Trans-Atlantic B757 Flights

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 31 Jul 2007, 14:02

Several airlines are introducing 757's on Trans-Atlantic routes. Icelandic has used them for years (with stops in Iceland), but non-stop trips on them are certainly less comfortable.

See story: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?Cont ... acb4e3a1de

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 31 Jul 2007, 14:43

Airlines are bastards, period.

AirDupont · Post by **AirDupont** » 31 Jul 2007, 15:16

earthman:

US Airways uses a 757 to BRU and so will NW, why do you say they are bastards? If an airline offers the same leg space on their 757's as on their 767's, then what's the problem?

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 31 Jul 2007, 15:45

I was just giving a totally subjective response to the linked article.

About 9 years ago I flew AMS-PHL-SFO and back with US Airways, the domestic part was a 757 (5 hours), the transatlantic part was a 767 (6 hours, though we arrived over an hour early in PHL). However, that was too long ago to really recall any difference in comfort (and I was not that interested in planes then anyway, and I had other things on my mind), other than the 757 appearing smaller and quite messy, with blankets and pillows were strewn all over the plane, but on the outbound leg the plane was nearly empty and I had the whole row to myself, so I just lay down across it.

carlcat · Post by **carlcat** » 31 Jul 2007, 15:58

We talk here about the 757 transatlantic .
Does there exist a transatlantic A321 ?
Almost same size as the B757 .

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 31 Jul 2007, 17:08

AirDupont wrote:earthman:

US Airways uses a 757 to BRU and so will NW, why do you say they are bastards? If an airline offers the same leg space on their 757's as on their 767's, then what's the problem?

If the airline gives the same leg and hip room, then you are just as comfortable when you are sitting. but if you get up to use the rear lavitory or just want to stretch your legs, then you are confined.

The actual flight is OK, but the confort zone is greatly reduced.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 31 Jul 2007, 17:15

carlcat wrote:We talk here about the 757 transatlantic .
Does there exist a transatlantic A321 ?
Almost same size as the B757 .

Airbus lists these charactieristics for the A321:
Passengers: 150; Range 2,600mi/4800km

Boeing lists these characteristics for the B757:
Passengers: 200; Range 3,900mi/7,222km

Also, US Air has reported that the A321 is a short on range for US transcontinental trips.

ryanCX · Post by **ryanCX** » 31 Jul 2007, 17:16

Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too, can you?
Airlines are mostly using the B757s on transatlantic routes where demand is too low to operate widebodies. If they were forced to operate larger aircrafts on routes like PHL-GLA and ERW-BFS, there wouldn't be any service at all.
There is always the choice of flying via a hub if you prefer widebodies. But if you want to fly to relatively obscure places directly in the comforts mentioned in the article, only thing you can do is hope there is a low-capacity plane that also offers those things.

chunk · Post by **chunk** » 31 Jul 2007, 17:25

ryanCX wrote:Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too, can you?
Airlines are mostly using the B757s on transatlantic routes where demand is too low to operate widebodies. If they were forced to operate larger aircrafts on routes like PHL-GLA and ERW-BFS, there wouldn't be any service at all.
There is always the choice of flying via a hub if you prefer widebodies. But if you want to fly to relatively obscure places directly in the comforts mentioned in the article, only thing you can do is hope there is a low-capacity plane that also offers those things.

Agreed there may be less service to the likes of Belfast and Glasgow but realistically are CO and US not using these aircraft due to a shortage in their fleets of B767 size aircraft? Glasgow had a 762 for long enough on CO as did US I believe. One impact there was CO introducing flights to EDI as well. Leaving from ABZ I could get a flight to AMS and connect or drive to EDI or GLA for 2.5 hours to go direct - I know which I would do, the 757 on that long a flight sounds horrific!

AirDupont · Post by **AirDupont** » 31 Jul 2007, 18:06

I just checked seatguru to check out the cabin configuration of their 757's and I wouldn't mind at all travelling on them. 3 lavs seem to be more then enough. Also the lavs are not all the way in the back but near doors 3. Good way using 757's to serve not too crowded destinations.

Not to forget that a Boeing 757 is one of the best and in my opinion also one of the most beautiful aircrafts ever made.

cageyjames · Post by **cageyjames** » 01 Aug 2007, 02:00

smokejumper wrote:Also, US Air has reported that the A321 is a short on range for US transcontinental trips.

We ordered the A321-200 which is "supposed" to have better range (transcon). Still I don't think it will be going to europe.

ryanCX wrote:Airlines are mostly using the B757s on transatlantic routes where demand is too low to operate widebodies.

