Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
TWA902fly
Topic Author
Posts: 3134
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 1999 5:47 am

Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:09 am

Once Ukraine International Airlines resumes its flights to JFK in December, it is planning to operate them 2x/week utilizing a Boeing 737-900ER via KEF. No local traffic rights to/from KEF.

Schedule:

PS231 KBP1000 – 1315KEF1415 – 1535JFK 73J 37
PS232 JFK2210 – 0840+1KEF0940+1 – 1630+1KBP 73J 37

Source: https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/293877/ukraine-international-airlines-plans-new-york-regular-service-resumption-in-dec-2020/

Pretty cool to see airlines do their best to adapt to the new environment. I wish them luck.

'902
life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
 
Desertshamrock7
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:14 am

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:10 am

This will be interesting. Arrive up in KEF from KBP to find the winds out of limits. They will find it hard with fuel to go anywhere else.
 
User avatar
Aeroflot777
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 2:19 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:23 am

I'm very uneducated on the subject of turnarounds and plane fueling, but why block an entire hour for a process that would not require passenger deplaning or anything other than a fuel truck coming in and doing its thing?

How long does it normally take to fuel up a 739ER?
 
toga998
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon May 25, 2020 8:09 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:45 am

Aeroflot777 wrote:
I'm very uneducated on the subject of turnarounds and plane fueling, but why block an entire hour for a process that would not require passenger deplaning or anything other than a fuel truck coming in and doing its thing?

How long does it normally take to fuel up a 739ER?

Refueling with pax onboard or off-board is up to airline/airport policy. By the time the airplane blocks into the gate, fuel numbers are confirmed by pilots and fueling is complete you are looking at upwards of 40 minutes. Give another 20 for outbound paperwork and there is your entire ground time. One hour tech stop is quite fast when comparing it to other like schedules.
 
iRISH251
Posts: 811
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 3:56 am

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:46 am

Desertshamrock7 wrote:
This will be interesting. Arrive up in KEF from KBP to find the winds out of limits. They will find it hard with fuel to go anywhere else.


They have to have a viable alternate, even if it's a distance away such as GLA or BFS, for example. Alternatively they might have to re-route on a planned basis if Iceland is forecast to be out of limits.
 
User avatar
Aeroflot777
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 2:19 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:13 am

toga998 wrote:
Refueling with pax onboard or off-board is up to airline/airport policy. By the time the airplane blocks into the gate, fuel numbers are confirmed by pilots and fueling is complete you are looking at upwards of 40 minutes. Give another 20 for outbound paperwork and there is your entire ground time. One hour tech stop is quite fast when comparing it to other like schedules.


Thanks for the insight. Whenever I've been a passenger on aircraft that were still fueling at the gate, we were always told to keep seatbelts unfastened.

I just assumed since this was a quick pitstop, a gate wouldn't even be necessary, they can just park remotely and fuel up. Would save on pushback and whatnot.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11981
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:18 am

With a Boeing 737-900ER going that distance? Must be expensive for the airline and not so comfortable for the passengers. I wish them well, but I cannot see this work in the long term.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
airbuster
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:43 am

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:22 am

TWA902fly wrote:
Once Ukraine International Airlines resumes its flights to JFK in December, it is planning to operate them 2x/week utilizing a Boeing 737-900ER via KEF. No local traffic rights to/from KEF.

Schedule:

PS231 KBP1000 – 1315KEF1415 – 1535JFK 73J 37
PS232 JFK2210 – 0840+1KEF0940+1 – 1630+1KBP 73J 37

Source: https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/293877/ukraine-international-airlines-plans-new-york-regular-service-resumption-in-dec-2020/

Pretty cool to see airlines do their best to adapt to the new environment. I wish them luck.

'902


That is a very interesting route for us anetters! And maybe a smart move to reduce costs by Ukraine intl.
FLY FOKKER JET LINE!
 
holczakker
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun May 26, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:28 am

iRISH251 wrote:
Desertshamrock7 wrote:
This will be interesting. Arrive up in KEF from KBP to find the winds out of limits. They will find it hard with fuel to go anywhere else.


