Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

737 longest flight?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 737 longest flight?

    I am sure there was a thread about 737 longest flight, but I could not find it. So..... Pacific coast to Europe non stop?

    Eight times a month, Ryanair takes delivery of a 737-800 jetliner at Boeing Field in Seattle, Wash., and flies it nonstop to Ireland, often with just two pilots on board.

    On its way home to Dublin, it traveled from continent to continent without a fuel stop, usually something only the bigger jets do. It covered 4,300 nautical miles (4,950 miles, or 7,960 kilometers) in 9 hours and 24 minutes, passing just below the Arctic Circle at 41,000 feet (12.497 meters).


    Is it legal to make a 9.5 hours flight with only 2 pilots? (I know this is not a revenue flight, but still)

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  • #2
    I thought Westjet's 737 flights across the atlantic were far enough!

    But every time i've seen a Ryanair delivery they've stopped, I believe in Bangor or St John's to refuel, looking at the specs of the -800, it can't make it from Everett to Dublin non-stop.

    Comment


    • #3
      So far, as for what is in revenue service;

      For the 737-900:
      TK 603, IST-DAR which is 3,357miles and flown as 7hrs 15mins flying time.

      For the 737-800:
      WG 481, YVR to PUJ, which is 3,684miles and flown as 7hrs 10mins flying time.
      - *PT 768, FRA to PNQ which is 4,159 miles and flown as 8hrs 15 mins is done on a BBJ2.


      For the 737-700:
      CM 284, MVD to PTY, which is 3,385 miles and flown as 7hrs 30mins flying time.
      - *NH 829, NRT to BOM, which is 4,223 miles and flown as 9hrs 35mins is done by a specially/premium configured 737-700ER.
      Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by AllAboutGuitar View Post
        looking at the specs of the -800, it can't make it from Everett to Dublin non-stop.
        And yet, it does it.

        I would say that the source of the article is reliable enough regarding what a Boeing plane can or can't do, and what it actually does or doesn't do.

        (I added the link to the original post)

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by AA 1818 View Post
          So far, as for what is in revenue service;

          For the 737-900:
          TK 603, IST-DAR which is 3,357miles and flown as 7hrs 15mins flying time.

          For the 737-800:
          WG 481, YVR to PUJ, which is 3,684miles and flown as 7hrs 10mins flying time.
          - *PT 768, FRA to PNQ which is 4,159 miles and flown as 8hrs 15 mins is done on a BBJ2.


          For the 737-700:
          CM 284, MVD to PTY, which is 3,385 miles and flown as 7hrs 30mins flying time.
          - *NH 829, NRT to BOM, which is 4,223 miles and flown as 9hrs 35mins is done by a specially/premium configured 737-700ER.
          Another long flight is Buenos Aires - Panama City. (EZE - PTY, Copa Airlines)

          According to Google Maps the great circle distance is 3300 miles (but probably the real flight distance is more) and according to Google Flights it takes 7hrs 23 min.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #6
            I just took out my ruler... Nonstop from Everett to Dublin, that are approx. 3,900 nmi (nautical miles).

            And I used a quite neat schedule. There I have found that, for Seattle, a quite neat aircraft is used: a westbound ...
            B744.

            I can't really find a reason for my thoughts, but until today I thought that a 737-300 shouldn't go more than 2,000 miles nonstop. LH-B733, still in service, but since a very long time I didn't see one here. Thus, I can't say where they are in the air today.

            Once, Ben Gurion was a LH-B744 destination, and that's a 1,600 mile flight.

            If you ask me as a passenger, I'd rather feel good in a B744 for transatlantic flights, or for airports that are 3,000 miles away (or more). Imho, a 737 is an aircraft that is not used very often to cross oceans.
            The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
            The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
            And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
            This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              Another long flight is Buenos Aires - Panama City. (EZE - PTY, Copa Airlines)

              According to Google Maps the great circle distance is 3300 miles (but probably the real flight distance is more) and according to Google Flights it takes 7hrs 23 min.
              I would once complain about that stage-length in a narrow-body. Now, though, I find it impressive. In 1965 - could they ever imagine the airplane going this far? Sure, alot has changed - and she is essentially a new bird in almost every way, but the flying experience (being in that physical space) has not, at least, not essentially.

