we had lost a generator or a hydraulic pump over the Middle East or Europe, we could have continued across the North Atlantic ETOPS 180 or downgraded to ETOPS 120 depending on the exact failure. Compare that to the 737, where any failure in an ETOPS critical system after takeoff will prevent them from crossing the pond.

As has been noted in this thread before, the 767 was not designed with ETOPS in mind... ETOPS didn't exist when the 767 was designed. But the 767 was designed for long, international legs. Can a 737 fly from Europe to South Africa? Maybe, at the limits of its range, it could do it. Can it handle system failures along the way, and continue? No, most component failures will mean that you are landing short of your destination. The 767 was designed to be capable of handling component failures and continuing to the destination. This is a design requirement when operating to far flung destinations over third-world regions.

The 737 is capable of the relatively easy West Coast USA to Hawaii USA ETOPS route. Is it one of the longest ETOPS overwater legs out there? Yes it is. But you see, that simplifies things: any component failure means a diversion to one end or the other. Either way you are in a populous and advanced country.

The less-easy decisions occur over part of the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa. Do you divert to Libya, Chad, or continue to your destination of Lagos? Sure, you have the performance to fly single-engine all the way to Lagos, but how do you justify overflying N'Djamena? You can't, you must land. And with choices like that, I'd rather have no choice at all... that's why the Hawaii leg is easy.

-Current 767 Captain (repeated only because somebody questioned it upthread)

Well folks, you heard it all from a real professional.

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

Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 8:37 pm
by barney captain
In the 737NG for instance because of the lack of redundancy depth vs the 767... they were required to continuously run the APU all the way for an extra generator...



Just for accuracy, that requirement isn't a given. Many operators have proven APU start reliability enough to no longer require it to be continuously run.

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

Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 9:57 pm
by kgaiflyer
I guess we can blame Richard Branson for this thread.

Any other old-timers remember the "Four Engines for Long Distance" campaign VS had for its 346 fleet?

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

Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 10:09 pm
by Chemist
The original assertion seems wrong. The implication was that older planes like the 757 could be safer as they were designed for these flights unlike say the 737.
The 757 was originally going to be a 727 replacement and wasn't planned for overwater flights. And it's never been re-engined.
The latest 737s have newer engines than the 757 and have been built and certified from the start for ETOPs. The wing is also newer than the wing on the 757.

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

Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 10:17 pm
by Adispatcher
rbavfan wrote:
Sooner787 wrote:
What is the ETOPS number required for US west coast- Hawaii flight? 180 240?


ETOPS 180, but I believe with some additions to fuel loads due to no en-route diversion airport between the west coast & Hawaii. That extra part was added when they started, even though there was less than 180 min in use elsewhere without the issue.


Depending on the aircraft, gas for ETOPS is the driving force for the total fuel load and will bump off passengers. It's not an ideal ETOPS route as not much is between SFO and ITO.

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

Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 10:45 pm
by longhauler
Come on, the 757 and 767 are archaic old boats that were designed in the 1970s. When it was designed, the 707 was still flying in full force and twin engined long haul flying wasn't even a consideration! The 757 and 767 have the redundancies they have, not for long haul flying, but the thought of something around 300,000 lbs with only two engines was still pretty frightening to some people. I still remember the Aviation Week editorial about the A300, that said we would rue the day we would ever consider an aircraft that size with only two engines. Oh ... to look ahead 40 years!

As stated above, the latest 737s were designed with ETOPS in mind. It is the way of the world. Much like people resisted flying a three engined aircraft across the water in the past, some uninformed now too resist the 737.

But, think about this ....

When an ETOPS 737 flies from YVR to HNL, it has (as well stated above) enroute alternates, depressurization alternates (and fuel) and ETOPS alternates (and fuel). Plus, it also has additional route reserves as required for overwater operattions. (At least where I fly). But take a 737 from YVR to YHZ, about the same distance, it DOESN'T have to have the same reserves. But, the OP would be very comfortable with that ... go figure.

Yes, you say, it can always land en-route if it has to, but ... unlike an ETOPS operation were alternate airports all have to be above limits, it is entirely legal for a 737 to fly from YVR to YHZ with every enroute airport below weather limits. As it is over land, no restrictions apply! Odds are, it will never happen that every airport would be closed, but ... they don't have to be available ... unlike an ETOPS (and safer) operation!

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

Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 11:38 pm
by DaveFly
ThePinnacleKid wrote:
DaveFly wrote:
I’ve flown eight times nonstop from NYC to Honolulu. All on HA 330s. I just happen to like HA. The 330 was just a fringe benefit — the widebody has a perceived spaciousness, despite the same crappy seats, than that of a 320/737. But they’re all designed for the same mission, with the same ETOPS requirements. I’m not sure I understand the fear/suspicion of flying a narrowbody over water. I’ve also flown the 757 from NYC - London. Perfectly fine.


They're actually not designed for the same mission despite being able to serve safely the same mission.

In the 737NG for instance because of the lack of redundancy depth vs the 767... they were required to continuously run the APU all the way for an extra generator...

did it matter to anyone peering out the window ordering a coke? NO.
Did it make the flight less safe? NO.
Did it mean the 737 couldn't do the flight? NO.
Does the 737 have less redundancy should things start going south than the 767? YES.

It's not a fear things.. it's just a "what it is, is what it is"...

