Alaska Airlines Mileage Plan - SEA-PHX-SEA All -400s ?

As I've been booking future trips for Nov, Dec, and Jan I've noticed that (with a few exceptions to the schedule around Thanksgiving) AS has changed all of its flights from PHX to SEA and PDX to -400s.

This used to happen more in the summer months, but this past summer it was almost all -800s out of PHX. Now we're moving into the busier winter months and we're down to -400s.

Anyone (RASMGuy) know why the change went into effect? It makes for PACKED flights and many fewer upgrades :(

As I've been booking future trips for Nov, Dec, and Jan I've noticed that (with a few exceptions to the schedule around Thanksgiving) AS has changed all of its flights from PHX to SEA and PDX to -400s.

This used to happen more in the summer months, but this past summer it was almost all -800s out of PHX. Now we're moving into the busier winter months and we're down to -400s.

Anyone (RASMGuy) know why the change went into effect? It makes for PACKED flights and many fewer upgrades :(

Sounds like they're going the OAK/SFO-SEA route and reducing service capacity. Don't complain, you might end up on a Q400. ;)

It also probably has to do with more Hawaii service and need for ETOPS planes, as well as (and someone could update me here) more ETOPS usage flying SEA/ANC, saving time and fuel.

In addition, AS is flying 738s in new service to ATL, AUS and IAH. The planes to fly those routes and Hawaii have to come from somewhere- most likely, the ~1000 mile West Coast routes that could be served either by a 734 or 738.

It also probably has to do with more Hawaii service and need for ETOPS planes, as well as (and someone could update me here) more ETOPS usage flying SEA/ANC, saving time and fuel.

I don't believe they fly ETOPS routes to ANC. When I flew ANC-PDX on an ETOPS -800 earlier this year we were hugging the coast almost the entire flight.

SEA-PHX got a few 739s too. Not sure where those are going.

I don't believe they fly ETOPS routes to ANC. When I flew ANC-PDX on an ETOPS -800 earlier this year we were hugging the coast almost the entire flight.

SEA-PHX got a few 739s too. Not sure where those are going.While they dont use an ETOPS route there are plenty of ETOPS 738s coming and going from ANC daily. Most times when Im going from ANC-FAI or to SEA and am on an 800 it tends to be ETOPS. Why? I have no idea. I believe the one A/C goes from HNL-ANC-FAI-ANC-FAI-ANC-SEA but I aint sure

As I've been booking future trips for Nov, Dec, and Jan I've noticed that (with a few exceptions to the schedule around Thanksgiving) AS has changed all of its flights from PHX to SEA and PDX to -400s.

This used to happen more in the summer months, but this past summer it was almost all -800s out of PHX. Now we're moving into the busier winter months and we're down to -400s.

Anyone (RASMGuy) know why the change went into effect? It makes for PACKED flights and many fewer upgrades :(

You're worried because they've dropped from J16/Y141 to J12/Y132?

that's 13 seats out of 157. Me thinks you're making mountains out of mole hills.

You're worried because they've dropped from J16/Y141 to J12/Y132?

that's 13 seats out of 157. Me thinks you're making mountains out of mole hills.4 F seats difference doesnt sound like very much but it makes a heck of a difference for upgrading chances. I cant blame OP for wanting 800s. A lot of the 734s are in tatters with seats falling apart

4 F seats difference doesnt sound like very much but it makes a heck of a difference for upgrading chances. I cant blame OP for wanting 800s. A lot of the 734s are in tatters with seats falling apart

Correct... the 73H have IMHO the best F seats...

I don't believe they fly ETOPS routes to ANC. When I flew ANC-PDX on an ETOPS -800 earlier this year we were hugging the coast almost the entire flight.

SEA-PHX got a few 739s too. Not sure where those are going.

It seems that their schedule in the summer is putting the 734 on nearly all ANC-SEA flights too... kinda strange...

