Jump to content
ParanoidAndroid

Another airline pulls out of MSP-ORD

Recommended Posts

has to be passenger load, neither elko nor ely are that short, although ely's runways are not in good shape anymore

Longer than SNA, but then I realized its at high altitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flights that short wouldn't need to carry heavy fuel loads. Skywest flys it with 50 seat Canadair RJ's for Delta to this day....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an excerpt from the 'wikipedia' on Elko airport

 

"Starting in November 1977 United Boeing 737-200 jetliners operated round trip San Francisco - Reno - Elko - Ely - Salt Lake City service; however in 1982 United ended this flight, which had been previously operated with a Douglas DC-6B aircraft which in turn was United's last piston powered service in the U.S.[5] In the April 27, 1969 United timetable a DC-6 was listed as the aircraft type operating San Francisco - Oakland - Reno - Elko - Ely - Salt Lake City service; the return trip skipped Oakland. This was the only piston flight in the timetable at the time. In 1970 United replaced the DC-6 service with Convair 580 turboprops operated by Frontier Airlines (1950-1986) via a subcontract arrangement; the flights used the "UA" airline code[6] until 737s took over."

 

So apparently, when UAL retired its last piston DC-6B, in 1970, they did not have an aircraft suitable for that portion, and contracted with the old Frontier until November of 1977, when they started using their own 737-200's. And in 1982, they ceased running the route, altogether.

 

So I remembered the Frontier operation, but not all the details... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a clearer narrative. In the original you had mentioned 737-100. United never had them, their first 737s were 200 series. Actually, very few 737-100 were built, of the 1144 first gen 737, only 30 were built. Mostly went to Lufthansa. Half of them ended up here with People Express. and then over to Continental. They used to on a couple of routes where they could get them back to Newark for regular maintenance. I came back from Empire State Games in Buffalo on one BUF-EWR, right before they (thankfully) were retired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always liked the looks of those "baby Boeing's"... I would rather fly in one of them, then the current cramped regional jets.

And they were just as wide as their big brother 707-Intercontinental's.

 

Reminds me of the story of a short line railroad president. It was customary years ago, for railroad president's to exchange annual passes with other railroad president's, as a 'courtesy'...

So the president of this short line sends one of his, to the president of one of the mighty trunk lines. Not receiving one in return, he writes a letter, inquiring the reason. The trunk line president answers back, saying that his line is 10,000 miles long, and the short line is only 39 miles long, and you expect reciprocity?

The short line president answered back stating that the trunk line may be much longer than his, but its track was no wider...

The story goes on that the trunk line president had such a good laugh over that, that he went ahead and rewarded the short line president with an annual pass... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flights that short wouldn't need to carry heavy fuel loads. Skywest flys it with 50 seat Canadair RJ's for Delta to this day....

Often with really short flights they will actually fuel it up for the way there and back, to save time. For those distances, it's worth it to cut the turn around time and hassle, even if the outgoing flight is a bit less efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always liked the looks of those "baby Boeing's"... I would rather fly in one of them, then the current cramped regional jets. And they were just as wide as their big brother 707-Intercontinental's.

 

I'm not a fan of scheduled service regional jets but the B732 is one of the ugliest mainline aircraft I've ever flown. The combination of torpedo engines hanging off a stubby wing connected to a bloated fuselage was visually unappealing and comically disproportionate. The TOGO stage cabin noise was almost unbearable and I'm pretty sure I lost some permanent hearing along the way. :wacko: Needless to say I was glad to see them removed and retired. Then again the aircraft I find most aesthetically pleasing is the A346, which is about as far from a 732 as you can get.

 

737-200-N93SW.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Airlines have gotten very careful about fuel. They will calculate everything that influences costs down to price at specific locations to determine whether to carry more versus the added cost of fuel burnt to carry the weight. They run computer profiles to calculate optimum climb and decent, hoping weather and ATC cooperate. If the choice is : I can fly this route given the runway length and altitude or temp vs I can't if I carry a heavier load, the time to refuel becomes irrelevant. It's around 500 miles from SLC to Reno. I can fly a roundtrip with somewhat more than a half a fuel load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will agree. The 737-100/200 was not an attractive plane. The later models (especially the latest) are much better proportioned. Honestly, not an RJ fan, but the Embraer E jets (170/175/190/195) are not bad at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then again the aircraft I find most aesthetically pleasing is the A346, which is about as far from a 732 as you can get.

Agreed. It's perfectly proportioned, the four engines are the perfect size and shape. It's the exact opposite of a 737 Classic, and an absolutely gorgeous bird.

maxresdefault.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll still take the 707 and 747 for my ideal Jets!

 

My first Flight on a Real Jet was on a 707.

And my first 747 Flight was on Quantas to Australia when they were still New.😎

 

Champagne in the Upstairs Lounge and the space in the Wide Body are fond Memories!😙

Edited by Bob Dylan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll still take the 707 and 747 for my ideal Jets!

 

Not sure that people living near airports (or just in the plane) would agree about the 707.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll still take the 707 and 747 for my ideal Jets!