Same as my old beloved ERJ at MGTOW had a MUCH lower SE drift down ability vs the 767... planes are different and with different intentions... the 737 is a capable safe aircraft with amazing statistics.... so is the 767... and more than all those my precious ex ERJ is the statistical safest... but which of them is BEST suited for Mainland US to Hawaii? ERJ / 737 / 767? easy.. 767. It just was engineered with a different redundancy depth built in than the other two... less is not more in this case... and pure statistically NONE of it matters... statistically if you picked the ERJ; you're the safest hour for hour.

(just in your example to be clear.. the 757, despite narrow body, has roughly the same depth of system redundancy as the 767.. it's evidently, exactly as I suspected, more than the 737 and A320 which were conceived for originally different missions)


Thank you for the explanation. I’m always happy to learn something new.

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

Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 11:50 pm
by IPFreely
ThePinnacleKid wrote:
IPFreely wrote:
ThePinnacleKid wrote:
...Warm fuzzy level...I stand by my feelings and my choices.


Fortunately the people who design aircraft and the people who set certification standards and approve them understand and use science, engineering, and statistics. And they don't make decisions based on warmth, fuzziness, and feelings.


Yup, and so we can all enjoy the flight across the pacific on the 737. What's your point? Trying to discredit me for my stance? Doesn't work... my stance is my stance... I've flown over on 737's and I've flown to hawaii in the 757/767... I'll take my 767. It's just better suited.

I speak as a pilot that's actually 767 PIC type rated... I prefer my extra redundancy flying over extended oceanic operations. The OP asked. I responded. It's clear and factual.. ALL operating ETOPS are certified for ETOPS. The end. SOME ETOPS certified aircraft have more depth to redundancy than others.. it's a fact. THE END. I FOR MYSELF pick more flair than minimum flair... happy office space to us all and may everyone get to hawaii to have an umbrella drink


I see the armchair engineers and wanna-be's are out in full force in this thread. All this talk about depth of redundancy sounds good and fires up the superstitious -- like those who believe 737's are landing on fumes -- but it doesn't make it true. More redundant systems are more reliable if, and only if, all of the systems are identical, i.e they have the exact same reliability. It would be the coincidence of the century if the 737 and 767 hydraulic, electric, and manual systems all have the same reliability. While these numbers aren't public, it should be obvious to most that the 737's mechanical link from the control wheel to the control surfaces is the most reliable of all these systems. The fact is both airplanes meet the same ETOPS certification, and no, the 767 is not some "ETOPS Plus". Believing otherwise is simply fuzziness, feelings, and superstition. Not science.

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

Posted: Wed May 02, 2018 2:22 am
by GalaxyFlyer
birdbrainz wrote:
JackMeahoff wrote:

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.


Higher? A quick look at Flightaware.com reveals that a lot of the 737-800's are cruising at FL370 and FL380, with a few at FL410. Ditto for the MAX 8, and the 737-700s are, as a group, cruising a bit higher than the 800's. Other than possibly a Concorde or 747-SP, can you name another plane from the "good 'ole days" that routinely cruises higher than that?

As far as better goes, check the trip fuel burn PER (Perth - Australia) pound of payload of a Max 8 on a 6-7 hr journey and get back to me.

This is not your grandfather's 737. ;-)


But, it does have your grandfather’s overhead panel.

GF

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

Posted: Wed May 02, 2018 2:37 am
by Max Q
CallmeJB wrote:
Max Q wrote:
I believe the 737 will keep the APU running for these ETOPS flights providing some electrical redundancy

Like I said, that airframe is fine for the relatively short leg west coast to HNL.

But there is still no backup after those three generators go.

Electrics:
767: 2 engine generators, 1 APU generator, and a hydraulic generator: 4 gens
737: 2 engine generators, 1 APU generator: 3 gens

Hydraulics:
767: 2 engine pumps, 4 electric pumps, 1 air driven pump, 1 RAT: 8 hydraulic pumps (partially because there is no manual reversion for flight controls)
737: 2 engine pumps, 2 electric pumps: 4 hydraulic pumps (and manual reversion available)


Look, again, the 737 is a fine airframe. I'm just saying, don't jump down PinnacleKid's throat when he says the 767 has more redundancies. It clearly does.



Not sure if that is addressed to me,
If so I’m missing your point


No question the 757/ 67 has more redundancy than the 737.


I spent 11 years flying both aircraft in the
right and left seats though.


I would not want to fly in a 737 to HNL or
across the pond

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

Posted: Wed May 02, 2018 2:56 am
by speedbird52
Aviano789 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.

Plain and simple, I don't want to find myself and love ones or for that matter any one having to deal with the Engine Stops PAX Swim (ETOPS) Scenarios. Please note there are lot of hungry JAWS between West Coast and the Hawaiian Islands.

I'm not going to comment on the fact that there are zero passenger aircraft with the exception of Qantas flying across the pacific with more than two engines, or that all of your arguments are ridiculous, or that there has never in history been a case of multiple engine failures where the fault wasn't an issue that would affect the aircraft even if it had 12 engines. Others have commented about that. But nonetheless I will comment on the fact that you are more likely to be bitten by your own children than you would be likely to be bitten by a shark, and that sharks never actively hunt humans, and some even spit us out when they do take a bite out of us. I spent hours upon hours reading about sharks as a child, and I am not letting that knowledge go to waste.

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

Posted: Wed May 02, 2018 2:58 am
by CallmeJB
Max Q wrote:
Not sure if that is addressed to me,
If so I’m missing your point


No question the 757/ 67 has more redundancy than the 737.


I spent 11 years flying both aircraft in the
right and left seats though.


