I have observed that most - if not all - the 737s flying around within very northern areas of America, i.e. in Alaska and Northern Canada, are -200 series. AS uses some NGs into Anchorage coming in from the "southern" states, but all the intra-AS services are 732. In Canada, First Air and Canadian North both use 732.
Why is that? Any particular performance attributes that are needed up there? Any plane should be able to deal with the cold. In Canada, is it because the 732s are used as Combis?
Thanks for any explanations
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
Probably because there aren't any noise restrictions in the less populated areas.
-
- northstardc4m
- Posts: 3428
- Joined:
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
More likely is because of the rough field kit and because they are SCD equiped allowing combi/all cargo operations. The 737-200 is about the only western aircraft that can claim both those attributes in the needed performance range and size class currently.
The 727 is/was also popular with northern airlines for similar reasons but the 3 engine/3 crew part became an economic factor.
The 727 is/was also popular with northern airlines for similar reasons but the 3 engine/3 crew part became an economic factor.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
Mainly because they are old and cheap. That goes for the engines too. There were a few 737-300 airframes in Canada operated by Wardair. But they got phased out in favour of standardization when PWA absorbed Wardair.
Westjet is the only Canadian operator, I believe that operates 737s that are other than -200s.
Westjet is the only Canadian operator, I believe that operates 737s that are other than -200s.
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
Nope, They are combis, so you can fly pax and cargo in them.
Since they are not longer being certifed by the FAA (assholes
) the ones that exist are very valuable.
Since they are not longer being certifed by the FAA (assholes
) the ones that exist are very valuable.OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
-
- SkydrolBoy
- Posts: 334
- Joined:
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
Airplay,
Canjet is now operating a single 737-500 and is planing on adding more to their fleet soon.
Canjet is now operating a single 737-500 and is planing on adding more to their fleet soon.
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
AS uses 737s in Alaska because they are less prone to icing than that MD 80s. The 737 is a resilient plane. Although a factor, the durability of the 732 is not the only factor. Almost all of the runways that AS uses in Alaska are paved and in good enough condition for a 73G to serve them if AS wanted. Cargo is more useful and profitable, than the minimal passenger traffic, which promotes the combis. There are exceptions however.
AS would like to replace the 732s, but as mentioned before, they cannot get a combi version with a movable bulkhead certified. Combi's are readily available, but without them being adjustable, they lose a lot of their value. AS takes good care of their 8 732s, so they should be around a while longer, or until they can get a 73G with a movable bulkhead (doubtful).
AS would like to replace the 732s, but as mentioned before, they cannot get a combi version with a movable bulkhead certified. Combi's are readily available, but without them being adjustable, they lose a lot of their value. AS takes good care of their 8 732s, so they should be around a while longer, or until they can get a 73G with a movable bulkhead (doubtful).
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
-
- greasespot
- Posts: 2968
- Joined:
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
Actually that is not true.....There is combi's still being certified....If someone one wants to buy the US navy version of the 737-700, which is a combi they can....
GS
GS
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
Correction Greasespot.
There has been a combi developed
It is not a certified aircraft, although all that really would need to happen is Boeing put it through the certification process, something that is not required for public domain and military aircraft in the US.
There has been a combi developed
It is not a certified aircraft, although all that really would need to happen is Boeing put it through the certification process, something that is not required for public domain and military aircraft in the US.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
Actually that is not true.....There is combi's still being certified....If someone one wants to buy the US navy version of the 737-700, which is a combi they can....
And, I believe that craft would only have a fixed bulkhead with the appropriate fire suppression in the cargo pit.
I also believe the FAA has NOT certified it for civilian transport.
N
And, I believe that craft would only have a fixed bulkhead with the appropriate fire suppression in the cargo pit.
I also believe the FAA has NOT certified it for civilian transport.
N
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
That would be any civil version.
Thanks to the ignorance of the FAA.
Why is it that there have been combi aircraft certified for years, but only in the last 5-10 have they become so unsafe?
It's federal overprotection B.S.
Thanks to the ignorance of the FAA.
Why is it that there have been combi aircraft certified for years, but only in the last 5-10 have they become so unsafe?