They have to have a viable alternate, even if it's a distance away such as GLA or BFS, for example. Alternatively they might have to re-route on a planned basis if Iceland is forecast to be out of limits.


Egisstadir. If that's out of limit (quite frequently) then Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen or maybe Bergen. All of them are a hell of a long way off requiring the payload be restricted. Covid will make sure of that though.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4682
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:05 am

toga998 wrote:
Aeroflot777 wrote:
I'm very uneducated on the subject of turnarounds and plane fueling, but why block an entire hour for a process that would not require passenger deplaning or anything other than a fuel truck coming in and doing its thing?

How long does it normally take to fuel up a 739ER?

Refueling with pax onboard or off-board is up to airline/airport policy. By the time the airplane blocks into the gate, fuel numbers are confirmed by pilots and fueling is complete you are looking at upwards of 40 minutes. Give another 20 for outbound paperwork and there is your entire ground time. One hour tech stop is quite fast when comparing it to other like schedules.


Not to mention that they will probably let you go within +/- 30 minutes of the scheduled time of departure, so if they finish early, they don't have to wait.
 
aircatalonia
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:50 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:03 am

How much cheaper is this going to be compared the multiple one-stop alternatives through western Europe? I think most people prefer to get out the plane during the stop.
 
davidjohnson6
Posts: 955
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:14 am

How much traffic is there likely to be in winter (excluding 2nd half of December) between KBP and KEF or NYC given all the travel restrictions / quarantines in place ? I'm a little surprised that UIA feel it's going to be commercially worthwhile... unless there is political pressure somewhere
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6080
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:22 am

I love how you guys are making Reykjavík sound like it’s the end of the earth.

There is a major hub there

It’s winter time average temperature is slightly cooler than New York City. Akin to a Chicago due to warm Gulf Stream
 
raylee67
Posts: 934
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:32 am

Aeroflot777 wrote:
I'm very uneducated on the subject of turnarounds and plane fueling, but why block an entire hour for a process that would not require passenger deplaning or anything other than a fuel truck coming in and doing its thing?

How long does it normally take to fuel up a 739ER?


I remember that when CX used to fly HKG-YYZ with a fuel stop at ANC using A340-300 back in early 2000s, it took approximately 1:30 on the ground in ANC, so I guess 1 hr for a 737-900ER is more-or-less appropriate.

Note that when the plane is refueled, everything needs to be turned off, so no engine running and no air conditioning, etc. Turning everything off and then on again would take some time too.
319/20/21 332/33 342/43/45 359/51 388 707 717 732/36/3G/38/39 74R/42/43/44/4E/48 757 762/63 772/7L/73/7W 788/89 D10 M80 135/40/45 175/90 DH1/4 CRJ/R7 L10
AY LH OU SR BA FI LX
AA DL UA NW AC CP WS FL NK PD
CI NH SQ KA CX JL BR OZ TG KE CA CZ NZ JQ RS
 
User avatar
Aeroflot777
Posts: 3200
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 2:19 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:58 am

Thanks guys! Seems like an hour is the correct amount of time then.

With so many people bringing up winds and weather, would Bergen be a better option in that case? Winds in BGO naturally as well, but overall weather seems much more mild in Vestland in the winter compared to Iceland. Norwegian flew Bergen-Newburgh, right?
 
asuflyer
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:48 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:26 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
I love how you guys are making Reykjavík sound like it’s the end of the earth.

There is a major hub there

It’s winter time average temperature is slightly cooler than New York City. Akin to a Chicago due to warm Gulf Stream


Its not the temperature its the winds in KEF that get very bad in January and February. You have FI flights that will land and then have to sit for hours to deboard because they are unable to use the jetbridges or stairs because of the winds. It often disrupts FI's entire schedule and throws everything into chaos for a few days and happens quite a few times in the winter.

https://icelandmag.is/article/delays-ke ... -calm-down
https://grapevine.is/news/2018/12/11/li ... igh-winds/
 
Western727
Posts: 1795
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:38 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:30 pm

I recall making an unscheduled fuel stop at BIL on an ORD-SEA 733 flight in the winter due to unusually strong headwinds. The stop took 40 minutes, which figures since it was a domestic flight and since the subsequent flight to SEA was only 2 hours, which I suspect meant a less-than-full fuel load.
Jack @ AUS
 
Avgeek21
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:44 am

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:32 pm

Aeroflot777 wrote:
I'm very uneducated on the subject of turnarounds and plane fueling, but why block an entire hour for a process that would not require passenger deplaning or anything other than a fuel truck coming in and doing its thing?