I would not want to fly in a 737 to HNL or
across the pond

Nope not directly addressed at you, just used your post as a jumping off point for another one of my rants :D

Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for your input on this thread. It is appreciated.

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

Posted: Wed May 02, 2018 4:31 am
by 7BOEING7
Having flown the first New Gen (733) across the pond (Pacific) in November of 1985 and several thereafter I never thought it different than any other flight. Recently after not being near an airplane for six years I had a comfortable and safe flight on an Alaska 738 from SEA to HNL and back -- no concerns. A lot of this conversation reminds me of the AvWeek Feedback section of the mid to late 80's with reader after reader swearing they'd never fly two engines across the Atlantic on any airplane -- saved them to look back on to see how really stupid they were.

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

Posted: Wed May 02, 2018 4:40 am
by danj555
LTCM wrote:
If four engined airframes were the norm, we'd have some forum members refusing to fly on anything with less than six...


:lol: :lol: you're right!!! every now and then a comment really captures the conversation.

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

Posted: Wed May 02, 2018 9:48 am
by beerockxs
speedbird52 wrote:
I'm not going to comment on the fact that there are zero passenger aircraft with the exception of Qantas flying across the pacific with more than two engines


Uh, you're forgetting China Southern's, Asiana's and Korean Air's A380s.

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

Posted: Wed May 02, 2018 10:44 am
by ihmcallister
JackMeahoff wrote:
Aptivaboy wrote:
Very respectfully, kind sir, I think you're being a bit over the top by saying that you'll never fly an A320 or 737 to the islands.


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.



But would you fly across the Atlantic in the back of an American 777-300ER, with its 3/4/3 seating at 17" wide? Or would you choose an A321 because it has 18" wide seats?

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

Posted: Wed May 02, 2018 12:13 pm
by FatCat
beerockxs wrote:
speedbird52 wrote:
I'm not going to comment on the fact that there are zero passenger aircraft with the exception of Qantas flying across the pacific with more than two engines


Uh, you're forgetting China Southern's, Asiana's and Korean Air's A380s.


Air Tahiti Nui's, Philippine Airlines A343s

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

Posted: Wed May 02, 2018 1:27 pm
by birdbrainz
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
birdbrainz wrote:
JackMeahoff wrote:

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.


Higher? A quick look at Flightaware.com reveals that a lot of the 737-800's are cruising at FL370 and FL380, with a few at FL410. Ditto for the MAX 8, and the 737-700s are, as a group, cruising a bit higher than the 800's. Other than possibly a Concorde or 747-SP, can you name another plane from the "good 'ole days" that routinely cruises higher than that?

As far as better goes, check the trip fuel burn PER (Perth - Australia) pound of payload of a Max 8 on a 6-7 hr journey and get back to me.

This is not your grandfather's 737. ;-)


But, it does have your grandfather’s overhead panel.

GF


Yep! and if you act quickly, you get a free pair of white scarves, goggles, and leather flying helmets with every 737 MAX ordered. Mustache wax not included.

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

Posted: Thu May 03, 2018 11:55 pm
by JackMeahoff
ihmcallister wrote:
JackMeahoff wrote:
Aptivaboy wrote:
Very respectfully, kind sir, I think you're being a bit over the top by saying that you'll never fly an A320 or 737 to the islands.


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.



But would you fly across the Atlantic in the back of an American 777-300ER, with its 3/4/3 seating at 17" wide? Or would you choose an A321 because it has 18" wide seats?


As the 777 is a foot narrower than the 747, Boeing marketed the 777 with 9-across seating. It was the greedy airlines who decided to scrunch 10 seats into the 777. As always, it is the airlines trying to downsize space, not the manufacturers.

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

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 2:54 am
by YULWinterSkies
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.


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.


The 737 was designed to be a regional jet in the 70s. These were the 737-100 and -200. The 737-700, -800, -900 were designed with transcon missions in mind, or W coast-Hawai'i. The -MAX is designed to fly even a bit further. She is happy flying back and forth across the pond, basically.

Not sure what is sad about this. Technology is pretty darn exciting. These r&d endeavors and assembly lines keep people employed, for a thing. Gone are the days of the 707 for long haul indeed, yet these were not wider than a 737 MAX and they were seen as cool.
You know what's actually sad with flying these days? Sitting in a 777 cramped 10-abreast or a 737 / 757 and being unable to tell the difference once you're in your seat. There lies the problem, my friend! The problem is in the sardine can concept itself, not the size of the can.

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

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 3:33 am
by JackMeahoff
YULWinterSkies wrote:
Not sure what is sad about this. Technology is pretty darn exciting. These r&d endeavors and assembly lines keep people employed, for a thing. Gone are the days of the 707 for long haul indeed, yet these were not wider than a 737 MAX and they were seen as cool.


The 707 is a 600 MPH cruise aircraft, the 737 cruises at 520 MPH.

Tell me again about those exciting technological advancements. Carrying the same number of passengers at a slower speed 60 years later is an example of technological regression. My father's 707 would have arrived in Honolulu 45 minutes earlier than my 737. How depressing is that?

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

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 4:36 pm
by longhauler
JackMeahoff wrote:
The 707 is a 600 MPH cruise aircraft, the 737 cruises at 520 MPH.

Tell me again about those exciting technological advancements. Carrying the same number of passengers at a slower speed 60 years later is an example of technological regression. My father's 707 would have arrived in Honolulu 45 minutes earlier than my 737. How depressing is that?

It's only technological regression if speed was the aim ... and since the cancellation of the 2707, or maybe the Sonic Cruiser, let's face it, speed is no longer an issue.

