Alaska 737-400s?

[thunderworm]

is the latitude and flight level that you can't go above posted on the release? where would one get that info?

 

[b747dogg]

Dude, it's not that the 800 is a pig, it's just bigger and heavier. The 800 still operates better then the 727 which was flying around in the high 20's all the time. The 700 is a great performer and you have gotten spoiled.

 

[CRJ puppy]

is the latitude and flight level that you can't go above posted on the release? where would one get that info?

Your POH and some info on release if applicable for that flight. At least that's where it was at all three airlines I've worked at...

It's usually more altitude and duration at that altitude that is the limiting factor.

 

[DorkProp]

I got 499.9 hours on the 300/400 in my first year at Airways before leaving for the Bus. Compared to the 300, the 400 had lots more get-up-and-go. Of course, that's my perspective after flying the CRJ 200 for eight years. I was always amazed at the climb rate in the 20's compared to what I was used to in the CRJ.

 

[LearLove]

I don't see a problem with our 400's flying up and down the east coast. We usually take off around 130K and climb to low mid 30's without much "bogging". I agree with the guy above commenting on the performance below 30,000ft but that is pretty much with all jets I've had exp. with. The 300 seemed a little better and certainly (to me) felt like it handled/flew better than the 400.

With that said the only jet I can compare it too is the 170/190 (see profile). The 175 was the worst I've exp'd. It's a 170 with a fuselage plug, the same wing area as a 170 and 170 engines. So it's a dog over 30,000ft but with the higher wing loading it rides nicer than the 170 in turb.

The 190 was/is great from what I can remember.

I would assume every jet starts too poop out within a few thousand feet of its ceiling with the exception of the 75/76 (from what I've been told). I'm sort of kicking myself for not bidding the 75/76 when I could about 6 months back. Looks like I may miss it for good now as of the last bid unless I want to commute but I'll fly a broken washing machine in base before I commute.

 

[StopNTSing]

Dude, it's not that the 800 is a pig, it's just bigger and heavier. The 800 still operates better then the 727 which was flying around in the high 20's all the time. The 700 is a great performer and you have gotten spoiled.

Pig's a relative term, I'll grant you. I have indeed been spoiled by the -700....although I do still remember the -200.

 

[scoreboardII]

Seems you remember NTSing as well, not to many do. Garrett?

 

[StopNTSing]

Seems you remember NTSing as well, not to many do. Garrett?

What's that? Can't hear ya. Spent too many years in between two Garretts. :laugh:

 

[tico]

Hard for Us to answer the question. A 4 day trip will have a 400 combi out to bet and back and then a 900er to sea. Next day an 800sfp out to the islands. Next day an 800sfp back to the west coast and a bonus leg in california in a 700. Last day a 400 back to sea and then a 400 freighter through se alaska and if your really lucky at the end a fai turn in a straight 900 . I dont even know how any of them fly as they are all different. Hands down down the 200 flew the nicest and the 700 comes in a close second. Would be happy to never fly or fly on anything but the 700.

 

[ClearRight]

I seem to have more consistently smooth and accurate landings in the -400. Could be that I've got more practice where it counts in the arctic and southeast. That being said, I really like the smooth thrust levers and controls of the NGs. I flew a month of ANC-SEA-IAH in the 900ER (into some crappy, gusty SEA wx) and was actually impressed with how it handled. Not at all like the original straight-winged 900s.