It seems that their schedule in the summer is putting the 734 on nearly all ANC-SEA flights too... kinda strange...I cant quite see how thats going to work because they are going to need to shuttle 738s to ANC somehow to get to HNL OGG ORD DEN and LAX unless they are going to put 700s on the ORD DEN and LAX. Actually on a dumby res I looked up for near christmas time had a 73G on the ORD to ANC

It seems that their schedule in the summer is putting the 734 on nearly all ANC-SEA flights too... kinda strange...

Since they aren't really working on the summer schedule just yet they seem to put flights with a 734 on the schedule until they actually figure out which planes are going where. I am confident you will see this change as we get closer to spring time.

Since they aren't really working on the summer schedule just yet they seem to put flights with a 734 on the schedule until they actually figure out which planes are going where. I am confident you will see this change as we get closer to spring time.

I know... it was just something 'I noted' when booking travel in June/July (I know... that far out :p)

It seems that their schedule in the summer is putting the 734 on nearly all ANC-SEA flights too... kinda strange...

Actually, change that from "nearly all" to "all." I couldn't find a single non-400 when searching last week for a multitude of dates for summer travel! I wonder if they're just doing that as a failsafe because they don't have it worked out exactly what aircraft they're going to be deploying, and it's easier to upgauge than downgauge. Just a thought.

I don't believe they fly ETOPS routes to ANC. When I flew ANC-PDX on an ETOPS -800 earlier this year we were hugging the coast almost the entire flight..

Don't forget that the increased ANC-Hawaii service does require more ETOPS aircraft to be positioned in ANC, so there is at least some need for ETOPS aircraft to be assigned to routes going to ANC.

Also, I've checked flightstats.com maps on ETOPS aircraft versus non-ETOPS aircraft, and in the (albeit relatively small) sample size I have, the ETOPS ones definitely do pursue a slightly more direct, offshore route than the non-ETOPS ones.

I cant quite see how thats going to work because they are going to need to shuttle 738s to ANC somehow to get to HNL OGG ORD DEN and LAX unless they are going to put 700s on the ORD DEN and LAX. Actually on a dumby res I looked up for near christmas time had a 73G on the ORD to ANC

I know... I'm on the 73G ANC-ORD in Feb... at least its in F :cool:

Good news... no stops... perhaps that was the problem with winter winds... not enough range on the 73H?

Actually, change that from "nearly all" to "all." I couldn't find a single non-400 when searching last week for a multitude of dates for summer travel! I wonder if they're just doing that as a failsafe because they don't have it worked out exactly what aircraft they're going to be deploying, and it's easier to upgauge than downgauge. Just a thought.


Was just playing it safe :p (I think there may be a 73Q on there :p)


Don't forget that the increased ANC-Hawaii service does require more ETOPS aircraft to be positioned in ANC, so there is at least some need for ETOPS aircraft to be assigned to routes going to ANC.

Also, I've checked flightstats.com maps on ETOPS aircraft versus non-ETOPS aircraft, and in the (albeit relatively small) sample size I have, the ETOPS ones definitely do pursue a slightly more direct, offshore route than the non-ETOPS ones.

ANC-Hawaii decreases in the summer to 2 or 3x week to HNL and OGG appears to become seasonal...

And yes, ETOPS does seem to follow the Great Circle ANC-SEA/PDX...

Good news... no stops... perhaps that was the problem with winter winds... not enough range on the 73H?hmm interesting thought there

hmm interesting thought there

I think I've seen it make a tech stop in MSP in the winter on the ORD-ANC route on a 73H...

I think I've seen it make a tech stop in MSP in the winter on the ORD-ANC route on a 73H...yeah they did last year several times. Around the same time the ANC to HNL was stopping in king salmon

yeah they did last year several times. Around the same time the ANC to HNL was stopping in king salmon

...hey now... the ANC-HNL stopped in SEA, ANC-OGG stopped in AKN :eek: :p

Hope the jet streams are not too terrible this year...

Don't forget that the increased ANC-Hawaii service does require more ETOPS aircraft to be positioned in ANC, so there is at least some need for ETOPS aircraft to be assigned to routes going to ANC.