I am quite certain that Boeing is quite capable of building an aircraft that will cruise at whatever speed airlines want. And why haven't they? Because airlines don't wan't speed. And why don't airlines wan't speed? Because passengers won't pay for it. Period.

What do passengers want? (and thus airlines) .... a cheap seat! The seat/mile cost of your father's 707 is probably three times that of today's MAX8 flying LAX-HNL. I am not saying I like it. And I am not saying that the lot of today's passenger is anywhere pleasant compared to flying on a 707, but ... if you want technological advances, then look at how cheap today's aircraft are to run.

This is of course ignoring safety advances. Look at the number of 707s that Pan American or Air France lost in the 1960s and 1970s. There have been huge technological advances made toward safety and most of those 707s would not have been lost in today's MAX8.

Again ... you are preaching to the choir here. I have many fond memories in crossing oceans in 707s, DC-8s and VC-10s (even once in a 720), It was an era sadly long past. But I don't begrudge airlines for giving passengers what they want and airframe manufacturers for designing aircraft than can deliver it.

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

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 5:16 pm
by FriscoHeavy
JackMeahoff wrote:
YULWinterSkies wrote:
Not sure what is sad about this. Technology is pretty darn exciting. These r&d endeavors and assembly lines keep people employed, for a thing. Gone are the days of the 707 for long haul indeed, yet these were not wider than a 737 MAX and they were seen as cool.


The 707 is a 600 MPH cruise aircraft, the 737 cruises at 520 MPH.

Tell me again about those exciting technological advancements. Carrying the same number of passengers at a slower speed 60 years later is an example of technological regression. My father's 707 would have arrived in Honolulu 45 minutes earlier than my 737. How depressing is that?



Really...you should just stop talking/commenting. Every post you submit makes you sound more and more ridiculous. As the saying goes, 'When you're in a hole, quit digging'.

You readily leave out how much further in flight entertainment (PTV or Internet) has evolved and the fuel burn savings of a 737MAX vs that of a 707. Stop spreading Fake News.

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

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 7:02 pm
by 767333ER
JackMeahoff wrote:
YULWinterSkies wrote:
Not sure what is sad about this. Technology is pretty darn exciting. These r&d endeavors and assembly lines keep people employed, for a thing. Gone are the days of the 707 for long haul indeed, yet these were not wider than a 737 MAX and they were seen as cool.


The 707 is a 600 MPH cruise aircraft, the 737 cruises at 520 MPH.

Tell me again about those exciting technological advancements. Carrying the same number of passengers at a slower speed 60 years later is an example of technological regression. My father's 707 would have arrived in Honolulu 45 minutes earlier than my 737. How depressing is that?

But it is progression as the way it is designed allows it to be the best at what airlines want it to do which makes it most efficient to run at a slower speed than the 707. The 737 could be designed to fly as fast as the 707, but then it would be less competitive and would require the customer to pay more to fly on it to save 45 minutes and thus would be a failure. Progression is all about efficiency, nobody wants a 737 that would typically cruise at Mach .85 or something.

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

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 10:53 pm
by reltney
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The engines have no idea they’re flying over water or in the dark.

GF



Much lees know they are one of only 2 on the plane.

Very good GalaxyFlyer! Very good indeed!

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

Posted: Sat May 05, 2018 5:01 am
by IPFreely
YULWinterSkies wrote:
JackMeahoff wrote:
IPFreely 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.

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.


The 737 was designed to be a regional jet in the 70s. These were the 737-100 and -200. The 737-700, -800, -900 were designed with transcon missions in mind, or W coast-Hawai'i. The -MAX is designed to fly even a bit further. She is happy flying back and forth across the pond, basically.

Not sure what is sad about this. Technology is pretty darn exciting. These r&d endeavors and assembly lines keep people employed, for a thing. Gone are the days of the 707 for long haul indeed, yet these were not wider than a 737 MAX and they were seen as cool.
You know what's actually sad with flying these days? Sitting in a 777 cramped 10-abreast or a 737 / 757 and being unable to tell the difference once you're in your seat. There lies the problem, my friend! The problem is in the sardine can concept itself, not the size of the can.


Please edit your post. My name appears but none of the quotes are from me. You are quoting the troll who probably hasn't flown in any of the planes he praising or the ones he's complaining about.

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

Posted: Sat May 05, 2018 10:51 am
by Balerit
I think twins are being overstressed, watch quads make a return :)

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

Posted: Sat May 05, 2018 2:24 pm
by PITingres
Balerit wrote:
I think twins are being overstressed, watch quads make a return :)


I think the emoticon you were looking for was this one: :stirthepot:

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

Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 7:26 pm
by JackMeahoff
longhauler wrote:
What do passengers want? (and thus airlines) .... a cheap seat! The seat/mile cost of your father's 707 is probably three times that of today's MAX8 flying LAX-HNL. I am not saying I like it. And I am not saying that the lot of today's passenger is anywhere pleasant compared to flying on a 707, but ... if you want technological advances, then look at how cheap today's aircraft are to run.


That sounds like something management would say. Meanwhile there are new exorbitant fees attached to every single facet of flying that never existed before, from ticket changes to baggage to food. Where did all the savings go?

FriscoHeavy wrote:

You readily leave out how much further in flight entertainment (PTV or Internet) has evolved and the fuel burn savings of a 737MAX vs that of a 707. Stop spreading Fake News.


Are you talking about headrest LCD screens? Or GoGo in-flight internet? It's slow and costs $25 per flight. These frivolities are crumbs compared to flying faster and/or having more legroom.

