World’s shortest commercial flight

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Not near this short, but quite a few years ago a Hawaii Airlines flight had an in-air fuselage failure in which a large chunk of the top of the fuselage came off. The plane managed to land with the only fatality being a flight attendant whose body was never found. It was determined that due to the short duration of most of their flights, (distances between islands are relatively small) the large number of landing and takeoff cycles proportionate to total flying time resulted in accelerated body metal fatigue, which is normally taken as being a function of hours in the air.

(EDIT) See West Point's corrections below. My statements were from what appears to be a rather incomplete memory. At one point I read the NTSB report, and high takeoff/landing frequency relative to total flight hours was mentioned. Recall seeing a picture. "Great big convertible" was exactly what it looked like. That the pilot was able to bring this thing into a landing was somewhere between astounding and miraculous. Consider what this change did to the aerodynamics of the plane, plus what was the damage to the tail when it was impacted, as it most certainly would have been by the fuselage pieces? It is amazing this did not simply crash.
 
Last edited:
George. Believe some corrections are in order.
1. The aircraft was a B-737-200 that UAL ordered that were in a consecutive group of 6(?).
2. Boeing used an experimental method of connecting the skin of aircraft to stringers in the group.
3. UAL retired the airplanes, and they were sold to different airlines.
4. The attaching method did not work and the skin just pealed back making a great big convertible.
5. There was a lost flight before the Hawiian incident on some other airline ( turned up missing ) that no cause was determined.
6. All aircraft in that serial number series were quickly retired. Even before final determination of Hawiian incident cause.
 
For decades I have thought that these island hoppers should be replaced with ferries, as the island-hopper planes are horribly inefficient and polluting. But most of the people prefer the island-hopper airplanes because of speed.

So now there's a new alternative coming along: small electric airplanes. They work very well for these tiny island-hopper routes. I look forward to them displacing the high-pollution fuel-burning planes. First airline to use them widely will probably be Harbour Air in Vancouver, BC, Canada; but I hope other routes like this one take note and follow suit.
 
IMO a ferry boat is going to burn much more fuel. A 1500 pond airplane compared to a 20 - 40 ton ferry boat pushing thru water? water is much more resistant than air. Do all these islands have a slip for occasional ferry supply trips?
 
Again, West Point, thank you for your corrections on the Hawaii Air instant convertible flight.

The fuel usage by both means can be calculated, but I am not going to try to find the numbers for these alternatives right now. However, I am inclined to suspect that the fuel usage for the ferry would be less, and probably much less. Given the short distance, don't see how time could be that much of a factor, either. As an approximation from someone I know in a business that moves petroleum products in bulk, their statement on general relative costs in a completely unrelated context was that movement on water was about 1/4 the cost of movement by rail, which would itself be less expensive than by road.

Most of your fuel in the air mode would be expended in takeoff acceleration and climbing, with the engines little more than idling on descent and landing. There would be no real cruise at a level at any altitude on this short of a flight. For the ferry, assuming a speed in the order of 10 knots or thereabouts, and it would likely be less, your acceleration effort would be very small. Outside channels, water has an essentially unlimited movement potential which significantly reduces resistance to movement.
 
IMO a ferry boat is going to burn much more fuel. A 1500 pond airplane compared to a 20 - 40 ton ferry boat pushing thru water? water is much more resistant than air. Do all these islands have a slip for occasional ferry supply trips?

Keeping an airplane up in the air takes a lot of energy.

However, apples to apples comparisons are usually better than comparing a light plane to a large ferry. A water taxi is much lighter than a passenger car ferry, and far more energy efficient in terms of fuel required per passenger. I'd even venture that this one would use less fuel loaded (about 12 passengers) than a Cessna 172 with four people traveling the same distance.

image4-e1574115374416.jpeg


Besides that, providing lift in the air is energy intensive. Flotation is just lift provided by water which takes no energy.
 
… I'd even venture that this one would use less fuel loaded (about 12 passengers) than a Cessna 172 with four people traveling the same distance.….
I don’t know much about boats, however this and a few other articles state 3mpg up to 8-10 mpg for various type or small vessels.
https://www.boatingvalley.com/average-boat-mileages-with-50-examples-of-different-boat-models/A 172 should get 15mpg+. (Say 8gph at 105 knots).
Now, if we use passenger mpg, the race is closer and the boat may be a winner!
 
I don’t know much about boats, however this and a few other articles state 3mpg up to 8-10 mpg for various type or small vessels.
https://www.boatingvalley.com/average-boat-mileages-with-50-examples-of-different-boat-models/A 172 should get 15mpg+. (Say 8gph at 105 knots).
Now, if we use passenger mpg, the race is closer and the boat may be a winner!

Not necessarily comparable. One issue is what can you do with that? A boat isn't going to necessarily scale up fuel usage based on maximum weight of passengers and cargo. A plane fully loaded is another matter.

The other issue (more relevant to this discussion) is the affect of takeoff as opposed to cruising when going short distances. Plus starting, taxiing, etc.

There are also moves to electric boats, which will be inherently more efficient just like electric land vehicles are. I know there are attempts to make electric passenger aircraft, but that runs into all sorts of issues, including pushing around all that weight and safety issues. You can deal with an electric-powered boat breaking down, but good luck with any aircraft. I'm thinking maybe with one of those small electric boats used for fly fishing, it would be far more efficient. This might be going a little too far though.

stik-boat-2.jpg
 
I once flew from IAD (Dulles) to BWI on United on a DC-8 in 1987. I was coming from Denver, and I'm not sure if they actually took on passengers at Dulles. It was about a 15 minute flight, but we had to fly out past Frederick in order to position ourselves properly for the approach to BWI.
 
Not the shortest flight, but I believe the shortest flight by an Airbus A380. I was on a flight from Paris to London--the last leg of a flight from Seattle where the original last leg got cancelled and replaced by the A380. It was early on in its certification, but the Johannesburg airport had not yet completed its special gate for unloading it, so the Paris-Jo'burg flights with the A380 weren't in service yet.

It took vastly longer to load and unload us than it did to travel the air distance. Unloading was further slowed because they gave each of us a certificate indicating we had flown on the A380, signed by the pilot! (I still have mine somewhere...)
 
I once flew from IAD (Dulles) to BWI on United on a DC-8 in 1987. I was coming from Denver, and I'm not sure if they actually took on passengers at Dulles. It was about a 15 minute flight, but we had to fly out past Frederick in order to position ourselves properly for the approach to BWI.

The SFO-OAK-DEN flight could be booked separately for any segment. It was actually an ideal flight for someone at the end of the calendar year who needed a few more miles (with a minimum of 500) or a segment at the end of the year to make a tier. A round trip was good for 1000 miles or two segments. Or if one only needed the 500 miles or a single segment, it was possible to just take public transportation back home.
 
Once flew from one of the San Francisco airports (SJC I think) to San Luis Obispo. It was a really short flight, with more time spent taxiing, ascending and descending than actual flying at altitude. There was no on-board service; the flight attendant never left her seat. The other carriers at SBP were using prop planes, but AA had a jet which used all of the runway on landing. It was an interesting experience.
 
Not the shortest flight, but I believe the shortest flight by an Airbus A380. I was on a flight from Paris to London--the last leg of a flight from Seattle where the original last leg got cancelled and replaced by the A380. It was early on in its certification, but the Johannesburg airport had not yet completed its special gate for unloading it, so the Paris-Jo'burg flights with the A380 weren't in service yet.

It took vastly longer to load and unload us than it did to travel the air distance. Unloading was further slowed because they gave each of us a certificate indicating we had flown on the A380, signed by the pilot! (I still have mine somewhere...)

There are all sorts of charters that fly short distances for repositioning. A lot of sports teams that played in Oakland would stay at hotels in San Francisco starting from SFO, but they'd go straight from the game to Oakland International Airport where the plane had to be repositioned. Another might be at Washington State University or University of Idaho where I've heard of repositioning between Lewiston Airport and Moscow-Pullman Airport.

I think Boeing does a lot of test flights between Renton Municipal (where all 737s are assembled) and King County Airport or Paine Field.
 
Once flew from one of the San Francisco airports (SJC I think) to San Luis Obispo. It was a really short flight, with more time spent taxiing, ascending and descending than actual flying at altitude. There was no on-board service; the flight attendant never left her seat. The other carriers at SBP were using prop planes, but AA had a jet which used all of the runway on landing. It was an interesting experience.

I was scheduled to fly SFO-SBA, which is pretty similar in distance. But there were a ton of short flights in the 70s and 80s - especially on Air California. Stuff like Oakland-San Jose.

tumblr_ornpi2ViwG1sgyt1jo1_500.jpg
 
I was scheduled to fly SFO-SBA, which is pretty similar in distance. But there were a ton of short flights in the 70s and 80s - especially on Air California. Stuff like Oakland-San Jose.

tumblr_ornpi2ViwG1sgyt1jo1_500.jpg
Good map! The one I find most amusing is ONT-PSP. That's what - an hour drive? We used to visit Palm Springs regularly and often flew into Ontario, The saving over PSP was usually substantial.
 
Good map! The one I find most amusing is ONT-PSP. That's what - an hour drive? We used to visit Palm Springs regularly and often flew into Ontario, The saving over PSP was usually substantial.

I was looking over that map, and it's obviously not to scale since SFO-OAK seems longer than OAK-SJC. But I remember that the latter was less than $10 back when prices were regulated.
 
I wonder why they don't use some kind of turboprop instead of a 737?

I don't know much about boats, except that for a few specialized types they are in an entirely different class from airplanes.
 
Back
Top