It's federal overprotection B.S.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
A couple of comments..... the 737-200 is the only AC certified for combi use. The AC being tested for the USN does have a fixed bulkhead... not a true combi... I believe it to be full pax's or 3/80 config....
Wardair never flew 737's, you may be thinking of the -300's that CP flew as "Attaché"???(not sure about the name, think they were leased from United) service in the Eastern triangle.
The FAA isn't the problem (in Canada)... at present, Transport Canada is... they have said they will not certify and "newer" generation 737 as a combi, and yes, it is fire suppression that seems to be the issue..... the fiscal realities are that without the ability to change the configs, jet service into some northern locations would become entirely financially irresponsible.
The FAA would be the second hurdle for Canadian carriers... as T.C. is pretty much "FAA North".
Operational, the NG would be MUCH better, better fuel burn and heavier MTOW's... the only issue I've heard favouring the -200's for short field ops the JT8's are better because of the clam shell style reversers.
Why the -200's are still used. Reliable work horses, IMHO one of the finest AC ever built. The last thing you would want to fly up north would be the Airbus.... the Northern fields would eat 'em alive..... Plastic, gravel and ice don't mix ;>)
Cheers
Bill
Wardair never flew 737's, you may be thinking of the -300's that CP flew as "Attaché"???(not sure about the name, think they were leased from United) service in the Eastern triangle.
The FAA isn't the problem (in Canada)... at present, Transport Canada is... they have said they will not certify and "newer" generation 737 as a combi, and yes, it is fire suppression that seems to be the issue..... the fiscal realities are that without the ability to change the configs, jet service into some northern locations would become entirely financially irresponsible.
The FAA would be the second hurdle for Canadian carriers... as T.C. is pretty much "FAA North".
Operational, the NG would be MUCH better, better fuel burn and heavier MTOW's... the only issue I've heard favouring the -200's for short field ops the JT8's are better because of the clam shell style reversers.
Why the -200's are still used. Reliable work horses, IMHO one of the finest AC ever built. The last thing you would want to fly up north would be the Airbus.... the Northern fields would eat 'em alive..... Plastic, gravel and ice don't mix ;>)
Cheers
Bill
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
Wardair never flew 737's, but Nordair did.
I still remember them coming into Pearson with the splash guards (or whatever they were called to prevent the slush going into the engines) attached to their nosegears.
And I loved that livery...
I still remember them coming into Pearson with the splash guards (or whatever they were called to prevent the slush going into the engines) attached to their nosegears.
And I loved that livery...
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
the 737-200 is the only AC certified for combi use
Incorrect.
The B-727-100C was also a combi aircraft.
There still should be a couple running around Canada.
I know Reeve had theirs on schedualed runs untill 2000.
And then there is that experiment UPS did with charter flights.
Incorrect.
The B-727-100C was also a combi aircraft.
There still should be a couple running around Canada.
I know Reeve had theirs on schedualed runs untill 2000.
And then there is that experiment UPS did with charter flights.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
A combi aircraft is an aircraft that can carry cargo and pax at the same time on the main deck. It doesn't need to have a moveable bulkhead, it's just that previous combis had one because of the ablility to configure the aircraft to meet the demand.
Also, the 747-400 is also available as a combi and is the only combi aircraft still in production, meaning you can still order one new from Boeing.
Also, the 747-400 is also available as a combi and is the only combi aircraft still in production, meaning you can still order one new from Boeing.
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
That's right.
I also forgot about those two B-757's that ended up with Royal Nepal, I belive.
They where also combis, the only factory, 757 combi's.
I also forgot about those two B-757's that ended up with Royal Nepal, I belive.
They where also combis, the only factory, 757 combi's.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
-
- Jetfixer75
- Posts: 29
- Joined:
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
AS is bringing one more 732 combi back out of retirement, N745AS. We have it in our facility for a D check, scheduled for 70 days, due to the condition of it, I hear it's in bad shape.
-
- greasespot
- Posts: 2968
- Joined:
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
We also have A 727-200 COMBI ( I think it is the only one in existence). HS748 Combi's and ATR42-300 Combi's plus the 732 and 721 combi's. The atr was certified by transport Canada 2 years ago. The ATR and the 727-200 have the upper deck fire suppression. It is a modified version of the cargo pit version.