Most times when Im going from ANC-FAI or to SEA and am on an 800 it tends to be ETOPS. Why? I have no idea. I believe the one A/C goes from HNL-ANC-FAI-ANC-FAI-ANC-SEA but I aint sure

It's just how the aircraft are worked through the system. I've flown on the ETOPS planes to PHX and TUS, as well as SAN and LAX. I noticed on the -800 I was on last week, that there was the panel for the raft in the front. It was a non ETOPS plane, and the FA didn't mention the raft in the roof during the demo.

I wonder if AS is eventually going to make their whole -800 fleet ETOPS.

Correct... the 73H have IMHO the best F seats...

I'm partial to the -900, myself. My biggest pet peeve with the -800 F seats is that tray table doesn't go all the way across: if you type on a laptop, the table bounces all over the place. If you try and saw through the steak with that pathetic knife, you make can waves in your wine glass. The -700s aren't too bad either.

It's just how the aircraft are worked through the system. I've flown on the ETOPS planes to PHX and TUS, as well as SAN and LAX. I noticed on the -800 I was on last week, that there was the panel for the raft in the front. It was a non ETOPS plane, and the FA didn't mention the raft in the roof during the demo.

I wonder if AS is eventually going to make their whole -800 fleet ETOPS.

IIRC all 737 NG aircraft are delivered with the raft compartments regardless if they are outfitted for ETOPS or not.



I'm partial to the -900, myself.[/quote] Me too. Flew the first ship delivered from SEA to LAX on it's third or fourth revenue flight. The mid-cabin lavs are such a great idea. I wish more AC had them!

IIRC all 737 NG aircraft are delivered with the raft compartments regardless if they are outfitted for ETOPS or not.

That's not been my experience. In fact, the absence of the raft compartments is what tells me (if I've forgotten to look for the lei'd tail) on-board that I'm not on an ETOPS jet.

Whether there are some non-ETOPS craft that have a raft compartment is not something I can speak to, but there are definitely NGs that don't have raft compartments. (The last -400 I was on was May 20, 2008, PDX-ANC, but I've seen non-rafted aircraft many times since then.)

You're worried because they've dropped from J16/Y141 to J12/Y132?

that's 13 seats out of 157. Me thinks you're making mountains out of mole hills.

My point was that these flights have historically been -800s and -900s and been very full in winter. They ran the same equipment this last summer (when they used to go to -400s and MD80s) and almost every flight I was on had just a few center seats open or none at all with a long standby list.

The upgrade probabilities are going to be lower, and the increased density might also have a negative impact on my ability to get a reasonably priced ticket 14-21 days out (when i usually travel). Not trying to make a mountain out of this, just trying to understand the logic.

Shifting A/C to longer routes makes logical sense, esp where they need the equipment for range purposes or b/c of a limited #of slots available for flights.

That's not been my experience. In fact, the absence of the raft compartments is what tells me (if I've forgotten to look for the lei'd tail) on-board that I'm not on an ETOPS jet.

Whether there are some non-ETOPS craft that have a raft compartment is not something I can speak to, but there are definitely NGs that don't have raft compartments. (The last -400 I was on was May 20, 2008, PDX-ANC, but I've seen non-rafted aircraft many times since then.)

OK perhaps you're right. Maybe I'm so used to seeing the raft compartments on COs fleet that I just believe it to be there on AS aircraft when it is not.

That's not been my experience. In fact, the absence of the raft compartments is what tells me (if I've forgotten to look for the lei'd tail) on-board that I'm not on an ETOPS jet.

The raft compartments are not on the -700 or -900. I think pretty much every -800 I've flown has had the center aisle storage compartments. I know, for example that 514 and 569 (non-ETOPS) had them. I remember AS put rafts on the aircraft going to CUN even before they applied for ETOPS certification. IIRC, 19 out of 51 -800s in the AS fleet are ETOPS.

I also remember looking at one of those center aisle storage units on an -800 before, and noticed that it said "wheelchair." So it would appear they are not all used for rafts.