How long does it normally take to fuel up a 739ER?


An hour turnaround also gives them operational on-time margin. They might have calculated they only need 40 minutes but now have margin for real world events. Lets say due to the weather they have to do a go-around. That takes about 20 minutes. So they'd still be able to depart KEF on schedule. The 737NG has a wind limit to operate the entry or service doors with winds at the door of more than 40 knots. And to close doors with winds gusts exceeding 65 knots.

Do they have the additional fuel tanks installed?
 
User avatar
itripreport
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:36 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:34 pm

One's gotta wonder how southwest does this all in 30 minutes. One of my guesses is they load up extra fuel at certain destinations, for example I flew LAS-SAN (a 45 minute flight), and I remember southwest asking all non-revs to de-board in order to stay within MLW. As the aircraft was headed on a 5 hour flight to BWI after another quick 30 minute layover in SAN.
 
Avgeek21
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:44 am

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:44 pm

itripreport wrote:
One's gotta wonder how southwest does this all in 30 minutes. One of my guesses is they load up extra fuel at certain destinations, for example I flew LAS-SAN (a 45 minute flight), and I remember southwest asking all non-revs to de-board in order to stay within MLW. As the aircraft was headed on a 5 hour flight to BWI after another quick 30 minute layover in SAN.


Depends on the airline and their procedures. At my airline a 737 really needs 1 hour. But the competitors 737 next door might only need 30.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10397
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:45 pm

aircatalonia wrote:
How much cheaper is this going to be compared the multiple one-stop alternatives through western Europe? I think most people prefer to get out the plane during the stop.

I think the proper question would be how much cheaper would it be to use an a/c that had the range to go non-stop versus more than 1 stop via Europe, or the flip side, how much more expensive would it be to use a 767 / A330 / 787 the smaller size widebodies.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4682
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:57 pm

itripreport wrote:
One's gotta wonder how southwest does this all in 30 minutes. One of my guesses is they load up extra fuel at certain destinations, for example I flew LAS-SAN (a 45 minute flight), and I remember southwest asking all non-revs to de-board in order to stay within MLW. As the aircraft was headed on a 5 hour flight to BWI after another quick 30 minute layover in SAN.


1. They don't refuel on every stop, and they almost certainly don't fill the tanks, unlike this flight.

2. It makes a worlds difference if it is a couple of one-off flights or a daily scheduled flight that operates on a fixed schedule year round. The ground staff and fuel truck will usually be waiting at the stand as soon as the scheduled flights pulls in. For non-scheduled flights, it isn't uncommon that you have to wait for a while until the staff arrives. It often just boils down to the fact that Southwest has its own permanent staff (own employees or contracted) who know what to expect and arrange in time, while Ukraine International just uses a random handling company.


aircatalonia wrote:
I think most people prefer to get out the plane during the stop.


That may not be possible with current Corona-restrictions.


raylee67 wrote:
Note that when the plane is refueled, everything needs to be turned off, so no engine running and no air conditioning, etc. Turning everything off and then on again would take some time too.


Depends on airline and airport policies. I've been on flights that refueled with the APU running in the past. You could also plug in a GPU.
 
davidjohnson6
Posts: 955
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:59 pm

Aeroflot777 wrote:
Thanks guys! Seems like an hour is the correct amount of time then.

With so many people bringing up winds and weather, would Bergen be a better option in that case? Winds in BGO naturally as well, but overall weather seems much more mild in Vestland in the winter compared to Iceland. Norwegian flew Bergen-Newburgh, right?


Perhaps Dublin or Glasgow would be a better refuelling point than Bergen, particularly when travelling west against winter winds ?
 
AngelsDecay
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:14 pm

Desertshamrock7 wrote:
This will be interesting. Arrive up in KEF from KBP to find the winds out of limits. They will find it hard with fuel to go anywhere else.