I stand corrected on the 737-700 combi.
GS
I stand corrected on the 737-700 combi.
GS
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
I have observed that most - if not all - the 737s flying around within very northern areas of America, i.e. in Alaska and Northern Canada, are -200 series. AS uses some NGs into Anchorage coming in from the "southern" states, but all the intra-AS services are 732.
I would disagree about only some 737 NG's (if you count the 734 as a NG A/C) going into ANC (FAI too). Using my AS timetable program, I can see that for June 10th 2004 (today), that there are 11 FAI-ANC flights. Of these flights, only 3 of them are 737-200 Combis. The same goes for ANC, most of the the northbound flights from the lower 48 are not 737-200C's, with the exception of the SEA-JNU-ANC run (am I missing any other routes?). Some other intra-Alaska routes are now (and have been for a few years) getting larger A/C. Sitka, Juneau, and Ketchikan. You are correct that some of the routes only get 73M service (BRW, ADK).
I would disagree about only some 737 NG's (if you count the 734 as a NG A/C) going into ANC (FAI too). Using my AS timetable program, I can see that for June 10th 2004 (today), that there are 11 FAI-ANC flights. Of these flights, only 3 of them are 737-200 Combis. The same goes for ANC, most of the the northbound flights from the lower 48 are not 737-200C's, with the exception of the SEA-JNU-ANC run (am I missing any other routes?). Some other intra-Alaska routes are now (and have been for a few years) getting larger A/C. Sitka, Juneau, and Ketchikan. You are correct that some of the routes only get 73M service (BRW, ADK).
N730AS (s/n 22577) 737-290C Registered Jun-29-1981
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
My apologies... when I said "only AC" I mean't 737...ooops. I also should say when I was referring to Combi, I refer to the QC version.... once again a thousand apologies.
Cheers,
Bill
Cheers,
Bill
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
CP744, I believe you are right about the 732's clamshell reversers being a reason why the 732 is still favored for short field ops. So my question is.... Could we improve upon that technology today? Make a quiet(er) engine, that has a way of reversing thrust more efficiently. I have been to Dutch Harbor on an AS 73M, and it was quite a stop. I believe DUT has a 3500 foot runway too.....
N730AS (s/n 22577) 737-290C Registered Jun-29-1981
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
Dutch is 3900.
All you would need to do to make that engine quiet and fit clamshells is extend the cowling aft past the wing.
That is what Boeing did when the original short engine cowling and reverser setup on the 737 where making the aircraft get light on the mains during landing. A side benifit was that those longer cowlings did quiet the plane down a bit.
All you would need to do to make that engine quiet and fit clamshells is extend the cowling aft past the wing.
That is what Boeing did when the original short engine cowling and reverser setup on the 737 where making the aircraft get light on the mains during landing. A side benifit was that those longer cowlings did quiet the plane down a bit.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
So would the diameter of the engine nacelles on a NG "Combi" type aircraft stay the same, even if they lengthened the whole casing of the engine? Wasn't another reason the JT8D was favored because it was not very tall (i.e. ground clearance)?
N730AS (s/n 22577) 737-290C Registered Jun-29-1981
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
That would have to fall in the perview of the engineer.
But I don't think it would get significantly smaller toward the back.
But I don't think it would get significantly smaller toward the back.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
N730AS.... I've actually heard that the CFM's would be better on gravel strips.. Apparently they generate less of a vortex than the JT8's???? Don't know if it's true, but that's what I've been told.
Cheers,
Bill
Cheers,
Bill
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
...the First Air B727-200C (C-GXFA) is indeed the only class 'C' variable combi in the world...
Also, the ATR42 combi we developed is the only class 'C' ATR42 combi version out there. It is not to be confused with the combi version available from the factory; that is a Class B compartment with an aisle down the center. The resulting narrow areas on either side of the aisle precludes carrying large, or odd shaped cargo that we encounter in the North. Our Class 'C' combi has a single aisle on the left hand side strictly for access between the flightdeck and the pax cabin.