Aesthetically, the 707 was glorious. Practically and technically, it's an abomination by today's standards (and yes, I know it's 60 years old). And while the 747 is beautiful and one of the most important airliners in history, I have more of a soft spot for Airbuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The B707 was before my time and while the B747 is really unique and has many entries in the history books it never really grew on me. By the time I was traveling on intercontinental flights the 747 had generally been relegated to a high mileage low yield sub-fleet that was always two or three upgrades behind everything else. The squeaky rattles, worn-out upholstery, smoke stained interiors, noisy public address systems, washed out projection movie screens, and ancient fixtures didn't help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The B707 was before my time and while the B747 is really unique and has many entries in the history books it never really grew on me. By the time I was traveling on intercontinental flights the 747 had generally been relegated to a high mileage low yield sub-fleet that was always two or three upgrades behind everything else. The squeaky rattles, worn-out upholstery, smoke stained interiors, noisy public address systems, washed out projection movie screens, and ancient fixtures didn't help.

Agreed. It's technically very impressive and IMO it looks beautiful (and I imagine even those who disagree with that won't deny that the design is at minimum unique), but I never had a personal connection to it. I guess I'm just not a Boeing person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really need to find a way to get a ride on this sexy beast before they're all gone...

[picture removed for space considerations]

The A340-600 is a nice plane. I fly Lufthansa A340-6's semi-regularly SFO-MUC and love the two seats instead of three on the window side. There was a time SFO looked like an A340 dealership with the Lufthansa, SAS, and Swiss variants all parked at the same time. A few years back I took pictures of the line of retired A340-500's at Changi and last year caught SAA's A340-6 at JFK.

 

However, my favorite is the 747 though the most disappointed I've ever been on a flight was in the top deck of a 744 because of the distance between seat and window due to the curve of the fuselage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KC-135 carry on. They are a tad smaller (shorter) than a later 707, but very close in appearance. A little different look with the replacement engines, but close. E3 AWACS were built on a 707-320B frame, there are some of those still flying.

Edited by PVD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KC-135 carry on. They are a tad smaller (skinnier and shorter) than a 707, but very close in appearance. A little different look with the replacement engines, but close. E3 AWACS were built on a 707-320B frame, there are some of those still flying.

Yeah it's sort of a stubbier 707 with modernized engines:

kc-135-stratotanker_009.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing but the Best for our Troops right!

 

 

(lots of AU members Fathers werent even born when the B-52s,KC-135s etc. went into Service as the Backbone of SAC!😣)

Edited by Bob Dylan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing but the Best for our Troops right!

 

 

(lots of AU members Fathers werent even born when the B-52s,KC-135s etc. went into Service as the Backbone of SAC!)

First flight of the first B52 was within a week after my birth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 367-80 prototype (known as Dash 80) that led to the KC-135 and 707 is on display at the Udvar-Hazy Center of the Air and Space Museum, out by Dulles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then in the 1990s you had the Gulf War which had the double-whammy of spiking fuel prices and depressing demand. Yet, most airlines had fuel-inefficient planes from the 1960s and 70s and were too slow to replace them. Incidentally, much of the legacy airlines’ fleets were purchased in the era of regulation, such as DC-10s, L1011s, and even domestic 747s. They could fly them profitably when fares were regulated and they didn’t have to worry about competition. When deregulation hit, smaller planes killed the larger planes in terms of economics on most routes, which is why a carrier like Southwest, flying only 737s, was able to take on larger competitors. It’s also why the number of domestic wide bodies significantly decreased when the first generation were ready for retirement. You used to see DC-10s and 747s on short hops such as Chicago-Cleveland, Milwaukee-Detroit, etc. But once the carriers dumped them, they didn’t replace them with other 300-seaters, but with much smaller planes.

 

A lot of those were converted to flying cargo. FedEx even specialized, where they designed and sold "hush kits" for a lot of those older planes.

 

I heard they worked out pretty well because the planes were cheap to buy. Even with poor fuel economy, the freight airlines don't have to run them that long every day, while passenger planes need to be utilized a lot in order to justify the costs. I heard the hub model they had didn't require utilization quite like passenger planes. However, I'm not sure how it's going to be now with orders of new cargo planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really need to find a way to get a ride on this sexy beast before they're all gone...

 

Airbus_A340-600_Virgin_Atlantic_%28VIR%2

Me too! They remind me of one of my favorites...the DC-8-61 and 63....

With their long, long fuselage, and relatively small tail, they look like trains when seen taxiing, when you see them from the vantage point of a taxiway underpass....

And on the inside, the cabin seems to go on endlessly...

16373070918_92f95bfab3_b.jpg

 

Images from here

https://www.google.com/search?q=united+dc+8+-63+photos&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS739US739&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=NH_VTzDm8LkgbM%253A%252CSFp7HHzdlBnagM%252C_&usg=AFrqEzer-X5l_iNYtMLEfmp7XlfTMhE0cg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjunKz-zOHcAhWnct8KHfXcBX4Q9QEwB3oECAEQEg#imgrc=F-upY-ELIVJ_0M:

 

1459866-large.jpg

Edited by railiner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of those beauties soldiered on after United. They were re-engined, and converted to freighter use ending up with Emery. N8079U was involved in an accident fatal to the crew, N8087U was eventually retired and scrapped.

Edited by PVD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×