Akureyri couple of miles north also a nice suitable alt, imho. (pretty nice and long rwy for a 739)
"Well be thy one,
and wisdom too.
And grew, and joyed in my growth.
From a word to a word, I was lead to a Wyrd.
From a deed, to another deed."
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8499
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:21 pm

par13del wrote:
aircatalonia wrote:
How much cheaper is this going to be compared the multiple one-stop alternatives through western Europe? I think most people prefer to get out the plane during the stop.

I think the proper question would be how much cheaper would it be to use an a/c that had the range to go non-stop versus more than 1 stop via Europe, or the flip side, how much more expensive would it be to use a 767 / A330 / 787 the smaller size widebodies.


They don't have a lot of 767/777. It's not just CASM - it's opportunity cost of pulling those widebodies off current assignments.

A.netter heads are going to explode the winter day this becomes a 2-stop: some day KEF will be closed, the aircraft will refuel in DUB, and then will need to refuel again in YYT/YHZ in order to make it to JFK.
 
N965UW
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 11:31 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:24 pm

davidjohnson6 wrote:
Aeroflot777 wrote:
Thanks guys! Seems like an hour is the correct amount of time then.

With so many people bringing up winds and weather, would Bergen be a better option in that case? Winds in BGO naturally as well, but overall weather seems much more mild in Vestland in the winter compared to Iceland. Norwegian flew Bergen-Newburgh, right?


Perhaps Dublin or Glasgow would be a better refuelling point than Bergen, particularly when travelling west against winter winds ?


Norwegian flew BGO-SWF first with a 738 (which I'm pretty sure was weight restricted) and later with a MAX. A 739ER would struggle to do BGO-JFK, especially with winter headwinds. If the load is light enough, then maybe. But it would be very hard to make such a flight is operate at a profit or even break even. Still wouldn't be the weirdest thing to happen these days.

DUB or GLA seems more doable, but strong headwinds could still be more of a factor compared to KEF.
Flown on: A332 C172 C182 C82R CRJ7 E190 PA38 P28A
Been aboard on ground only: B744F C17 C162 CONC S76 T33
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 983
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:43 pm

Dutchy wrote:
With a Boeing 737-900ER going that distance? Must be expensive for the airline and not so comfortable for the passengers. I wish them well, but I cannot see this work in the long term.


Their 737 is more comfortable than their 767. The 767 they fly have 2-4-2 seating.
 
User avatar
LH748
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:44 am

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:44 pm

Clever move
Hope they can fill up the seats and make a little money
306 310 318 319 320 321 333 343 388 ATR72 733 737 738 739 743 744 748 752 753 763 764 772 77W 788 CRJ7 CRJ9 E170 F100 MD11 RJ1H
AA AB AC AF AK AZ BA DE DL EW FD FR HF HG IB IR MF KU LH LT LX OD TG TK TP UA VJ VN WN W6 YP YW
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1791
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:56 pm

Desertshamrock7 wrote:
This will be interesting. Arrive up in KEF from KBP to find the winds out of limits. They will find it hard with fuel to go anywhere else.



1. KEF has 4 Runway Headings, so it's almost always possible to land with a headwind. You won't have a 40 mph straight crosswind, so you you've greatly overblown (no pun intended) this. It's not an issue.

2. Regarding fuel: It's no different than any other airline landing at KEF. You land with appropriate reserves, alternates, etc. Just because it's a 737-900ER, it's at no greater disadvantage than the AA/FI 757 flying DFW-KEF (when it did). Again, completely unremarkable.

KBP-KEF is only 2,139 miles (well within range of a 737-900ER). Many airlines, such as United, fly theirs EWR-SFO, which is over 400 miles further, into stiff headwinds in the winter, with flight times 6+ hours without issue. Only on the worst of days are pitstops required, and that goes for the 738, A320, A321, etc.

Again, let's not over exaggerate all of this. The 739ER is a very efficient plane; it just needs a little more pavement to get off the ground, but otherwise, it's a wonderful plane.
Whatever
 
User avatar
RobK
Posts: 3724
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 1:43 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:10 pm

davidjohnson6 wrote:
Aeroflot777 wrote:
Thanks guys! Seems like an hour is the correct amount of time then.