FYI
(Class 'C' refers to having smoke detection and fire suppression system operable from the flightdeck whereas Class 'B' requires a crewmember to enter the compartment, locate the source of smoke, and extinguish the fire)
Here we are returning from one of seventeen certification flight tests...
View Large View Medium
Photo © John Davies
Also, the ATR42 combi we developed is the only class 'C' ATR42 combi version out there. It is not to be confused with the combi version available from the factory; that is a Class B compartment with an aisle down the center. The resulting narrow areas on either side of the aisle precludes carrying large, or odd shaped cargo that we encounter in the North. Our Class 'C' combi has a single aisle on the left hand side strictly for access between the flightdeck and the pax cabin.
FYI
(Class 'C' refers to having smoke detection and fire suppression system operable from the flightdeck whereas Class 'B' requires a crewmember to enter the compartment, locate the source of smoke, and extinguish the fire)
Here we are returning from one of seventeen certification flight tests...
Photo © John Davies
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
Greesespot...
Westjet the only operator? Your joking right...
Westjet
Canadian North
Zip
Air North
etc etc
Westjet the only operator? Your joking right...
Westjet
Canadian North
Zip
Air North
etc etc
-
- miles_mechanic
- Posts: 132
- Joined:
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
another reason why the more modern aircraft are not used up north very much is all the fancy avionics on the aircraft don't like the cold weather. A mechanic friend of mine at Westjet said when it gets cold they have to leave the avionics running all night long so they stay warm and don't cause problems the next morning. The Harvard II trainer that Canada bought from Beechcraft had the same problems with the glass cockpits in them, they didn't like the cold weather.
Regards
Miles
Regards
Miles
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
Just to add to that Miles, Frontier Flying service got rid of the one 1900D they had and went back to 1900C's, again partially because the glass didn't like the cold.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
-
- delta-flyer
- Posts: 2633
- Joined:
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
Some third parties have STC's for conversions to QC from pax aircraft for the 737-200 and 300's. One such company is Pemco. So, it's possible to convert older passenger 737's to QC, which is a huge advantage in the north.
Here's a link ....
http://www.pemcoaviationgroup.com/737brochureFINAL.pdf
Now, for your viewing pleasure, here are some shots of the QC in action:
Arriving in ANC on a flight from BRW and FAI, with the bulkhead placed just forward of the exit row, the aircraft was configured for about 50 seats in the rear cabin and 2 or 3 pallets in the front .....
1. Passengers have left cabin (through rear door) ....
2. Bulkhead starts coming down ....
3. As bulkhead disappears, workers unload the pallets ....
4. With freight unloaded, additional seats are loaded for the next flight, leaving shortly for JNU ....
5. Looks like there is still room enough for a pallet .....
Cheers,
Pete
Here's a link ....
http://www.pemcoaviationgroup.com/737brochureFINAL.pdf
Now, for your viewing pleasure, here are some shots of the QC in action:
Arriving in ANC on a flight from BRW and FAI, with the bulkhead placed just forward of the exit row, the aircraft was configured for about 50 seats in the rear cabin and 2 or 3 pallets in the front .....
1. Passengers have left cabin (through rear door) ....
2. Bulkhead starts coming down ....
3. As bulkhead disappears, workers unload the pallets ....
4. With freight unloaded, additional seats are loaded for the next flight, leaving shortly for JNU ....
5. Looks like there is still room enough for a pallet .....
Cheers,
Pete
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
Been there, done that Pete.
Actually in that last shot there is room for two pallets. The first one is the forward one that has the coat closet by the 1R door and the connections for the intercom. Then the one by the door is squeezed in the door.
Actually in that last shot there is room for two pallets. The first one is the forward one that has the coat closet by the 1R door and the connections for the intercom. Then the one by the door is squeezed in the door.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
-
- delta-flyer
- Posts: 2633
- Joined:
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
L-188 ... thanks ....
By the way, are you curious how we (as lowly passengers) managed to get these pictures (1-3)?
Just by sheer luck ... my son and I sat in seats E and F, and a handicapped person sat in D. So we had to wait until a wheel chair could be lifted in through the back door. In the 5 minutes it took for the wheelchair to arrive, the freight was unloaded. Pics 4-5 were obviously taken from the terminal a couple of minutes later.
