Jackson Hole

Are the airliners that go in and out of there actually full or nearly? The same with Eagle,Co. Skiing is overrated yet trendy I would say. Talking about it is more fun than doing it…

I remember UAL flying a B752 occasionally into there. I don’t know if they still do, after having an 8-year TFR around the area…


8 year TFR around Jackson Hole? I never noticed that when I was there nor do I see they have one today.

Probably only applied when VP Cheney was visiting his home there. My brother-in-law is a Park Ranger there and often pulled security duty. Would not have been wise to defy that TFR as there were “air defense” units setup near the airport. :open_mouth:

Alot of people (like me) just do it and don’t talk about it (still talking about skiing here). :stuck_out_tongue: I know a lot of people who live east of Colorado and they fly to Jackson and Colorado to ski.

Exactly. The TFR was in place when Cheney was VP. Hence, the 8 years. :slight_smile:


United flies a 757 daily in the winter and part of the summer from Chicago. On peak days (sunday & monday out of JAC, thursday, friday and saturday into JAC), it is full. Off peak days and routings are typically very open.

United has to use the 757 on this route because with JAC’s altitute and runway length, an A320 could not takeoff with enough fuel to get to ORD.

During the same season UA uses A319’s on DEN-JAC which are typically fairly full.

Really? that is interesting to know. I would think that an A319 or A320 would be better suited for that than the B752 they’re using, just because of the runway length alone. Could the capacity of the flight also play a factor?

Also, are there any A319s/A320s flying out of KCOS? Without looking at any closer airports, this was the closest I could think of that is similar in altitude (granted, it is 300ft lower). If so, wouldn’t they have the same problem in getting to ORD, if they had the same runway length?


The 757 is better suited for use in and out of high altitude airports. It has lots of power for hot and high altitude environments, especially RR RB211 powered airplanes. With all of that power and its wing design the 757 has stellar field performance carrying a lot of payload. It’s why it’s about the only airliner you’ll see going any distance out of places like Mexico City, Toluca, Tegucigalpa, and the like… An A320/321 can’t even come close to the field performance and payload capability of the 757.


5/1/1995 A China Southwest Boeing 757 has inaugurated regular service to the world’s highest-altitude commercial airport at Bangda, Tibet, from Chengdu, Sichuan, in the People’s Republic of China, the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group announced.

This makes me wonder why Druk Air chose to operate the A319 out of VQPR instead of something like a B757. Slightly longer runway, but almost 1000ft higher than JAC. There must be something I’m missing here…


What’s the longest non-stop flight for the A-319 out of Paro?


Toss-up. 2:15 to New Dehli, and 4:00 to Bangkok. Those are from their website and don’t mention anything about timezones. But distance wise, they appear to be the farthest out.


A few things I would say…

It’s not an apples to apples comparison. Druk Air has a whole two airplanes. They have all of eight destinations, that are within a 1200 hundred mile region, and Paro is a VFR only airport. So if they can’t see their way out of the Paro valley…they don’t fly.

True. But it wasn’t the location of the airport that has me confused; it was the performance of the aircraft related to the surface altitude of the airport, and comparing why UAL would use a B757 instead of an A319/A320 out of JAC, with Druk Air using an A319 out of VQPR, with comparable runway length and altitude. The only thing I could think of is number of passengers and performance on the rate of climb out from the surface altitude of the field…


The biggest thing is that they only fly VFR out of Paro, so climb performance isn’t as much of an issue. They fly out through the valley rather than having to worry about climbing above the terrain in IMC in the event of an engine failure. Something that the 757 is much more adept to. As a side note, the 737-700 also met Druk Air’s requirements