Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
mozart
Topic Author
Posts: 2173
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 12:21 am

Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:26 pm

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
 
buckfifty
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 4:05 pm

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:32 pm

Probably because there aren't any noise restrictions in the less populated areas.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:18 pm

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.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
airplay
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:58 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Wed Jun 09, 2004 2:06 am

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.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:33 am

Nope, They are combis, so you can fly pax and cargo in them.

Since they are not longer being certifed by the FAA (assholes  Pissed ) the ones that exist are very valuable.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
SkydrolBoy
Posts: 334
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:31 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:52 am

Airplay,

Canjet is now operating a single 737-500 and is planing on adding more to their fleet soon.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Wed Jun 09, 2004 6:35 am

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).
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
greasespot
Posts: 2968
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Wed Jun 09, 2004 8:17 am

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
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?"
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:21 am

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.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:12 pm

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
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Thu Jun 10, 2004 6:27 am

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.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
CP744
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2000 3:08 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:25 am

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
 
buckfifty
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 4:05 pm

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:40 am

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...
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Thu Jun 10, 2004 8:12 am

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.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
ha763
Posts: 3201
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:36 pm

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:08 am

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.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:01 am

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.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Jetfixer75
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 2:21 pm

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:05 am

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: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Fri Jun 11, 2004 12:46 am

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
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?"
 
N730AS
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 5:17 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:26 am

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).
N730AS (s/n 22577) 737-290C Registered Jun-29-1981
 
CP744
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2000 3:08 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Fri Jun 11, 2004 8:53 pm

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
 
N730AS
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 5:17 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Sat Jun 12, 2004 12:36 pm

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
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Sat Jun 12, 2004 2:15 pm

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.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
N730AS
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 5:17 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Sun Jun 13, 2004 4:03 am

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
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Sun Jun 13, 2004 12:17 pm

That would have to fall in the perview of the engineer.

But I don't think it would get significantly smaller toward the back.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
CP744
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2000 3:08 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Mon Jun 14, 2004 12:11 am

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
 
phille
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 12:23 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Sat Jun 26, 2004 2:45 am

...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
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Davies

 
wjv04
Posts: 551
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2001 12:18 pm

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Sun Jun 27, 2004 2:03 pm

Greesespot...
Westjet the only operator? Your joking right...

Westjet
Canadian North
Zip
Air North
etc etc
 
miles_mechanic
Posts: 132
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2001 4:30 pm

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Sun Jun 27, 2004 5:03 pm

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
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Sun Jun 27, 2004 6:02 pm

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: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Mon Jun 28, 2004 2:27 am

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
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:46 pm

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.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
delta-flyer
Posts: 2633
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Thu Jul 01, 2004 10:36 am

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
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Fri Jul 02, 2004 1:03 pm

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.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Fri Jul 02, 2004 10:34 pm

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.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Fri Jul 02, 2004 11:28 pm

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
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
CanadianNorth
Posts: 3275
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:41 am

RE: Why So Many 737-200s In Alaska And No. Canada?

Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:20 pm

-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
HS-748, like a 747 but better!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 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