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

Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 7:52 pm
by JackMeahoff
longhauler wrote:

When an ETOPS 737 flies from YVR to HNL, it has (as well stated above) enroute alternates, depressurization alternates (and fuel) and ETOPS alternates (and fuel). Plus, it also has additional route reserves as required for overwater operattions. (At least where I fly). But take a 737 from YVR to YHZ, about the same distance, it DOESN'T have to have the same reserves. But, the OP would be very comfortable with that ... go figure.


The OP is merely expressing his displeasure in flying the route in a Yugo when it has been serviced for decades by Lincolns and Cadillacs.

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

Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 7:58 pm
by Antarius
JackMeahoff wrote:
longhauler wrote:
What do passengers want? (and thus airlines) .... a cheap seat! The seat/mile cost of your father's 707 is probably three times that of today's MAX8 flying LAX-HNL. I am not saying I like it. And I am not saying that the lot of today's passenger is anywhere pleasant compared to flying on a 707, but ... if you want technological advances, then look at how cheap today's aircraft are to run.


That sounds like something management would say. Meanwhile there are new exorbitant fees attached to every single facet of flying that never existed before, from ticket changes to baggage to food. Where did all the savings go?

FriscoHeavy wrote:

You readily leave out how much further in flight entertainment (PTV or Internet) has evolved and the fuel burn savings of a 737MAX vs that of a 707. Stop spreading Fake News.


Are you talking about headrest LCD screens? Or GoGo in-flight internet? It's slow and costs $25 per flight. These frivolities are crumbs compared to flying faster and/or having more legroom.


Satellite internet, Some narrowbodies have lay flat beds. etc etc.Sorry, I'd rather fly on the AA321T across the country than an 767 30 years ago.

Where did all the savings go?.. lets see - back in the day of the 707, could you fly IAH-DEN for 45 bucks? Or 9 bucks in 1975. Thats where the savings went.

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

Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 9:31 pm
by longhauler
Antarius wrote:
Where did all the savings go?.. lets see - back in the day of the 707, could you fly IAH-DEN for 45 bucks? Or 9 bucks in 1975. Thats where the savings went.

Just had to check an OAG from March, 1975. The fare from IAH to DEN was $84. One could fly on CO, TT or BN. That is $388.76 in 2018 dollars!!!

So in today's totally deregulated environment, if an airline so chose, they could rig up an aircraft with 1975 707 comfort and charge $388 to fly from IAH to DEN one way in Economy. They would be competing with airlines charging $45 with less comfort. How do you suppose that would go? (we know how that would go). Let's face it, airlines that tell passengers what they want instead of listening what they want are no longer here! And passengers want the $45 fare!

JackMeahoff wrote:
The OP is merely expressing his displeasure in flying the route in a Yugo when it has been serviced for decades by Lincolns and Cadillacs.


I understand that, but ... if any airline was successful in charging more for more comfort, they's still be in business. They aren't. So ... it`s Yugos for all of us!

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

Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 10:25 pm
by Antarius
longhauler wrote:
Antarius wrote:
Where did all the savings go?.. lets see - back in the day of the 707, could you fly IAH-DEN for 45 bucks? Or 9 bucks in 1975. Thats where the savings went.

Just had to check an OAG from March, 1975. The fare from IAH to DEN was $84. One could fly on CO, TT or BN. That is $388.76 in 2018 dollars!!!

So in today's totally deregulated environment, if an airline so chose, they could rig up an aircraft with 1975 707 comfort and charge $388 to fly from IAH to DEN one way in Economy. They would be competing with airlines charging $45 with less comfort. How do you suppose that would go? (we know how that would go). Let's face it, airlines that tell passengers what they want instead of listening what they want are no longer here! And passengers want the $45 fare!

JackMeahoff wrote:
The OP is merely expressing his displeasure in flying the route in a Yugo when it has been serviced for decades by Lincolns and Cadillacs.


I understand that, but ... if any airline was successful in charging more for more comfort, they's still be in business. They aren't. So ... it`s Yugos for all of us!


Thanks for looking that up. In my mind, this whole meaning and griping about the good old days is extremely elitist. Most people couldn't fly back then. Now they can.

And if you want more comfort, fly J. 350 bucks will get you a business class set one way from Houston to Denver easily. Then you get more space than 1975 coach had.

The issue is that everyone wants cadillacs but is willing to pay for Yugos. And those who were able to afford flying back then and got used to the Cadillac wont spend the same amount of money (adjusted for inflation) to fly J.

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

Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 11:02 pm
by Cubsrule
longhauler wrote:
Antarius wrote:
Where did all the savings go?.. lets see - back in the day of the 707, could you fly IAH-DEN for 45 bucks? Or 9 bucks in 1975. Thats where the savings went.

Just had to check an OAG from March, 1975. The fare from IAH to DEN was $84. One could fly on CO, TT or BN. That is $388.76 in 2018 dollars!!!

So in today's totally deregulated environment, if an airline so chose, they could rig up an aircraft with 1975 707 comfort and charge $388 to fly from IAH to DEN one way in Economy. They would be competing with airlines charging $45 with less comfort. How do you suppose that would go? (we know how that would go). Let's face it, airlines that tell passengers what they want instead of listening what they want are no longer here! And passengers want the $45 fare!


Some do want the 1975 fare and service. That’s the market that carriers are exploring with various Y+ and W products.

