Re: Fracturing the Pacific

Date:         18 Aug 97 02:22:18 
From:         jimcam@arctic.ca
Organization: NTnet News Server
References:   1
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure


On 1997-08-11 m@bang.org said:

 m@>Airlines offering a one hour shorter flight have a great advantage
 m@>of over their slower competitors. Another possible reason is that
 m@>the B767 doesn't have sufficient range to fly many of the
 m@>interesting trans-Pacific city pairs. But since the B767 is not
 m@>used on even those trans-Pacific routes for which it does have
 m@>range (with the exception of SEL-SEA), I reject this reason. From
 m@>the US east coast to Asia requires a three or four engined plane
 m@>because there are no suitable places for an ETOPS aircraft to land
 m@>in the Arctic.

According to my friends at Air Canada ( a B767 operator) you need 6000 feet
of hard surface for an ETOPS alternate.  The Arctic airports which meet this
criteria are CYFB, CYRT, CYYQ, CYZF and CYEV.  I understand that Condor uses
CYRB which is 6400 Gravel.  With 3 hours ETOPS you can take a 767 anywhere
through the Arctic.

Jim Cameron
Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, Canada

Net-Tamer V 1.08.1 - Test Drive