Canadian North 737-200C C-GOPW unloads in Inuvik

A couple of months ago I wrote about why the northern carriers continue operating their fleet of aging 737-200 aircraft.  With the price of oil above $100 per barrel and jet fuel prices continuing to rise (the local price for Jet-A in Inuvik is over $5 per gallon!) I thought it might be interesting to take a look at what the replacement options were that I had mentioned.  I dismissed all of them at the time and concluded that the "737 Jurassics" would keep flying as long as the carriers kept making money at it.  Now I'm wondering if that profitability might be coming to an end sooner rather than later due to what has to be extremely high operating costs.

To recap my previous post, the main issue keeping the 737-200s in the sky is the lack of another equivalent combi aircraft that can effectively combine freight and passengers on the long, thin northern routes.  Even before the crash of ValuJet Flight 592 in 1996 and several other lower profile in-flight cargo fire incidents, the FAA and Transport Canada were already tightening the rules for aircraft cargo area fire protection.  Currently these include (depending on the exact classification of the cargo area and type of aircraft) various combinations of smoke and fire detection systems, extinguishing agents, smoke barriers and fire resistant coverings.  A new build combi aircraft that met the new type approval requirements would be a challenging project.

So here is my list of what I saw as the possible options.  It should be noted that most of them would just be a very expensive way to get around a well-intentioned set of regulations although, quite frankly, so is flying 737-200 aircraft in the 21st century.

1) Upgrade the Existing Fleet

There are a number of things that can be done to the existing 737-200s to reduce their operating costs.  Quiet Wing Corp. in the USA offers an approved upgrade package for the 737-200 that consists of winglets and modifications to the flaps.  They promise fuel savings in the 3-5% range and increased performance as well.  Another way to take advantage of this mod would be to trade off the performance advantage by installing the slightly less powerful (and more fuel efficient) JT8D-15 engine in place of the thirstier JT8D-17 powerplants.  If you really wanted to get silly you could probably fit a pair of CFM56 engines from the 737 Classic series.  There would be enough existing common parts from the newer 737s and certainly retrofitting CFM56s in place of aging Pratt & Whitneys has been done before with both the KC-135 and the DC-8.  However, in addition to the huge price tag for that, you would end up with a real oddball aircraft that would be very difficult to support in such a small fleet.  Even just the winglet/flap/JT8D-15 upgrade would still be hard to justify.  You'd have more fuel efficiency but you're still looking at an old aircraft and big dollars at C and D check time.  It might be worth it on a really good (late build/low time) airframe though, and some of the ones up here are.

2) Go to Dedicated Freighters

Because of the ability to maximize payload, freighter aircraft can always fly more efficiently than passenger flights.  Smaller, more efficient passenger jets (or turboprops!) could handle the passenger service and leave the freight to others.  But even that seemingly simple solution has some big problems.  The first are passenger issues.  Given a choice I'm sure most people would prefer travelling in a spacious 737 instead of a cramped regional jet.  A turboprop solution would be a non-starter on a competitive route.  Then there is the issue of baggage.  As Air Canada Jazz found out flying RJs between Edmonton and Yellowknife (and to a lesser extent so did Canadian North with its Fokker 100) Northerners are not known for travelling light.  It is not uncommon to be in the check-in line for a north-bound flight and see every single passenger check in the maximum allowed baggage weight and many with even more than the max (and happy to pay the excess charges).  No problem with a 737 but trying to get 50 people, 3500lbs of baggage and fuel to make the trip into an RJ just doesn't work.  So then you have to find a more suitable aircraft and that isn't easy.  Generally, you end up right back with a 737 again, flying half empty most of the time (if its not a combi).  Still, I think this one is the 'default' solution.  Without the airlines getting creative, this will eventually happen out of necessity.

3) Build a Combi That Meets the Requirements

There are two ways to approach this one.  The easiest is with a permanent, fixed bulkhead between the passengers and the cargo.  Its has also been done before.  Alaska Airlines replaced their 200-series combis with a modified fixed bulkhead 737-400 and a cargo area that met all the requirements.  First Air also used a similar solution to replace their HS-748 combis with newer ATR-42 aircraft.  The drawback to this is you lose the flexibility of the moveable bulkhead to adjust for variations in the passenger load.  It makes weight and balance a bit trickier but it is a fairly low risk solution.