I noticed on the -800 I was on last week, that there was the panel for the raft in the front. It was a non ETOPS plane, and the FA didn't mention the raft in the roof during the demo.



They should also throw in a reminder that for safety and security, to only use the raft in your ticketed cabin. It drives me crazy after a water landing when the Y pax try to use the F raft. ;)

They should also throw in a reminder that for safety and security, to only use the raft in your ticketed cabin. It drives me crazy after a water landing when the Y pax try to use the F raft. ;)

Does the F raft come stocked with free booze and a snack basket where you can take only two items?

Does the F raft come stocked with free booze and a snack basket where you can take only two items?

um... sadly snack baskets are gone... as a substitute, you are welcome to take a nut or two out of the communal ramekin :D

Me too. Flew the first ship delivered from SEA to LAX on it's third or fourth revenue flight. The mid-cabin lavs are such a great idea. I wish more AC had them!mid cabin lavs are a great idea and greatly diminish the parade through F. However I dont like the trays going all the way across hitting the armrest. They dont lay flat half the time and buckle :(

The raft compartments are not on the -700 or -900. I think pretty much every -800 I've flown has had the center aisle storage compartments. I know, for example that 514 and 569 (non-ETOPS) had them. I remember AS put rafts on the aircraft going to CUN even before they applied for ETOPS certification. IIRC, 19 out of 51 -800s in the AS fleet are ETOPS.

I also remember looking at one of those center aisle storage units on an -800 before, and noticed that it said "wheelchair." So it would appear they are not all used for rafts.
Out of the last 11 NGs, six of which have been -800s, I've been on (I just checked my FlightMemory to go back a bit), I'm pretty sure I've only seen the life rafts twice. I'm still not fully convinced they all have them...

mid cabin lavs are a great idea and greatly diminish the parade through F. However I dont like the trays going all the way across hitting the armrest. They dont lay flat half the time and buckle :(

:D

Agree with both points...

There's something about the 900's F seats that is just...odd. [including the table tray]

Out of the last 11 NGs, six of which have been -800s, I've been on (I just checked my FlightMemory to go back a bit), I'm pretty sure I've only seen the life rafts twice. I'm still not fully convinced they all have them...

I thought most 73H's had the life-rafts... ETOPS or not... even some 900's have them too IIRC :confused:

Guess we need someone to clear this up :p

Okay to set everyone straight, here is the deal on the liferafts and the centerline stowage compartments:

737-700 - There are no centerline compartments, thus no liferafts.

737-800 - Aircraft with 4 centerline compartments (most of the fleet) could potentially be ETOPS certified. The only way to tell is to either listen to the FA demo or look for a placard of a raft on the compartment. The rafts would be stored in the FWD and MID compartments. The others that have the 4 compartments but no rafts have the possibility of becoming ETOPS through conversion. If there is only 1 compartment, no chance of ETOPS conversion. The AFT compartment always has a wheelchair.
Oh and each raft holds 56 people so F will have to share with Y and the crew of course (Full ETOPS flight will have 157 passengers and 6 crew).

737-900 - All aircraft have 1 centerline compartment in the AFT that stows a wheelchair.

Hope that clears the air.

The only way to tell is to either listen to the FA demo or look for a placard of a raft on the compartment. .They all have Lei's on the tail right? At least thats what I thought anyways

They all have Lei's on the tail right? At least thats what I thought anyways

Correct. But just in case you can't see the Lei on the tail as another poster mentioned, you can look for the lifereaft placard.

Correct. But just in case you can't see the Lei on the tail as another poster mentioned, you can look for the lifereaft placard.

And it says ETOPS on the nosegear's cover too IIRC (or somewhere near that)... by the A/C number...

Thanks for the clarification... didn't realize that *some* of the 73H's could be converted to ETOPS post-production...