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

Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 11:38 pm
by ImperialEagle
This is of course ignoring safety advances. Look at the number of 707s that Pan American or Air France lost in the 1960s and 1970s. There have been huge technological advances made toward safety and most of those 707s would not have been lost in today's MAX8.

Again ... you are preaching to the choir here. I have many fond memories in crossing oceans in 707s, DC-8s and VC-10s (even once in a 720), It was an era sadly long past. But I don't begrudge airlines for giving passengers what they want and airframe manufacturers for designing aircraft than can deliver it.[/quote]

In all fairness to the 707 almost all of those crashes had nothing to do with the A&P.

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

Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 11:51 pm
by flyingclrs727
Chemist wrote:
The original assertion seems wrong. The implication was that older planes like the 757 could be safer as they were designed for these flights unlike say the 737.
The 757 was originally going to be a 727 replacement and wasn't planned for overwater flights. And it's never been re-engined.
The latest 737s have newer engines than the 757 and have been built and certified from the start for ETOPs. The wing is also newer than the wing on the 757.


But in reality.the 757 started out as a 707-100 and 720 replacement on thinner transcon routes. Lots of airlines weren't interested in replacing their 727-200's yet. When they started looking for 727-200 replacements, the Airbus A320 series looked more attractive. The 757-200 was more like a 727-300 (never built) in capacity. The A320 could almost do transcon routes but was about the size of a 727-200 and had much better fuel burn.

Boeing then decided to build the 737NG as a quick to develop a competitor to the A320 series after losing bids to Airbus for 727 replacements. The 737NG series would also be certified for ETOPS 180 use at introduction, a first for a new version of a narrow body. That was 21 years ago. With ETOPS 180 capabilities, 737NG could replace all the roles of the 727 but with much better fuel burn. They could perform over water routes to Caribbean that the 727 had long been doing due to it being a trijet. The 737 also had enough range that it could fly from the west coast to Hawaii which the 727 never had the range for.

While it's true that the original 737-100 was never designed for over water flights over 60 minutes from a diversion airport, the 737 NG was cerified from the start for ETOPS 180.

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

Posted: Tue May 08, 2018 1:21 am
by rbavfan
Aviano789 wrote:
Just recently a Boeing 737-800 operator from Seattle (SEA) to Honolulu (HNL) with 165 people on board had to drift down to FL230 and continued to HNL for a safe landing about 2:45 hours after leaving FL350, due to an oil filter bypass indication for one of its CFM56 engines. It is a fact most twin isles operators have conducted 1000s of such flights over open water safely without a hitch. Taken into account the recent events with WN 1380 and the reported growing issues with that engine version, would the manufactures re-consider three or four engines airframe designs in the future to increases more safety margin for this type of operation? And would a three or four engine design end the need for ETOPS ops certification for twins?


Wow a 737-800 operator from Seattle to Honolulu with 165 seats.. Just say Alaska already.

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

Posted: Tue May 08, 2018 1:26 am
by rbavfan
flyingclrs727 wrote:
Chemist wrote:
The original assertion seems wrong. The implication was that older planes like the 757 could be safer as they were designed for these flights unlike say the 737.
The 757 was originally going to be a 727 replacement and wasn't planned for overwater flights. And it's never been re-engined.
The latest 737s have newer engines than the 757 and have been built and certified from the start for ETOPs. The wing is also newer than the wing on the 757.


But in reality.the 757 started out as a 707-100 and 720 replacement on thinner transcon routes. Lots of airlines weren't interested in replacing their 727-200's yet. When they started looking for 727-200 replacements, the Airbus A320 series looked more attractive. The 757-200 was more like a 727-300 (never built) in capacity. The A320 could almost do transcon routes but was about the size of a 727-200 and had much better fuel burn.

Boeing then decided to build the 737NG as a quick to develop a competitor to the A320 series after losing bids to Airbus for 727 replacements. The 737NG series would also be certified for ETOPS 180 use at introduction, a first for a new version of a narrow body. That was 21 years ago. With ETOPS 180 capabilities, 737NG could replace all the roles of the 727 but with much better fuel burn. They could perform over water routes to Caribbean that the 727 had long been doing due to it being a trijet. The 737 also had enough range that it could fly from the west coast to Hawaii which the 727 never had the range for.

While it's true that the original 737-100 was never designed for over water flights over 60 minutes from a diversion airport, the 737 NG was cerified from the start for ETOPS 180.


757 started development in the mid to late 1970's as a 727-200 replacement. There are lots of Boeing adds in magazines noting that as well. The 707 was well past when this was done.

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

Posted: Tue May 08, 2018 12:45 pm
by longhauler
Cubsrule wrote:
Some do want the 1975 fare and service. That’s the market that carriers are exploring with various Y+ and W products.

I agree and it is great that the option is available to those that want it.

But, for an idea of ratios, look at AC's 450 seat Triple. 28J, 24W and 398Y. Of those 398 Y seats, there are 30 with greater leg room available for a premium. Granted, that particular aircraft is an extreme, but it shows almost exactly how many wish to pay more for a better experience. I note with smugness that the W product today, is almost identical to the Y product of the 70s ... for about the same price. (adjusted for inflation)

With AC offering a better on board experience on some premium routes, now branded as Signature Service, adds credence to your suggestion that there are those who will pay more for a better flight. Again though, the numbers are pretty low. Much like the premium Trans-con products now being offered by American carriers on certain routes .... there is hope!

