A 6500 ft runway is more than adequate for a 737-200 and in fact in pre-deregulation days they operated regularly on 6000 ft runways in Canada, and even the odd one under 6000 (they also operate, with the gravel kit, from gravel runways in the Arctic regions). And, around the world, 737 ops on short runways are fairly common: Rio Santos Dumont, for example, has under 5000 ft runways being used by 737s; Mokp'o in South Korea sees 737-500 service on a runway well under 6000 ft. Of course a fully loaded 737-200 with the ER option (range about 2300 miles) is another matter, that can eat up runway. But on 1 hour sectors like this one, (and on top of that a sports charter with less than half the seats filled), the aircraft will be well under MGTOW and with the balls to the wall will perform like a scared cat. Mike Gammon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Douglas Kroll" <DStorm13@aol.com> To: <AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 4:53 PM Subject: Toronto Maple Leafs flight > hey all, > for anyone who knows hockey, the maple leafs are in the playoffs playing the > new york islanders and right now they are in the air going to Farmingdale > (FRG) on an Air canada B737-200..now what i cant figure out is how this is > good for air canada...FRG does not get any commercial service, let alone air > canada..i was just wondering why they wouldnt fly to LGA or ISP or even JFK > for that matter where they at least get some service...not to mention FRG's > longest runway is about 6500 feet...i bet those people will be surprised to > see a nice big jet coming in when they are used to very light traffic... > > doug >