Alternately, one could come up with a way to make a moveable bulkhead.  Notionally, you could start with a Classic or Next Generation 737 QC (quick change) aircraft.  These planes have a main deck cargo door and the seats mounted to pallets on a roller deck which makes it easy to pull out the seats and roll cargo in.  Now if you took off one row of seats on a pallet you could use the space to mount a fold-down bulkhead wall and any necessary fire extiguishing agents and cargo protection electronics.  Maybe a mechanical or inflateable smoke seal that mated to one of four preset pallet positions and some kind of zip in liners for the cabin walls?  A 737-500QC with this setup would be an almost exact replacement for the existing 200-series combis.  I'm sure this one has been looked at by Boeing and dismissed because of the tiny market and potential liability issues.  But if someone wanted to cover the development and certification costs I'm sure it would be technically possible.

4) Get an Exemption to the Rules

This is the simplest idea of all.  Certainly if one considers the risks it would obviously be safer to fly a new Next Generation combi than an aging aircraft built when people danced to disco music and wore bell bottom jeans.  Given the special needs of maintaining transportation links to the far North the regulators might go for it.  I guess if you were serious about it it wouldn't hurt to ask.  You might have to give a little something though like having a dedicated load master sitting with the cargo in flight on 'fire watch' (more on this in a minute).

5) Go to a 757

This idea is really crazy but without a doubt its my personal favorite.  At first glance it might seem odd to suggest replacing a small 115-seat 737-200 with a much larger 234-seat aircraft when your biggest problem is serving long, thin routes with average loads in the 50 passenger range.  But if you look closely there's more to it than meets the eye and I've even heard that First Air seriously considered it a few years ago to replace their 727s.  For starters, even though it is a much bigger aircraft, the 757 burns LESS fuel per flight hour than a 737-200.  That's right, those big, high-bypass turbofans (the P&W or the Rolls-Royce versions) are just that much more efficient than the smokey old JT8Ds.  Add to that the fact that its a newer aircraft (they only went out of production in 2005) and your overall operating costs will be lower.  But wait, there's more.  When designing the 757, the potential launch customers had some special requirements.  One wanted an aircraft with enough power to operate at max weight out of the hot and high conditions at their hub in Denver.  Another wanted something that could get in and out of the short runways of their hub at La Guardia Airport in New York City.  So Boeing stirred in enough magic that the 757 is certified to operate from the 6000ft. runways that are common in the North.  It would also have long enough 'legs' to do whatever charter work might be required of it (non-stop Ft.McMurray to Halifax?).  Now, granted, there would be a requirement to purchase some new ground handling equipment (mostly airstairs) for all the Northern destinations.  Another plus is that the 757 is based on first generation electronic flight controls that have been well tested over the years.  This means you wouldn't have the issues with extreme cold weather and 'state-of-the-art' electronics that seem to be common in Canada. 

OK, so its cheaper to fly and can get in and out of all the required destinations.  How does that replace a combi?  Well, a plane designed for 200+ passengers has a pair of cavernous baggage holds.  Easily enough space for 100 pax worth of luggage AND the equivalent of two or three main deck pallets of a combi.  If you wanted to get really creative, you could custom build mini-ULD containers of about 70 cubic feet that would fit in the 757 cargo holds.  5 of those would equal an existing main deck ULD container and you could carry at least 10 of these below deck and still have room for a large load of baggage and loose freight.  And it gets better yet!  In the 1980s Boeing offered and certified an actual 757 combi (the 757M).  There were some restrictions, however.  For some reason they only had two main deck pallet positions.  Furthermore, a caveat in the FAA Type Approval requires a person on-board, with no other duties, maintaining a continuous fire watch over the main deck cargo.  Most airlines must have thought that kind of sucked and only a single 757M was ever built (still in service with Nepal Airlines).  However, it would still be possible and legal to convert a 757-200 to a 757M.  Most of the parts are compatible with the 737 (same fuselage diameter) and there are currently lots of 757-200s being converted to full freighters.  If that was done, in addition to the lower deck cargo you would also have the option to carry a pair of main deck pallets for those peak freight loads in the spring and early winter when the highway river crossings are unavailable.  You'd have to grab some flunky from the cargo shed to babysit the freight on the way but it wouldn't be a regular occurrence.

So we've got the freight capacity that we need, now what do we do with all those seats?  If I was running the airline, I'd replace the existing layout with a 90-seat all 'business class' configuration and just keep charging the regular, everyday high fare.  That number of seats would be adequate to meet the usual loads and given a choice between an economy class seat in a noisy old 737 and a no-extra-charge business class seat in a quiet, modern 757 I know which one I'd pick.  Any airline that did that would quickly dominate the passenger market and likely push any competition off those routes entirely.  Who wants to go first?