Side question then... 'theoretically' could any of AS' 73G's be converted to ETOPS (I know AS leases a bunch of them... could be helpful in the winter with the extreme headwinds encountered ANC-Hawaii)

Side question then... 'theoretically' could any of AS' 73G's be converted to ETOPS (I know AS leases a bunch of them... could be helpful in the winter with the extreme headwinds encountered ANC-Hawaii)I wonder if it would cost more to retrofit a few 700s than it costs for the several days of headwinds inconvenience. My whole opinion on that ordeal is if AS wants to be running such long flights to where the A/C is so close to its maximum range that if the wind is blowing the wrong way it cant make it...they need to get something larger than a 737!!! :rolleyes: Ya I know that'll be the day but in reality they should. DL should be close to some fleet and route reorganization perhaps they could get a half dozen 757s for a decent price;):p

I wonder if it would cost more to retrofit a few 700s than it costs for the several days of headwinds inconvenience. My whole opinion on that ordeal is if AS wants to be running such long flights to where the A/C is so close to its maximum range that if the wind is blowing the wrong way it cant make it...they need to get something larger than a 737!!! :rolleyes: Ya I know that'll be the day but in reality they should. DL should be close to some fleet and route reorganization perhaps they could get a half dozen 757s for a decent price;):p

Just need another fuel tank :p

Didn't the mad dogs use them for flights to Russia?

The day AS purchases 757s is the day hell freezes over. I don't really see a viable option for AS between the 737 and 767 (assuming they wanted a second type). I suppose I should clarify why I say that - AS has been very focused on keeping a young aircraft fleet, and the 757s are way to old for them, IMO.

I know I'm stating the obvious for many, but AS is very much trying to mimic the LCC model while also still trying to be a legacy as much as possible - including a single aircraft type. Forget the cost synergies of a single type fleet for a minute, one of the reasons AS is able to compete against HA in Hawaii, among others, is because they can fly a cheaper to operate 737 over a 767 or a 757. AS doesn't have to fill 220 seats on a 767, vs the 150(ish) on a 737.

The day AS purchases 757s is the day hell freezes over. I don't really see a viable option for AS between the 737 and 767 (assuming they wanted a second type). I suppose I should clarify why I say that - AS has been very focused on keeping a young aircraft fleet, and the 757s are way to old for them, IMO.

I know I'm stating the obvious for many, but AS is very much trying to mimic the LCC model while also still trying to be a legacy as much as possible - including a single aircraft type. Forget the cost synergies of a single type fleet for a minute, one of the reasons AS is able to compete against HA in Hawaii, among others, is because they can fly a cheaper to operate 737 over a 767 or a 757. AS doesn't have to fill 220 seats on a 767, vs the 150(ish) on a 737.

CO is running the 739ER... not sure its performance exactly... I understand AS was not satisfied with the performance on the 739... just verbally speculating... (I also understand the 757 had larger engines, in addition to more fuel...)

The day AS purchases 757s is the day hell freezes over. I don't really see a viable option for AS between the 737 and 767 (assuming they wanted a second type). I suppose I should clarify why I say that - AS has been very focused on keeping a young aircraft fleet, and the 757s are way to old for them, IMO.

I know I'm stating the obvious for many, but AS is very much trying to mimic the LCC model while also still trying to be a legacy as much as possible - including a single aircraft type. Forget the cost synergies of a single type fleet for a minute, one of the reasons AS is able to compete against HA in Hawaii, among others, is because they can fly a cheaper to operate 737 over a 767 or a 757. AS doesn't have to fill 220 seats on a 767, vs the 150(ish) on a 737.

If AS did want to add a larger aircraft type my bet would be on the 787. I could see the 739-ER perhaps someday, but the -800 seems to be by far the most versatile of the 737 NG types. The 787 basically carries a 767 payload for the operating cost of a 757.

If AS did want to add a larger aircraft type my bet would be on the 787. I could see the 739-ER perhaps someday, but the -800 seems to be by far the most versatile of the 737 NG types. The 787 basically carries a 767 payload for the operating cost of a 757.