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

Posted: Tue May 08, 2018 6:14 pm
by flyingclrs727
rbavfan wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
Chemist wrote:
The original assertion seems wrong. The implication was that older planes like the 757 could be safer as they were designed for these flights unlike say the 737.
The 757 was originally going to be a 727 replacement and wasn't planned for overwater flights. And it's never been re-engined.
The latest 737s have newer engines than the 757 and have been built and certified from the start for ETOPs. The wing is also newer than the wing on the 757.


But in reality.the 757 started out as a 707-100 and 720 replacement on thinner transcon routes. Lots of airlines weren't interested in replacing their 727-200's yet. When they started looking for 727-200 replacements, the Airbus A320 series looked more attractive. The 757-200 was more like a 727-300 (never built) in capacity. The A320 could almost do transcon routes but was about the size of a 727-200 and had much better fuel burn.

Boeing then decided to build the 737NG as a quick to develop a competitor to the A320 series after losing bids to Airbus for 727 replacements. The 737NG series would also be certified for ETOPS 180 use at introduction, a first for a new version of a narrow body. That was 21 years ago. With ETOPS 180 capabilities, 737NG could replace all the roles of the 727 but with much better fuel burn. They could perform over water routes to Caribbean that the 727 had long been doing due to it being a trijet. The 737 also had enough range that it could fly from the west coast to Hawaii which the 727 never had the range for.

While it's true that the original 737-100 was never designed for over water flights over 60 minutes from a diversion airport, the 737 NG was cerified from the start for ETOPS 180.


757 started development in the mid to late 1970's as a 727-200 replacement. There are lots of Boeing adds in magazines noting that as well. The 707 was well past when this was done.


But lots of airlines weren't replacing their 727's in the early 80's, and when they did start replacing 727's it wasn't with 757's. The 757 was bigger and heavier with more range. Boeing was planning to shut down 727 production but had nothing but the 737-200 below the capacity of the 757. The CFM-56 reengine of the 737 made the 737 a much more capable platform.

Had the 757 been a true 727 replacement in size but with more range, it would have sold thousands rather than just over 1,000 units.

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

Posted: Tue May 08, 2018 6:44 pm
by lightsaber
So are we done rehashing ETOPS? I'm old and barely recall taking more than twin engine flights to Hawaii.

Cubsrule wrote:
longhauler wrote:
Antarius wrote:
Where did all the savings go?.. lets see - back in the day of the 707, could you fly IAH-DEN for 45 bucks? Or 9 bucks in 1975. Thats where the savings went.

Just had to check an OAG from March, 1975. The fare from IAH to DEN was $84. One could fly on CO, TT or BN. That is $388.76 in 2018 dollars!!!

So in today's totally deregulated environment, if an airline so chose, they could rig up an aircraft with 1975 707 comfort and charge $388 to fly from IAH to DEN one way in Economy. They would be competing with airlines charging $45 with less comfort. How do you suppose that would go? (we know how that would go). Let's face it, airlines that tell passengers what they want instead of listening what they want are no longer here! And passengers want the $45 fare!


Some do want the 1975 fare and service. That’s the market that carriers are exploring with various Y+ and W products.


That is what amazes me. Everyone wants 1970s level of room and service, but they typically then complain about the price, which is less than old school pricing for the same level.

Pay for the seat you want.

Lightsaber

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

Posted: Sun May 13, 2018 12:49 am
by stratclub
catiii wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
stratclub wrote:
Being that Jet A has a flash point of 100F degrees, where exactly do these alleged "fumes" come from? Most likely what should have been quoted was that the aircraft(s) in question dipped into their reserves.



Yes. I stand corrected. Fumes was more of an exaggerated analogy but dipping into reserves should have been said.


Now that we know you are prone to exaggeration, share these instances. They went into their hold fuel? Divert fuel? What reserves?



Per ICAO Annex 6, Part I, section 4.3.6 "Fuel Requirements," airplanes should calculate their required fuel quantity as follows (summary; see below for actual ICAO text):

Taxi fuel
Trip fuel (to reach intended destination)
Contingency fuel (higher of 5% of "trip fuel" or 5 minutes of holding flight)
Destination alternate fuel (to fly a missed and reach an alternate)
Final reserve fuel (45 minutes of holding flight for reciprocating engines, 30 minutes for jets)
Additional fuel (if needed to guarantee ability to reach an alternate with an engine failure or at lower altitude due to a pressurization loss)
Discretionary fuel (if the pilot in command wants it)

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

Posted: Sun May 13, 2018 3:26 am
by neutronstar73
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.


I have to call BS on that last statement about "stories". Please provide some hard objective proof of that happening.

As for the original poster.......one alleged "problem" on that flight doesn't speak for the unbelievable reliability and durability of the CFM56. That engine is simply one of the best made, bar none. I don't know about you, but I feel very safe flying any bird with a CFM under wing.

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

Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 6:52 pm
by JackMeahoff
longhauler wrote:

So in today's totally deregulated environment, if an airline so chose, they could rig up an aircraft with 1975 707 comfort and charge $388 to fly from IAH to DEN one way in Economy. They would be competing with airlines charging $45 with less comfort.



Yeah, gotta love those modern teaser rates. Basically if you have baggage, are hungry or possibly thirsty and also don't want to be treated like an animal you will have to pay a lot more than $45. If you have flown any low cost airline you would know this. Even with the main carriers, the dropoff in customer care is astonishing between boarding groups.

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

Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 8:14 pm
by hOMSaR
What does the cost of a one-way flight from IAH to DEN with baggage, boarding groups, etc., have to do with flying 2000 miles over water on a twin-engined plane powered by CFM56s?