With so many people bringing up winds and weather, would Bergen be a better option in that case? Winds in BGO naturally as well, but overall weather seems much more mild in Vestland in the winter compared to Iceland. Norwegian flew Bergen-Newburgh, right?


Perhaps Dublin or Glasgow would be a better refuelling point than Bergen, particularly when travelling west against winter winds ?


No. Their latitude is too low for westbound flights. The westbound winds typically favour a higher latitude so KEF would work. For eastbound the winds favour the lower latitudes - pretty much everything eastbound from the eastern side of the USA to Europe enters the ocean off Newfoundland and comes in over Ireland because of excellent tail winds so they'd be better refuelling at somewhere like Shannon on the return leg. They'll suffer some nasty headwinds going via KEF on the return, particularly through the winter.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10754
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:12 pm

I wonder what the passenger diaspora will look like when this resumes.

Historically, PS's JFK service carried a large proportion of connecting traffic to TLV. Will people still put price before convenience and additional contact points, considering the current pandemic?
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
IADCA
Posts: 2194
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:19 pm

Desertshamrock7 wrote:
Aeroflot 777, holczakker makes a good point, it’s a long way to divert 2.5 hours to Glasgow etc, after flying so long already westbound during winter. 1 hour is about standard after a long sector already. Taxiing in and out along with fueling 17-20 tons and deicing you will have no change from 1 hour.


It's not like KEF is the only airport in Iceland. And KEF does have a crosswind runway, so it's pretty likely you'd at least find one approach there that's within limits. If not, AEY and EGS could easily take the landing, although you'd need to hop over to KEF again to get enough runway to fly a 739ER across the pond.

AngelsDecay wrote:
Desertshamrock7 wrote:
This will be interesting. Arrive up in KEF from KBP to find the winds out of limits. They will find it hard with fuel to go anywhere else.


Akureyri couple of miles north also a nice suitable alt, imho. (pretty nice and long rwy for a 739)


Likely not long enough to go across the Atlantic with any significant payload. For example, 739ERs can't do US transcons from DCA's ~7200 foot runway without significant restrictions, and you'd be asking for ~400 miles more range into worse winds with around 700 feet of extra runway. That might be enough to make a difference, but I kinda doubt it. It'd be no problem for a safe landing, but I suspect there would be some headaches after that.

Aeroflot777 wrote:
Thanks guys! Seems like an hour is the correct amount of time then.

With so many people bringing up winds and weather, would Bergen be a better option in that case? Winds in BGO naturally as well, but overall weather seems much more mild in Vestland in the winter compared to Iceland. Norwegian flew Bergen-Newburgh, right?


Too far for a 739ER, especially in winter. You might be able to do that eastbound.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4682
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:27 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
With a Boeing 737-900ER going that distance? Must be expensive for the airline and not so comfortable for the passengers. I wish them well, but I cannot see this work in the long term.


Their 737 is more comfortable than their 767. The 767 they fly have 2-4-2 seating.


Certainly depends on which 737. They seem to have a mish-mash of interiors, but I really wouldn't like to fly 12 hours in a hard-as-rock slimline seat, which some of them are fitted with. The 767 is better in that regard. The 767 should have an inch more leg room in economy.
 
opticalilyushin
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:35 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:47 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
With a Boeing 737-900ER going that distance? Must be expensive for the airline and not so comfortable for the passengers. I wish them well, but I cannot see this work in the long term.


Their 737 is more comfortable than their 767. The 767 they fly have 2-4-2 seating.


Having flown their cramped 767 to BKK, i agree! UIA is largely just a glorified/flag carrying low cost airline. I'd give this flight a go if i could though!
 
RJNUT
Posts: 1849
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 1999 1:58 am

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:56 pm

@ 2xweekly their odds of hitting worst case conditions are probably minimized somewhat
 
davidjohnson6
Posts: 955
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:58 pm

RJNUT wrote:
@ 2xweekly their odds of hitting worst case conditions are probably minimized somewhat


@ 2x weekly, it seems likely they will pick up only low-yield traffic
 
holczakker
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun May 26, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:02 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
I love how you guys are making Reykjavík sound like it’s the end of the earth.