(By the way, my son took these pictures; I just borrowed them for this post.)
When they called this configuration "Quick Change" they weren't kidding!
Pete
By the way, are you curious how we (as lowly passengers) managed to get these pictures (1-3)?
Just by sheer luck ... my son and I sat in seats E and F, and a handicapped person sat in D. So we had to wait until a wheel chair could be lifted in through the back door. In the 5 minutes it took for the wheelchair to arrive, the freight was unloaded. Pics 4-5 were obviously taken from the terminal a couple of minutes later.
(By the way, my son took these pictures; I just borrowed them for this post.)
When they called this configuration "Quick Change" they weren't kidding!
Pete
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
Actually I wasn't Delta-flyer.
I once had to take a kid out that way. He had a broken pelvis and his legs where in a cast spread apart at about a .45 degree anle.
I once had to take a kid out that way. He had a broken pelvis and his legs where in a cast spread apart at about a .45 degree anle.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
N730AS and CP744 in posts #11 and #20 you suggested that clamshell reversers would be a reason for using the 732 on short runways.
Not exactly. Takeoff will always be the limiting factor in short field operations with jet airliners, never landing distance. If you think about it, you would not want to land a multimillion dollar aircraft anywhere you could not take off from. Every jetliner I've flown (eight types) would land and stop in a distance it could not possibly take off from without the use of any reverse thrust. I'll guarantee you've never experienced maximum effort braking.
Takeoff and landing performance is never limited by what the plane will actually do at ultimate performance. It will be limited by what it can be demonstrated to do, safely, under defined conditons. Therefore, thrust reversers are not used in takeoff or landing performance calculations. They may be, per the FARs, but then the proper operation of the thrust reversers would become a no-go item on the MEL. In actual operation, thrust reversers are mostly used just to reduce brake wear.
I believe that the real reasons for the 732's popularity up north has been pretty well described in the posts regarding cargo/combi configurations.
In my opinion, the rough-field kits installed are less important than they used to be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that AS only has authority for one gravel strip, Red Dog Mine, and does not have any scheduled flights in to that location.
Not exactly. Takeoff will always be the limiting factor in short field operations with jet airliners, never landing distance. If you think about it, you would not want to land a multimillion dollar aircraft anywhere you could not take off from. Every jetliner I've flown (eight types) would land and stop in a distance it could not possibly take off from without the use of any reverse thrust. I'll guarantee you've never experienced maximum effort braking.
Takeoff and landing performance is never limited by what the plane will actually do at ultimate performance. It will be limited by what it can be demonstrated to do, safely, under defined conditons. Therefore, thrust reversers are not used in takeoff or landing performance calculations. They may be, per the FARs, but then the proper operation of the thrust reversers would become a no-go item on the MEL. In actual operation, thrust reversers are mostly used just to reduce brake wear.
I believe that the real reasons for the 732's popularity up north has been pretty well described in the posts regarding cargo/combi configurations.
In my opinion, the rough-field kits installed are less important than they used to be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that AS only has authority for one gravel strip, Red Dog Mine, and does not have any scheduled flights in to that location.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
Red Dog would be charter only.
That is also about the only strip that I can think of that still is gravel.
A lot of the other ones have been paved for years
That is also about the only strip that I can think of that still is gravel.
A lot of the other ones have been paved for years
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
-
- CanadianNorth
- Posts: 3275
- Joined:
RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?
-They are Combis, and can be set to a number of cargo/passenger combinations without too much trouble, Not too many aircraft have this.
-The 737-200 equipted with gravel kits can land on gravel strips, and uses a fairly short runway distance compared other aircraft with that kind of capacity/range/speed... Something other 737s Can't do.
-The 737 is a tough little bird, and therefor just seems to work well in cold weather (like colder than -30c)
Those are the main reasons.
CanadianNorth
-The 737-200 equipted with gravel kits can land on gravel strips, and uses a fairly short runway distance compared other aircraft with that kind of capacity/range/speed... Something other 737s Can't do.
-The 737 is a tough little bird, and therefor just seems to work well in cold weather (like colder than -30c)
Those are the main reasons.
CanadianNorth
HS-748, like a 747 but better!