What do we need to use the bottom screen for? The info we need is on the screens in front of us already. The airline already made CAT II and CAT IIIA's easy for us by having autoland with a coupled approach. What else do we need? We don't need HUD's could be the reason we don't have them, you think? As for the JS, they didn't put two in a lot of them due to the cost from BOEING for plumbing O2 connections for the other seat. Seems to me that since CAL is a one company buyer (Boeing), that they'd throw us a bone every now and then, but like PBS, they sometimes just don't get it. :(

Could they get down to III B or C with a HUD? I don't know if the 737 can do it at all. How low does Alaska get? Anyway lots of other airlines have the two jumpseats. The same airlines have the HUDs. I was just connecting the dots...

At DAL we can use the HGS to fly a CAT III on one engine...which is not possible with the fail-passive dual channel autoland. It also allows a 300rvr takeoff.

Back in 2000 when DAL had a ton of cash, the plan was to have dual HUDs on everything and use them as your PFD, freeing up the other LCDs for future use as electronic flight bags, situational displays, etc. We were even going to put them on the Mad Dogs.

But things have changed.

Also they don't make a round-dial version of a HUD which is why CAL probably doesn't have them. :)

And just how many single engine CAT III approaches has one done in a career??? :p In thirty one years I've never even lost an engine (helos AND airplanes no less). In 10 years with CAL I've done (just guessing) probably 3 or 4 ACTUAL , honest to GOD CAT II approaches. Seems like having and keeping another 450 HUD systems would be a real waste of money....JMHO. The airplanes seem to do well without them and I think if I'm down to one engine and the WX is that bad, I sure as heck don't want to do a CAT III approach. I like the OLD round dial airplanes, they're easier to land (and most have two jumpseats)..................:D

That's because they need more pilots in the cockpit to fly the IIIB/C's....;)

We go down to 600/600 with autoland or the HUD.

That is a great career. I've had numerous engine malfunc's and 2 complete failures on Boeings.
The point of the endorsement for HUD's or HGS is that they are Virtually manitenance free.
West US cities SFO, SEA, PDX and more routinely have Cat 3 wx. and on different airplanes Maint can spend 20 minutes or more on FGC confidence checks each day. That's 20 minutes those mechanics can spend doing real maint on other aircraft. That is probably why Management belives the Huds/HGS pay for themselves in two years time.
I've only seen a HUD inop on two occasions. I've seen countless a/c downgraded to Cat 1 on a weekly basis.

Yes, I certainly can't complain about my "non eventful" career, that's for sure. As far as downgrading planes, usually it's due to a thrust reverser inop or some other mechanical problem. I don't think having a working HUD would keep the airplane in a higher landing status with an inop component, would it? I don't know, but as few approaches as we fly to the really low mins, I don't know if the system would be feasible. I'm sure they're fun to fly with though.

Also to be honest, on sim checks when they do the 500 RVR t/o with engine failure, then the sim instructor freezes the sim shortly after t/o to show how much off centerline you are and that your left wing may have just gone through a 747's tail that was taxiing on a parallel taxiway.
In real life there would be no aircraft there, or would there?
That is the beauty of the HUD the centerline tracking on T/O.
Is it worth a half million installed?
Some managemnts think so.

Even the Navy NGs (C40) have HUDs.

No you can't go down to CAT IIIC levels because there's no rollout capability (manual rudder only) on the 737. I'm surprised that Alaska even lets you go down to 600RVR and no DH whatsoever? Sounds kind of dangerous without rollout.

Even if you've got a good autoland the HUD is still useful during low vis takeoffs.

There are no "daily autoland checks" - monthly I believe is the most stringent.