There is a major hub there

It’s winter time average temperature is slightly cooler than New York City. Akin to a Chicago due to warm Gulf Stream

Some more examples:
https://www.icelandreview.com/travel/mo ... led-today/
https://thriftytraveler.com/iceland-fli ... ellations/
https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/natu ... _walkways/
https://icelandmag.is/article/mondays-s ... e-unloaded

Such disruptions are happening all too often lately. You are able to land as it was mentioned earlier (as there is a runway for every wind
direction) but then you don't get handling services and stuck on the apron for hours. Sometimes the airport tells you in advance not to
come here as no handling will be available. The airport sits on a flat land in the middle of the sea not shielded from any direction
except from northeast. Check the airport setup, number of stands, apron space, landing aids and handling capability etc. of Egilsstadir and
Akureyri (the two more or less suitable alternate airports on the island). None of those are planned to handle large scale international traffic
(besides adverse weather in KEF 95% of the cases means adverse weather in EGS/AEY as well). If KEF is closed for any reson these
airports can accomodate 3-4 aircraft each. You can not even plan to land somehow and stop on a taxiway as there are no taxiways only
the runway and that's it. Then (if you are the lucky number 8 to land) the next alternate you can use with a 739 (ABZ) is 1340 km away..
Last edited by holczakker on Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:05 pm

Desertshamrock7 wrote:
it’s a long way to divert 2.5 hours to Glasgow etc, after flying so long already westbound during winter. 1 hour is about standard after a long sector already.

2.5 hrs? Are they flying an ATR72?
KEF-GLA is only 730nm

That's also a worst case scenario assuming they have executed a missed approach at KEF

But in most cases they will get a heads up regarding adverse winds long before they commence their descent for KEF, so they should be able to do a Gimli Glider and freewheel all the way back to Scotland!
(They should probably check the tide is out before attempting a landing on the beach at Barra)

Image
thx wikipedia
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
catiii
Posts: 3640
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:05 pm

holczakker wrote:
iRISH251 wrote:
Desertshamrock7 wrote:
This will be interesting. Arrive up in KEF from KBP to find the winds out of limits. They will find it hard with fuel to go anywhere else.


They have to have a viable alternate, even if it's a distance away such as GLA or BFS, for example. Alternatively they might have to re-route on a planned basis if Iceland is forecast to be out of limits.


Egisstadir. If that's out of limit (quite frequently) then Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen or maybe Bergen. All of them are a hell of a long way off requiring the payload be restricted. Covid will make sure of that though.


Once flying BWIKEF, we diverted to EGS along with about 4 other 757s. Everyone piled off into the lobby, which was surprisingly nice, until the winds came down.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8499
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:07 pm

RobK wrote:
davidjohnson6 wrote:
Aeroflot777 wrote:
Thanks guys! Seems like an hour is the correct amount of time then.

With so many people bringing up winds and weather, would Bergen be a better option in that case? Winds in BGO naturally as well, but overall weather seems much more mild in Vestland in the winter compared to Iceland. Norwegian flew Bergen-Newburgh, right?


Perhaps Dublin or Glasgow would be a better refuelling point than Bergen, particularly when travelling west against winter winds ?


No. Their latitude is too low for westbound flights. The westbound winds typically favour a higher latitude so KEF would work. For eastbound the winds favour the lower latitudes - pretty much everything eastbound from the eastern side of the USA to Europe enters the ocean off Newfoundland and comes in over Ireland because of excellent tail winds so they'd be better refuelling at somewhere like Shannon on the return leg. They'll suffer some nasty headwinds going via KEF on the return, particularly through the winter.


That's an interesting view but one can look at the path of LHR-IAD or FRA-IAD (as examples) and see flights at lower latitudes all the time. LH418 yesterday was well south of a Great Circle route.
 
holczakker
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun May 26, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:09 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
RobK wrote:
davidjohnson6 wrote:

Perhaps Dublin or Glasgow would be a better refuelling point than Bergen, particularly when travelling west against winter winds ?