787... as much as I'd be excited by this.... just don't see it happening anytime soon... (well granted AS did have an order once for a 747 :p)

CO is running the 739ER... not sure its performance exactly... I understand AS was not satisfied with the performance on the 739... just verbally speculating... (I also understand the 757 had larger engines, in addition to more fuel...)

I've heard it mentioned on more than 1 occasion that the biggest problem with the 739 v 757 is that the 739 fully loaded doesn't have the thrust that the 757 did/does. Additionally a 739 isn't able to take off fully loaded at some airports and realize the range possibilities a 757 has (too heavy with the fuel required to take off). I think the argument was using a 739 to go from LGB or SNA to HI.

I"ll be clear here - I know very little about airplane specs/performance, I'm just a dork who likes to read what others have to say about them :).

And it says ETOPS on the nosegear's cover too IIRC (or somewhere near that)... by the A/C number...

Thanks for the clarification... didn't realize that *some* of the 73H's could be converted to ETOPS post-production...

Side question then... 'theoretically' could any of AS' 73G's be converted to ETOPS (I know AS leases a bunch of them... could be helpful in the winter with the extreme headwinds encountered ANC-Hawaii)

Yes, the nose gear says ETOPS in front of the A/C number.

Not sure about the "theoretically" part. As far as I am aware, either the A/C comes out of the factory certified to fly ETOPS or is provisioned to the point where a few days of modification will make it ETOPS. I think there is an option when the airplanes to either deliver them ETOPS ready, ETOPS provisioned or no ETOPS at all. A 700 might sound good for the range issue but it would be more costly to operate. You are traveling the same distances with most of the same costs spread out over less people. Not to mention for those of you who like your F there are 4 less F seats on the 700. If I am not mistaken, I think there are only a handful of times that s fuel stop is needed. I am not sure what AS does for the customer (ie if vouchers or miles are given for the delay) but I am pretty sure they are notified prior to departure. Overall, the 800 is the best right now for AS to fly over to Hawaii.

I've heard it mentioned on more than 1 occasion that the biggest problem with the 739 v 757 is that the 739 fully loaded doesn't have the thrust that the 757 did/does.

I"ll be clear here - I know very little about airplane specs/performance, I'm just a dork who likes to read what others have to say about them :).The 757 has way more thrust than a 739. A 757 has way more power than it even needs. Its quite a workhorse compared to any 737. 757 is easily capable of climb rates twice that of a 737. IMO as big as the 739 is, Boeing shouldve put more powerful engines on it. With full loads they look like slugs taking off

The 757 has way more thrust than a 739. A 757 has way more power than it even needs. Its quite a workhorse compared to any 737. 757 is easily capable of climb rates twice that of a 737. IMO as big as the 739 is, Boeing shouldve put more powerful engines on it. With full loads they look like slugs taking off

That's what I've heard from the UA pilots who have flown them over on the UA Pilot Q&A Thread. They're like flying a racecar...

I"ll be clear here - I know very little about airplane specs/performance, I'm just a dork who likes to read what others have to say about them :).

I think that describes most of the rest of us here, too! :D

The 757 has way more thrust than a 739. A 757 has way more power than it even needs. Its quite a workhorse compared to any 737. 757 is easily capable of climb rates twice that of a 737. IMO as big as the 739 is, Boeing shouldve put more powerful engines on it. With full loads they look like slugs taking off

There is a HUGE difference between the 739 and the 739ER!

There is a HUGE difference between the 739 and the 739ER!

They all seem pretty similar to me...

739, 739ER:
engines: CFM 56-7B27
thrust: 27,300 lbf/engine
MTOW: 187,700lbs
thrust/weight: 0.29 lbsf/lib

752:
engines: Rolls-Royce RB211 (among others)
thrust: 36,600 lbf/engine
MTOW: 255,000 lbs
thrust/weight: 0.287 lbsf/lb

I think the difference is that a fully loaded 739 here on the west coast is fairly familiar, whereas the only 752 and 753s operating near their MTOW are those flying the east coast to europe.

There is a HUGE difference between the 739 and the 739ER!

So does the 739ER have bigger engines then? (or just somehow more thrust?)

