Don't know the exact max distance for the 738 (maybe about 3000nm), but this flight must come close?!

According to Boeing. the range is 3060nm. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family...pf_800tech.html

According to Boeing. the range is 3060nm. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family...pf_800tech.html

So my guess at 3000 was pretty bloomin close then eh:-)I guess Google Earth or the like could be used to find the airport distance. I'm on my old laptop though at the mo. Won't run it:-(

Don't know the exact max distance for the 738 (maybe about 3000nm), but this flight must come close?!

According to http://www.world-airport-codes.com/ the distance is 2453 miles.

Max range is a long way different from maximum usable range. It's like when manufacturers say 'such and such a fighter plane can do Mach 2.2' - yes it probably can when not carrying weapons and so long as the pilot is prepared to accept that he will be out of fuel in 12 minutes.Carrying a full load of passengers and fuel, plus baggage, and not being constricted by high temperatures at take off, a more practical average figure for the 737 would probably be something like between 1,000 and 1,500 miles. It might look like a proper big airliner, and I really do like it very much, but the 737 is basically a glorified regional jet designed for flying short sectors, which is also why it has a lower cruise speed than some other jets.If you want a long ranged 737, then you want one of the models that has auxiliary fuel tanks, which would be either the BBJ, the 700, or the 900ER, the 800 only has three fuel tanks as standard, all those others have two additional ones, although they can be added to other variants as a customer option. My guess would be that the flight noted on the original post had a lot of empty seats, or it may possibly have been a ferry flight with temporary additional tanks fitted in the cabin.Al

Max range is a long way different from maximum usable range. It's like when manufacturers say 'such and such a fighter plane can do Mach 2.2' - yes it probably can when not carrying weapons and so long as the pilot is prepared to accept that he will be out of fuel in 12 minutes.Carrying a full load of passengers and fuel, plus baggage, and not being constricted by high temperatures at take off, a more practical average figure for the 737 would probably be something like between 1,000 and 1,500 miles. It might look like a proper big airliner, and I really do like it very much, but the 737 is basically a glorified regional jet designed for flying short sectors, which is also why it has a lower cruise speed than some other jets.If you want a long ranged 737, then you want one of the models that has auxiliary fuel tanks, which would be either the BBJ, the 700, or the 900ER, the 800 only has three fuel tanks as standard, all those others have two additional ones, although they can be added to other variants as a customer option. My guess would be that the flight noted on the original post had a lot of empty seats, or it may possibly have been a ferry flight with temporary additional tanks fitted in the cabin.Al

There are regular flights with Alaska Airlines 737's from Seattle to Honolulu. A real leg stretcher but a regular occurrence for sure.

I think that's why Alaska got the 900 model and went for the winglets.Al

According to http://www.world-airport-codes.com/ the distance is 2453 miles.

In miles, maybe, but in nautical miles, it's only 2108 nm. Compared to the range of 3060 nm, it's certainly possible.

Max range is a long way different from maximum usable range. It's like when manufacturers say 'such and such a fighter plane can do Mach 2.2' - yes it probably can when not carrying weapons and so long as the pilot is prepared to accept that he will be out of fuel in 12 minutes.Carrying a full load of passengers and fuel, plus baggage, and not being constricted by high temperatures at take off, a more practical average figure for the 737 would probably be something like between 1,000 and 1,500 miles. It might look like a proper big airliner, and I really do like it very much, but the 737 is basically a glorified regional jet designed for flying short sectors, which is also why it has a lower cruise speed than some other jets.If you want a long ranged 737, then you want one of the models that has auxiliary fuel tanks, which would be either the BBJ, the 700, or the 900ER, the 800 only has three fuel tanks as standard, all those others have two additional ones, although they can be added to other variants as a customer option. My guess would be that the flight noted on the original post had a lot of empty seats, or it may possibly have been a ferry flight with temporary additional tanks fitted in the cabin.

In 2005, I flew Continental 568, a Boeing 737-800, from EWR to LAS. It was a full flight.

There are regular flights with Alaska Airlines 737's from Seattle to Honolulu. A real leg stretcher but a regular occurrence for sure.

That run is 2326 nm, so it's still within the range of the 737-800.

I think that's why Alaska got the 900 model and went for the winglets.

I checked, and Alaska has one run of SEA-HNL with the Boeing 737-800.

The 737 has very usable range. Alaska runs their 738s from DCA-SEA, with a full load, and they manage to T/O on DCA's shortish runways. SWA runs their 737's from PVD to PHX, and they only have about 7200' of runway to work with at PVD. The 737 is extremely versitile, it can make money on ORF-BWI, then turn arround and fly BWI-SAN.

The 737 has very usable range. Alaska runs their 738s from DCA-SEA, with a full load, and they manage to T/O on DCA's shortish runways. SWA runs their 737's from PVD to PHX, and they only have about 7200' of runway to work with at PVD. The 737 is extremely versitile, it can make money on ORF-BWI, then turn arround and fly BWI-SAN.

You got that right, a manly airplane :( "If it ain't Boeing..."

"If it ain't Boeing..."

...run away.

...run away.

I ain't going? :(

I ain't going? :(

Yeah, I know. I just felt the need to change it up a bit. :(

Yeah, I know. I just felt the need to change it up a bit. :(

I figured ya' did. Didn't want to confuse any readers ignorant to the old saying, though :(