              Anyway, I have one to add, for you delivery flight list considerations;

              The BBJ1 is a 737-700ER, with additional fuel tanks, and has a listed range of 7135 miles.

              I doubt that Boeing still sells the 737-700 (base model), and so let's assume that any, if not all ordered models come as the 737-700ER.

              Thus;
              Take the BBJ1
              -subtract the heavy custom interior,
              -subtract the passengers,
              -subtract their luggage;

              and don't even consider;
              + the bonus of the fuel savings/range boost,
              + and/or adding another tank/temporary tank in the 'cabin' (as HA did to get their DC-9/717s to Hawaii).

              and we get this, from 6200nm (7135 miles) @ BFI;



              I could make a delivery down to (all but the lower reaches of Chubut), Santa Cruz, or Tierra Del Fuego (but, who really wants to go there anyway - lol, just kidding). Mighty impressive for the smallest version of the 737 family currently.
              Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
                If you ask me as a passenger, I'd rather feel good in a B744 for transatlantic flights, or for airports that are 3,000 miles away (or more). Imho, a 737 is an aircraft that is not used very often to cross oceans.
                Increasingly, it will move in the direction of smaller aircraft crossing the 'Pond'.

                On two important fronts;
                1). Narrow-bodies are becoming/have developed into very capable aircraft. Subtracting the significant achievements of the 757, and we currently have the A321 (and the A321NEO-LR) which will take the cake there until Boeing launches the MOM, or improves the already stretched 737 MAX-9 (into the '737 Mad-MAX').
                2). Frequency then trumps capacity. Why fly one A330, if you can reportedly fly 2 A321s for cheaper?

                Will wide-bodies ever go away? Not at all. Will they be used on different missions - absolutely. Increasingly wide-bodies are also more and more capable. What would once have been a 747 route, can in some cases easily be operated by 1, or 2 A330s for less cost.

                I have not always been a supporter of narrow-bodies and such long flights, but I was converted by having to spend a few hours on an E-195 recently. If you give me superior seat pitch, and such a beautiful feel of an interior (larger windows, larger head room yet a more intimate cabin - a more elegant, yet egalitarian feel), and I'll take that, blindly over EK's 3-4-3 (in coach) on a 777, or even the 'luxurious' 3-4-3 on the 747-8I with LH - because each offer lesser seat pitch, and oddly more passengers in the cabin with me to travel. So, I add - there is some subjectivity to my view.

                That said; alot of these narrow-bodies crossing the 'pond' are essentially the smallest aircraft that these routes can be done with - thus these flight/equipment make the combo essential for many of these markets to start.
                I would take a well equipped aircraft, over a poorly one first - and, in 90% of the cases standard equipped wide-bodies can feel more comfortable than standard equipped narrow-bodies but - I don't look down on, for example, Icelandair who have done a fantastic job of brokering their unique geographic advantage, and the rising capabilities of narrow-bodies to create an impressive airline out of a minuscule population of a nation (all the while creating a fantastic cargo business out of it, as well - usually reserved for wide bodies).

                So, to conclude my labyrinth of logics there;

                Sure, I would love to see more wide-bodies flying out there, but these narrow-bodies are really more a appropriate (in some of the basic cases) match of capacity/capability/costs that can open alot of new markets. In that way, these narrow-bodies may lead to wide-bodies, but most always ensure new passengers; and I'm all for flying - regardless of 'body' type.
                Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

                  Is it legal to make a 9.5 hours flight with only 2 pilots? (I know this is not a revenue flight, but still)
                  It is, regrettably. Whether it's the best of ideas or not is debatable. Gulfstreams and things do 12-hour legs with just 2 crew.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    My worst flight ever was an AF 777, EZE-CDG, 13 hours, 10 abreast and a seat pitch that was significantly shorter than my femur.