They all seem pretty similar to me...

739, 739ER:
engines: CFM 56-7B27
thrust: 27,300 lbf/engine
MTOW: 187,700lbs
thrust/weight: 0.29 lbsf/lib

752:
engines: Rolls-Royce RB211 (among others)
thrust: 36,600 lbf/engine
MTOW: 255,000 lbs
thrust/weight: 0.287 lbsf/lb

I think the difference is that a fully loaded 739 here on the west coast is fairly familiar, whereas the only 752 and 753s operating near their MTOW are those flying the east coast to europe.
One other thing to note:

I'm not sure of the physics behind it, but the 757 is considered a "heavy" aircraft (and ATC uses that designation, since the '57 is over the 255,000-pound requirement to use the "heavy" designation--it appears the FAA amended the regs to specifically include the '57) because of the large wake turbulence it leaves behind.

One other thing to note:

I'm not sure of the physics behind it, but the 757 is considered a "heavy" aircraft (and ATC uses that designation, since the '57 is over the 255,000-pound requirement to use the "heavy" designation--it appears the FAA amended the regs to specifically include the '57) because of the large wake turbulence it leaves behind.

As I understand it, the excessive wake tubulence has to do with the 757 wing design. As a private pilot, I was told to avoid flying anywhere near them and that "they would flip you upside down faster than a 747" as my instructor put it.

One other thing to note:

I'm not sure of the physics behind it, but the 757 is considered a "heavy" aircraft (and ATC uses that designation, since the '57 is over the 255,000-pound requirement to use the "heavy" designation--it appears the FAA amended the regs to specifically include the '57) because of the large wake turbulence it leaves behind.

Not all 757s are designated as "heavies." I remember flying a UA flight a few years back and on Ch. 9, ATC asked if we were "heavy."

It has to do with the wing design and how much weight they have at takeoff. DTW-Europe: Heavy. DTW-MSP: not heavy.

Regardless, small jets get thrown around by them no matter what their weight is. I was in a WN 737 landing behind one and we got tossed around too!

As I understand it, the excessive wake tubulence has to do with the 757 wing design. As a private pilot, I was told to avoid flying anywhere near them and that "they would flip you upside down faster than a 747" as my instructor put it.

this is correct. while there is a small effect from the weight, all 757's suffer from excessive wake turbulence due to wing design; the vortex is significantly larger than nearly all other planes... and boeing was very surprised when they found this out

this is correct. while there is a small effect from the weight, all 757's suffer from excessive wake turbulence due to wing design; the vortex is significantly larger than nearly all other planes... and boeing was very surprised when they found this out

weird... did this reduce their performance then?

weird... did this reduce their performance then?

to my knowledge, only a small bit - a problem somewhat abated with winglets. a strong vortex isn't necessarily indicative of inefficiency, i think. a 747 is more efficient and faster as it has more rake in the wing, which also reduces the vortex... but i don't think it is correct to say that a smaller vortex is coupled with better performance.

though operations people would completely disagree in the sense that a 757 requires greater separation distances therefor realllly reducing the operational performance of the aircraft. (ie 25 757s in an hour vs. 40 737s is a huge difference in available seats that can be sold)

So does the 739ER have bigger engines then? (or just somehow more thrust?)yeah great question. Id like to know as well. They use the same engines but weigh more :-/

As I've been booking future trips for Nov, Dec, and Jan I've noticed that (with a few exceptions to the schedule around Thanksgiving) AS has changed all of its flights from PHX to SEA and PDX to -400s.

This used to happen more in the summer months, but this past summer it was almost all -800s out of PHX. Now we're moving into the busier winter months and we're down to -400s.

Anyone (RASMGuy) know why the change went into effect? It makes for PACKED flights and many fewer upgrades :(
guess theyre going to SMF and SJC ;)

guess theyre going to SMF and SJC ;)

Precisely! No more 738's for Phoenix, although I'm surprised that AS didn't add an additional frequency to SEA.