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

Posted: Mon May 14, 2018 8:47 pm
by 747megatop
Aviano789 wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:


Plain and simple, I don't want to find myself and love ones or for that matter any one having to deal with the Engine Stops PAX Swim (ETOPS) Scenarios. Please note there are lot of hungry JAWS between West Coast and the Hawaiian Islands.

Facts please? UA 232 (multiple fatalities) was a 3 holer. QF 32 was a 4 holer; BA 9 (speedbird 9) was a 4 holer....in all these cases i doubt that the outcome would have been any different regardless of whether it was a 2 holer, 3 holer of 4 holer. Of course, UA 232 is a little bit different (the fact that it was a 3 holer with the 3rd engine being placed in a spot where all 3 redundant hydraulic systems were taken out). But, in any case i doubt that the outcome would have differed.

Or, take the 2 holer examples of the gimli glider OR the AirTransat plane that glided into the the azores...or even the A320 that Sully landed on the Hudson..in all of these i doubt if the outcome would have been any different with a significant added advantage if a 4 holer was flow instead.

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

Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 12:26 am
by 32andBelow
747megatop wrote:
Aviano789 wrote:
nine4nine wrote:

Facts please? UA 232 (multiple fatalities) was a 3 holer. QF 32 was a 4 holer; BA 9 (speedbird 9) was a 4 holer....in all these cases i doubt that the outcome would have been any different regardless of whether it was a 2 holer, 3 holer of 4 holer. Of course, UA 232 is a little bit different (the fact that it was a 3 holer with the 3rd engine being placed in a spot where all 3 redundant hydraulic systems were taken out). But, in any case i doubt that the outcome would have differed.

Or, take the 2 holer examples of the gimli glider OR the AirTransat plane that glided into the the azores...or even the A320 that Sully landed on the Hudson..in all of these i doubt if the outcome would have been any different with a significant added advantage if a 4 holer was flow instead.

Ual232 wouldn’t have happened at all if it was a twin.

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

Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 5:57 am
by 747megatop
32andBelow wrote:
747megatop wrote:
Aviano789 wrote:

Facts please? UA 232 (multiple fatalities) was a 3 holer. QF 32 was a 4 holer; BA 9 (speedbird 9) was a 4 holer....in all these cases i doubt that the outcome would have been any different regardless of whether it was a 2 holer, 3 holer of 4 holer. Of course, UA 232 is a little bit different (the fact that it was a 3 holer with the 3rd engine being placed in a spot where all 3 redundant hydraulic systems were taken out). But, in any case i doubt that the outcome would have differed.

Or, take the 2 holer examples of the gimli glider OR the AirTransat plane that glided into the the azores...or even the A320 that Sully landed on the Hudson..in all of these i doubt if the outcome would have been any different with a significant added advantage if a 4 holer was flow instead.

Ual232 wouldn’t have happened at all if it was a twin.

Well, that's why i said it was different; i was debating whether to put in that example....but even if was a twin; if somethng like QF32 happened with sgnificant damage (or even worse) to the wing which completely rendered flight control surfaces on that wing useless combined with major difficult to control fire (AA 383 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAf4XmoRRcU notice how at 8:08 the video shows the collapsed wing). Again, not comparing AA 383 with UA 232 at all; just saying regardless of 4 holer or 2 holder...something really really bad happens over water...there is no difference. Hence, just questioning the "perceived" safety of a 4 holer over a twin by Aviano789. UAL 232ish incident...quite possible on a twin in a different way (AA 383).

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

Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 9:11 am
by keesje
The CFM56s proved maybe the most durable engines ever produced. Maintenance intervals were extended several times over the years. CFM would take a fully used (cycles, hrs) engine apart and see everything was ok and work on another time on wing extension.

Now put four of those on one aircraft. Far above the -50C arctic, hours away from any landing place I appreciate that. Specially when 1 engine says "poof" and you start thinking if the reason for that "poof" is unique to that engine. I would pay a few bucks extra given the choice.

Image

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

Posted: Tue May 15, 2018 9:39 am
by c933103
longhauler wrote:
Come on, the 757 and 767 are archaic old boats that were designed in the 1970s. When it was designed, the 707 was still flying in full force and twin engined long haul flying wasn't even a consideration! The 757 and 767 have the redundancies they have, not for long haul flying, but the thought of something around 300,000 lbs with only two engines was still pretty frightening to some people. I still remember the Aviation Week editorial about the A300, that said we would rue the day we would ever consider an aircraft that size with only two engines. Oh ... to look ahead 40 years!

As stated above, the latest 737s were designed with ETOPS in mind. It is the way of the world. Much like people resisted flying a three engined aircraft across the water in the past, some uninformed now too resist the 737.

But, think about this ....

When an ETOPS 737 flies from YVR to HNL, it has (as well stated above) enroute alternates, depressurization alternates (and fuel) and ETOPS alternates (and fuel). Plus, it also has additional route reserves as required for overwater operattions. (At least where I fly). But take a 737 from YVR to YHZ, about the same distance, it DOESN'T have to have the same reserves. But, the OP would be very comfortable with that ... go figure.

Yes, you say, it can always land en-route if it has to, but ... unlike an ETOPS operation were alternate airports all have to be above limits, it is entirely legal for a 737 to fly from YVR to YHZ with every enroute airport below weather limits. As it is over land, no restrictions apply! Odds are, it will never happen that every airport would be closed, but ... they don't have to be available ... unlike an ETOPS (and safer) operation!

I thought ETOPS is still needed for overland flight that would go through a huge part of land without airport? Although in earlier days it doesn't seems to