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                      It is, regrettably. Whether it's the best of ideas or not is debatable. Gulfstreams and things do 12-hour legs with just 2 crew.
                      Is it due to unions, at the majors? Now that you mention it - it was an Eureka moment; that's a glaringly obvious 'loop-hole'. I agree with you though, wholly on this one; Whether it's the best of ideas or not is debatable.
                      Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                        It is, regrettably. Whether it's the best of ideas or not is debatable. Gulfstreams and things do 12-hour legs with just 2 crew.
                        I guess that that's because it is a ferry flight (or a private business flight in the case if the Gulfstream) and that it would not be legal in a normal airline flight.

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          I guess that that's because it is a ferry flight (or a private business flight in the case if the Gulfstream) and that it would not be legal in a normal airline flight.
                          For crew composition requirements and time limits related thereto, see 14 CFR 121.481, -483 and -485.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                            For crew composition requirements and time limits related thereto, see 14 CFR 121.481, -483 and -485.
                            Thank you so much leading me to the right direction!

                            I do not mean to burden the discussion, by heading off topic, but I just wanted to add, for the lazy/future users:

                            http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieve...0.1.1.7.18.3.2
                            §121.481 Flight time limitations: One or two pilot crews.

                            (a) A certificate holder conducting flag operations may schedule a pilot to fly in an airplane that has a crew of one or two pilots for eight hours or less during any 24 consecutive hours without a rest period during these eight hours.

                            (b) If a certificate holder conducting flag operations schedules a pilot to fly more than eight hours during any 24 consecutive hours, it shall give him an intervening rest period, at or before the end of eight scheduled hours of flight duty. This rest period must be at least twice the number of hours flown since the preceding rest period, but not less than eight hours. The certificate holder shall relieve that pilot of all duty with it during that rest period.

                            (c) Each pilot who has flown more than eight hours during 24 consecutive hours must be given at least 18 hours of rest before being assigned to any duty with the certificate holder.

                            (d) No pilot may fly more than 32 hours during any seven consecutive days, and each pilot must be relieved from all duty for at least 24 consecutive hours at least once during any seven consecutive days.

                            (e) No pilot may fly as a member of a crew more than 100 hours during any one calendar month.

                            (f) No pilot may fly as a member of a crew more than 1,000 hours during any 12-calendar-month period.
                            http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieve...0.1.1.7.18.3.3
                            §121.483 Flight time limitations: Two pilots and one additional flight crew member.

                            (a) No certificate holder conducting flag operations may schedule a pilot to fly, in an airplane that has a crew of two pilots and at least one additional flight crew member, for a total of more than 12 hours during any 24 consecutive hours.

                            (b) If a pilot has flown 20 or more hours during any 48 consecutive hours or 24 or more hours during any 72 consecutive hours, he must be given at least 18 hours of rest before being assigned to any duty with the air carrier. In any case, he must be given at least 24 consecutive hours of rest during any seven consecutive days.

                            (c) No pilot may fly as a flight crewmember more than—

                            (1) 120 hours during any 30 consecutive days;

                            (2) 300 hours during any 90 consecutive days; or

                            (3) 1,000 hours during any 12-calendar-month period.
                            https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.485
                            § 121.485 Flight time limitations: Three or more pilots and an additional flight crew-member.
                            (a) Each certificate holder conducting flag operations shall schedule its flight hours to provide adequate rest periods on the ground for each pilot who is away from his base and who is a pilot on an airplane that has a crew of three or more pilots and an additional flight crew member. It shall also provide adequate sleeping quarters on the airplane whenever a pilot is scheduled to fly more than 12 hours during any 24 consecutive hours.

                            (b) The certificate holder conducting flag operations shall give each pilot, upon return to his base from any flight or series of flights, a rest period that is at least twice the total number of hours he flew since the last rest period at his base. During the rest period required by this paragraph, the air carrier may not require him to perform any duty for it. If the required rest period is more than seven days, that part of the rest period in excess of seven days may be given at any time before the pilot is again scheduled for flight duty on any route.

                            (c) No pilot may fly as a flight crewmember more than—

                            (1) 350 hours during any 90 consecutive days; or

                            2) 1,000 hours during any 12-calendar-month period.
                            Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X