No. Their latitude is too low for westbound flights. The westbound winds typically favour a higher latitude so KEF would work. For eastbound the winds favour the lower latitudes - pretty much everything eastbound from the eastern side of the USA to Europe enters the ocean off Newfoundland and comes in over Ireland because of excellent tail winds so they'd be better refuelling at somewhere like Shannon on the return leg. They'll suffer some nasty headwinds going via KEF on the return, particularly through the winter.


That's an interesting view but one can look at the path of LHR-IAD or FRA-IAD (as examples) and see flights at lower latitudes all the time. LH418 yesterday was well south of a Great Circle route.

Are those flights operated with a low- (if any) ETOPS B-737-900?
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4682
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:22 pm

holczakker wrote:
Such disruptions are happening all too often lately. You are able to land as it was mentioned earlier (as there is a runway for every wind
direction) but then you don't get handling services and stuck on the apron for hours. Sometimes the airport tells you in advance not to
come here as no handling will be available. The airport sits on a flat land in the middle of the sea not shielded from any direction
except from northeast. Check the airport setup, number of stands, apron space, landing aids and handling capability etc. of Egilsstadir and
Akureyri (the two more or less suitable alternate airports on the island). None of those are planned to handle large scale international traffic
(besides adverse weather in KEF 95% of the cases means adverse weather in EGS/AEY as well). If KEF is closed for any reson these
airports can accomodate 2-3 aircraft each. You can not even plan to land somwhow and stop on a taxiway as there are no taxiways only
the runway and that's it. Then (if you are the lucky number 7 to land) the next alternate you can use with a 739 (ABZ) is 1340 km away..


Weather in Keflavik can be bad, but don't make it worse than it is. Bad weather in the North Atlantic doesn't come out of the blue. The airline and crew will know well in advance, they can simply plan accordingly, maybe go via a different airport. If Keflavik is closed, they could still choose to double-stop it in, say, Shannon and Gander instead. It's just a fuel stop, just because you plan it to be in one place doesn't mean you can't use other options if necessary. Absolutely worst case, just postpone the flight to another date. It is a twice weekly flight during exceptional circumstances on an airline that already has a mediocre reputation.

It's not as if other airlines haven't used Keflavik way more frequently at times either. Primera and Norwegian both stopped there regularly when they started 737NG services across the Atlantic. Not optimal at all, but there definitely wasn't the same amount of concern about the local conditions.
 
holczakker
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun May 26, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:32 pm

VSMUT wrote:
If Keflavik is closed, they could still choose to double-stop it in, say, Shannon and Gander instead. It's just a fuel stop, just because you plan it to be in one place doesn't mean you can't use other options if necessary.

If they know it in advance. It can't only be forecasted weather but anything unforseen when you are on your way already. A double fuel stop between Kyiv and New York would require a double cockpit crew for EASA duty time limitations. Not great in terms of passenger convenience on a 737 either.

VSMUT wrote:
It's not as if other airlines haven't used Keflavik way more frequently at times either. Primera and Norwegian both stopped there regularly when they started 737NG services across the Atlantic. Not optimal at all, but there definitely wasn't the same amount of concern about the local conditions.

$ is rarely concerned about all aspects of safety.
 
halrudy
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:36 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:49 pm

Reminds me of the old days when airlines made 1 stops from Europe to the US. One comes to mind is TK IST-BRU-JFK on A310
 
737MAX7
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:26 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:17 pm

VSMUT wrote:
itripreport wrote:
One's gotta wonder how southwest does this all in 30 minutes. One of my guesses is they load up extra fuel at certain destinations, for example I flew LAS-SAN (a 45 minute flight), and I remember southwest asking all non-revs to de-board in order to stay within MLW. As the aircraft was headed on a 5 hour flight to BWI after another quick 30 minute layover in SAN.


1. They don't refuel on every stop, and they almost certainly don't fill the tanks, unlike this flight.

2. It makes a worlds difference if it is a couple of one-off flights or a daily scheduled flight that operates on a fixed schedule year round. The ground staff and fuel truck will usually be waiting at the stand as soon as the scheduled flights pulls in. For non-scheduled flights, it isn't uncommon that you have to wait for a while until the staff arrives. It often just boils down to the fact that Southwest has its own permanent staff (own employees or contracted) who know what to expect and arrange in time, while Ukraine International just uses a random handling company.


aircatalonia wrote:
I think most people prefer to get out the plane during the stop.