As for the difference between a 739 and a 739ER, my understanding is that the 739ER has advanced aerodynamic features built-in to create a longer range. In addition, there are two additional emergency exits. In another words, a 739ER would work on a transcon route or -- as CO is doing -- West Coast to Hawaii.

Bill Ayer made an interesting comment regarding equipment today when being interviewed on CNBC. Something to the affect that the "737's work for us now"....with the implication that at some point another a/c type might be seen in the future. Said to me that they're thinking ahead on this.

The 787 seems a little big and the 757 and 767 too old. I'm not quite sure if an airplane exists with the capacity (200ish) and range (4000nm) we'd like to see besides perhaps the 737-900ER.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1325487281&play=1

4000nm@SEA (http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=&RANGE=4000nm%40SEA%0D%0A&PATH-COLOR=&PATH-UNITS=mi&PATH-MINIMUM=&SPEED-GROUND=&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=&MAP-STYLE=)

Huh. Just short of NRT and LHR.

The 787 seems a little big and the 757 and 767 too old. I'm not quite sure if an airplane exists with the capacity (200ish) and range (4000nm) we'd like to see besides perhaps the 737-900ER.

Boeing sure doesnt have one. I aint sure what they were thinking getting rid of the 757 but not replacing it with anything. They said the 739 was basically to fill that void but it barely goes half the distance some 753s can go. The legacy carriers like DL/NW, UA, CO, and AA have a lot of these things and to me the idea of a 739 or 787 taking their place is a bit of an imagination stretch

I aint sure what they were thinking getting rid of the 757 but not replacing it with anything.

They were thinking "in a world of LCCs, nobody can afford an over-engineered plane".

The places where a 757 replacement really makes sense (in the hot/high, skinny/long route sense) don't justify the investment in engineering one. Most of the US transcon stuff a 757 can do can be handled by a 737NG/32x variant, for instance. You're really looking at maybe a marketplace of 100-200 planes, tops. There's no way you can make a profit selling 100-200 narrowbody planes in a particular family if you're Boeing or Airbus.

Boeing sure doesnt have one. I aint sure what they were thinking getting rid of the 757 but not replacing it with anything. They said the 739 was basically to fill that void but it barely goes half the distance some 753s can go. The legacy carriers like DL/NW, UA, CO, and AA have a lot of these things and to me the idea of a 739 or 787 taking their place is a bit of an imagination stretch

IIRC the gap between the 739ER and the shortest 787 is rather short, granted a short 787 may not be the best on 'short' routes... but theoretically it could be an option...

Is AS going to do anything to rejuvenate the 734 F cabin?

As for the difference between a 739 and a 739ER, my understanding is that the 739ER has advanced aerodynamic features built-in to create a longer range. In addition, there are two additional emergency exits. In another words, a 739ER would work on a transcon route or -- as CO is doing -- West Coast to Hawaii.

There are the same amount of Emergency Exits on the 739ER as their is on the 739 and 738. There are a a total of 8 exits: 2 FWD, 4 Overwing and 2 AFT.

There are the same amount of Emergency Exits on the 739ER as their is on the 739 and 738. There are a a total of 8 exits: 2 FWD, 4 Overwing and 2 AFT.


The 739ER actually has an additional set of full size doors behind the wing, a la the 753. It can also hold around 4 more rows of seats than the first gen 739 and has about 500nm longer range.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_900ER_fact.html

The 739ER actually has an additional set of full size doors behind the wing, a la the 753. It can also hold around 4 more rows of seats than the first gen 739 and has about 500nm longer range.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_900ER_fact.html

I stand corrected....thank you.

The 739ER actually has an additional set of full size doors behind the wing, a la the 753. It can also hold around 4 more rows of seats than the first gen 739 and has about 500nm longer range.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_900ER_fact.html

Actually it has an option for 2 additional exit doors for ultra dense configuration. Upto 189 you don't have to activate the additional doors. 189-215 you do. CO's 739ER's have a plug where the exit doors could go.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/media_kit/pdf/900XMediaOverview.pdf