ITRADE
Veteran
Uhhhh.....Did they take the extra fuel tanks out of the 733s? I've taken several transcon 733 flights in the past.biztraveller29 said:
New Phl Flights
- Thread starter weatherman
- Start date
Rob,Rob said:
As a Texas FF, a big part of WN success is frequency. If I am on a WN flight, and I finish early, I know there is a flight home within the hour with no change fee. Since WN max fare is $299 anywhere, the change in fare class is normally about $25 bucks, if any. U typically does not have high frequency and if you want to go standby or change flights watch the fees fly.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #18
Sorry, gang. Been getting ready to go to work.
Piedmont (and I'm pretty sure US Air) flew 737-300's to the west coast - maybe -400's but I'm not sure. The extra fuel tanks have either been deactivated or removed, so our 737's don't have the range anymore.
Likewise for the Caribbean. We can go offshore enough to go ILM (actually Dixon fix just north of there) direct to S. Fla (I forget if that's AR1 or AR7) but no further.
Jim
ps - I'm off to work. Don't do anything I wouldn't do while I'm gone....
Piedmont (and I'm pretty sure US Air) flew 737-300's to the west coast - maybe -400's but I'm not sure. The extra fuel tanks have either been deactivated or removed, so our 737's don't have the range anymore.
Likewise for the Caribbean. We can go offshore enough to go ILM (actually Dixon fix just north of there) direct to S. Fla (I forget if that's AR1 or AR7) but no further.
Jim
ps - I'm off to work. Don't do anything I wouldn't do while I'm gone....
coolflyingfool
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,192
- 1
Aren't all these extra PHL flights coming from the PIT pull down? They seem to be added as PIT is reducing theirs. This will not help out in the cost aspect of flying. If US could not make money flying a route 6 times a day, then how do they make money flying it 8 times a day?
My guess is that the increased capacity at PHL is coming from a variety of sources: mainline jets freed up by Midatlantic taking over former mainline routes (for example, PHL-IAH is all-MDA now), additional MDA/Express flights (PHL-MCI goes from 2 MDA/1 Express to 4 MDA in the new schedule), and increased utilization. It looks like most of the new flying is done by mainline, though I haven't looked at other markets to see how they fare come October.
To me, it seems pretty clear that much of the added capacity is aimed towards non-stop WN (or FL) markets at PHL (FLL, MHT, MCO, PVD, RDU, TPA, PBI -- 13 of 18 flights) or potential non-stop WN (or FL) markets from PHL. It's somewhat good that US is moving to protect its hub franchise, but only if they've figured out how to make money at WN/GoFares fare levels. At least most of the new flights seem to be on mainline equipment.
Addendum:
Protecting market share is all well and good *if* you can make your competitor bleed enough for long enough to convince them to pull out of the market. It seems to me, though, that WN intends to be in PHL for the long-haul, and US needs to plan accordingly. At least in the short term, WN won't have the gates to respond to US's added frequencies.
To me, it seems pretty clear that much of the added capacity is aimed towards non-stop WN (or FL) markets at PHL (FLL, MHT, MCO, PVD, RDU, TPA, PBI -- 13 of 18 flights) or potential non-stop WN (or FL) markets from PHL. It's somewhat good that US is moving to protect its hub franchise, but only if they've figured out how to make money at WN/GoFares fare levels. At least most of the new flights seem to be on mainline equipment.
Addendum:
Protecting market share is all well and good *if* you can make your competitor bleed enough for long enough to convince them to pull out of the market. It seems to me, though, that WN intends to be in PHL for the long-haul, and US needs to plan accordingly. At least in the short term, WN won't have the gates to respond to US's added frequencies.
Finish or Ignore
Senior
- Aug 30, 2002
- 342
- 1
We can't properly handle the flights we already have at PHL.
GroundedBoricua
Senior
- May 29, 2004
- 300
- 0
I BELEIVE THEY STILL HAVEN'T REMOVED THE EXTRA TANKS ON THE 737-300ER SO IT CAN MAKE A TRANSCON RUN. ALSO THERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF 737-400 THAT ARE EOW EQUIPPED. I HAVE RIDDIN ON A FEW TO THE CARIBBEAN BACK A FEW YEARS AGO. THIS WAS WHEN BWI WAS A BASE AND ALOT OF THE CARIBBEAN FLYING WAS FROM THERE. I WAS PARTICULY WAS THINKING OF TRANSFERING TO BWI CAUSE OF THIS FLYING.BoeingBoy said:
BUT NOW COMES THE GOOD PART, AND THAT IS WHO THE HELL WOULD WANT TO SPEND 3 OR 4 HOURS ON A 737-300,400. I MEAN MAYBE THEY WERE NICE IN THEIR DAY, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THEY WILL FIT THE CUT TODAY. AT LEAST IN MY PERSONAL OPINION. B)
- Banned
- #26
All the 737-400s are not EOW, they were converted back to regular 737-400s a couple of years ago. Rafts were removed as were the extra tank and the HF radios.
Once in a while you will see a 737-400 still make a CLT-NAS run as the plane does not have to be EOW to make that flight.
Once in a while you will see a 737-400 still make a CLT-NAS run as the plane does not have to be EOW to make that flight.
Art at ISP
Veteran
US only has 737-300's and 737-400's, which definitely do NOT have transcon capability. The 737-300LR's could barely make DAY-LAX back in the day.
The 737NG is almost a completely new airplane, with new wings, engines, and it is much faster and has much greater range (up to 3000NM if I recall correctly). I think the 737-300/400 cruises around .73-.74, while the NG cruises up to .81.
Unfortunately it looks like US prefers Airbus--similar aircraft for much less money.
No expert but according to my best recollection.
My best to you all....
The 737NG is almost a completely new airplane, with new wings, engines, and it is much faster and has much greater range (up to 3000NM if I recall correctly). I think the 737-300/400 cruises around .73-.74, while the NG cruises up to .81.
Unfortunately it looks like US prefers Airbus--similar aircraft for much less money.
No expert but according to my best recollection.
My best to you all....
ITRADE
Veteran
That is simply not true.Art at ISP said:
They certainly could. I've taken two LAX-PHL red-eyes and have done SAN-PIT and PIT-SAN on any number of occasions - all on 733s.
- Banned
- #29
737-300LR use to fly ALL transcon.
CLT-LAX, CLT-SFO, CLT-SAN, TPA-LAX as well as PIT and PHL.
Remember at merger time only PI had 767, not US and neither had the 757s.
The 500 tail #s were the long ranges and had TV monitors as did some of the 737-400LRs EOW, as they were the 700 tail #s.
CLT-LAX, CLT-SFO, CLT-SAN, TPA-LAX as well as PIT and PHL.
Remember at merger time only PI had 767, not US and neither had the 757s.
The 500 tail #s were the long ranges and had TV monitors as did some of the 737-400LRs EOW, as they were the 700 tail #s.
ITRADE
Veteran
Yup. That's my recollection.
I was doing red eyes after college when I would go home to see the parentals. On one LAX-PHL redeye the plane was scheduled for a 757. I was planning on enjoying my upgrade. Little did I know that when I stepped of the TransStates J-31 in LAX, that the 757 was out of service and a 733 was going to do the run instead.
Grrrrrrr.
I was doing red eyes after college when I would go home to see the parentals. On one LAX-PHL redeye the plane was scheduled for a 757. I was planning on enjoying my upgrade. Little did I know that when I stepped of the TransStates J-31 in LAX, that the 757 was out of service and a 733 was going to do the run instead.
Grrrrrrr.