That may not be possible with current Corona-restrictions.


raylee67 wrote:
Note that when the plane is refueled, everything needs to be turned off, so no engine running and no air conditioning, etc. Turning everything off and then on again would take some time too.


Depends on airline and airport policies. I've been on flights that refueled with the APU running in the past. You could also plug in a GPU.


We refuel at almost every stop because it really isn’t cost effective to carry all that fuel that isn’t needed. Now we will tanker fuel if fuel is a lot cheaper in a certain city. When I worked at CLE we routinely put 30.0-32.0 on our CLE-MDW flights because that bird usually went to LAS/SAN/LAX etc. and fuel was cheaper at CLE than MDW.
 
FCOTSTW
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:14 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:26 pm

OK, fine subject, lots of good comments, but the bottom line is... what happened to the 767-300 that the company used to operate the route?
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4850
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:55 pm

This is only temporary. There are not many passengers to carry right now. They can easily not be full just don't give seats away like other airlines are doing right now.

This is covid times the airline doesn't need to be competative or keep market share or any old metrics they are just trying to survive like everyone else.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4682
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:04 pm

FCOTSTW wrote:
OK, fine subject, lots of good comments, but the bottom line is... what happened to the 767-300 that the company used to operate the route?


They still have the 767s. They are using the smaller 737 because they aren't carrying a lot of passengers.


holczakker wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
If Keflavik is closed, they could still choose to double-stop it in, say, Shannon and Gander instead. It's just a fuel stop, just because you plan it to be in one place doesn't mean you can't use other options if necessary.

If they know it in advance. It can't only be forecasted weather but anything unforseen when you are on your way already. A double fuel stop between Kyiv and New York would require a double cockpit crew for EASA duty time limitations. Not great in terms of passenger convenience on a 737 either.


Not if. Weather has been mandatory in every country I ever worked in. We get updates enroute as well. I can assure you, no aircraft is going to end up on short approach to Keflavik without knowing the weather well in advance.
Ukraine isn't an EASA member, EASA flight duty limitations do not apply. But even if we assume they do, and they don't get exemptions (which have been handed out quite liberally during the crisis), they can do 12:30. With a spare pilot, they can extend that by a couple of hours. A non-issue.
 
TWA902fly
Topic Author
Posts: 3134
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 1999 5:47 am

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:42 pm

FCOTSTW wrote:
OK, fine subject, lots of good comments, but the bottom line is... what happened to the 767-300 that the company used to operate the route?


They have been flying the 777-200ER to JFK and YYZ for some time now (before corona). The 767-300ERs (with the horrible seating) were due to be retired this year, and I assume they will follow through with that. I think they were doing some charters to Asian leisure destinations with them last NW schedule.

Here are a couple trip reports in Business and Economy from the 777-200ER.

Business: https://thepointsguy.com/reviews/ukraine-international-airlines-777-business-class/
Economy: https://thepointsguy.com/reviews/ukraine-international-airlines-777-economy/

My guess is they see some demand between JFK and KBP, but figured it would be cheaper (less of a loss) to operate the 739 as opposed to the 777. The 777 will probably return once traffic rebounds.

'902
life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
 
debonair
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:50 pm

Re: Ukraine International to operate 737-900ER to JFK

Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:51 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
...737 is more comfortable than their 767. The 767 they fly have 2-4-2 seating.

What about BusinessClass and IFE?? I guess they will keep the standard 3-3 configuration, without any PTV...
Just tried to book a BUSINESS CLASS ticket to N.Y. and believe it or not, you can add "oatmeal porridge" for 6EUR to your booking... :stirthepot:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BealineV953, cs03, DobboDobbo, Ducari, eugdjinn, Gayflyer, gen2stew, Google Adsense [Bot], JAmie2k9, Melb94, michael478, mig17, neutrino, oakleaf1, Tolmachevo, TurkishSky, VolvoBus, workhorse and 185 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos