Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:28:39 on Fri, 20 Jan
2017, d remarked:

I'm surprised a 737 can fly for 7 hours without refueling. What ****ty budget
airline was dishing them up for long haul? Let us know so we can avoid it.

It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.

Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins.

Perhaps the range has haht factored in, otherwise it's pretty
meaningless.

No, they always quote the range like that. Furthermore, it's usually the
max fuel, rather than max payload, range that's quoted. It's a bit like the
usually hopelessly optimistic ranges quoted for EVs or fuel
consumption/pollution for IC-engined cars.

So the real-world range for aircraft has to take into account the payload,
headwinds, ETOPS, diversion airports, runway length, elevation and
temperature of the departure airport, etc, and will always be much less
than the nominal range. Occasionally a new aircraft delivery or test flight
sets a new record distance when they've optimised everything for range, but
normal flights can't do that.

For example:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2005-11-...d-for-Distance

One extreme example of real-world flight ranges being restricted is Easter
Island's Mataveri airport. There are no useful diversion airports on
flights from Santiago, so Santiago remains the diversion airport for the
whole flight to Rapa Nui. If the single runway at Mataveri becomes unusable
for any reason, the flight has to return to origin. As a result, only one
aircraft at a time can be en-route to the island, and LAN uses long-haul
aircraft on the route, even though a narrow-body could fly it in more
normal circumstances.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...57632333665535