Very true, but I know we'd fly 762ERs more often if we had them just for the freight that they can carry. The 752 gives airlines another option though, just like the 787 is supposed to open new airports.

chunk wrote:I know which I would do, the 757 on that long a flight sounds horrific!

Widebody or narrowbody, the aircraft doesn't really matter. Its what you do with the inside that makes it comfortable. I'm not saying our product is comfortable by any means though.

Many destinations in Europe are served by the 757 on US because of a lack of widebody aircraft, but don't assume that is the only reason. There are many factors beyond that.

fokker_f27 · Post by **fokker_f27** » 01 Aug 2007, 11:16

I really don't think it'll make much difference. The seat width and legroom is nearly the same on CO and US (at least in coach) and video is available on both the 757 and 767. And not to forget: some US domestic flights are as long or longer as some transatlantic flights.

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 01 Aug 2007, 11:34

It's just a lot harder to find some place to walk around and stretch your legs on a 757 than on a widebody.

CX · Post by CX » 01 Aug 2007, 13:58

Is a narrowbody that bad? Was on a KA A320 a while back and it was pretty good.. imo apart from the interior not looking as fancy as bigger planes, and apart from when 'looking around' there isn't as much space, it wasn't horrible, or not anymore horrible than widebodies..

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 01 Aug 2007, 14:55

CX wrote:Is a narrowbody that bad? Was on a KA A320 a while back and it was pretty good.. imo apart from the interior not looking as fancy as bigger planes, and apart from when 'looking around' there isn't as much space, it wasn't horrible, or not anymore horrible than widebodies..

If you're stuck in a plane for 8 hours, you do want to be able to get up and walk around a bit.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 01 Aug 2007, 15:04

cageyjames wrote:
smokejumper wrote:Also, US Air has reported that the A321 is a short on range for US transcontinental trips.
We ordered the A321-200 which is "supposed" to have better range (transcon). Still I don't think it will be going to europe.

ryanCX wrote:Airlines are mostly using the B757s on transatlantic routes where demand is too low to operate widebodies.
Very true, but I know we'd fly 762ERs more often if we had them just for the freight that they can carry. The 752 gives airlines another option though, just like the 787 is supposed to open new airports.

chunk wrote:I know which I would do, the 757 on that long a flight sounds horrific!
Widebody or narrowbody, the aircraft doesn't really matter. Its what you do with the inside that makes it comfortable. I'm not saying our product is comfortable by any means though.

Many destinations in Europe are served by the 757 on US because of a lack of widebody aircraft, but don't assume that is the only reason. There are many factors beyond that.

The 757 is an extremely capable, flexible and fuel efficient plane. It does indeed offer airlines a great option in serving new or smaller routes and, I'm sure that many airlines wish it were still available from Boeing.

Although an airline can adjust the seat pitch and give passengers more legroom, the single aisles (in my opinion) do present issues. With a twin aisle, a passenger can walk around easier and go to the lavatory, even if one aisle is blocked by serving carts.

I believe that the 787-3 will ultimately be a worthy successor to the 757. Let's look at some specs (from the Boeing web page):

757-200: Passengers: 200-228; Range: 3,900 nm. (7,222 km.)
757-300: Passengers: 243-280; Range: 3,395 nm. (6,287 km.)
787-3: Passengers 290-330; Range: 2,500-3,050 nm. (4,650- 5,650 km.)

The 787-3 offers about 20% greater seating while loosing about 10% range - not a bad tradeoff. This results in US and European trans-continental range with high passenger counts. I am surprised that more airlines have not ordered it; perhaps the US airlines will order it - once they get off their duff and buy new equipment!

Gliderpilot · Post by **Gliderpilot** » 01 Aug 2007, 15:28

787-3 is just nog good enough for US trans-continental. The range with max payload is somewhere around 2000nm, just good enough for high demand routes in Asia (specifically Japan).

We will probably never see it in Europe (because Boeing has withdrawn certification for Europe). LH was the only who maybe could order it, to replace A300. They probable seem no longer interest, as boeing has withdrawn certification.
Maybe one or two legacy airlines will order it in the US, but not in large numbers as the 757.

For any other region the North East Asia (and maybe India), I see no market for the 787-3. They could better order the 787-8/9 and misuse it for popular short-haul routes, or just use the big NB's (739ER and A321).

edit: Keep in mind that airports in Japan are heavily slot-restricted, so NB's are not an option.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 01 Aug 2007, 17:43

Gliderpilot wrote:787-3 is just nog good enough for US trans-continental. The range with max payload is somewhere around 2000nm, just good enough for high demand routes in Asia (specifically Japan).

We will probably never see it in Europe (because Boeing has withdrawn certification for Europe). LH was the only who maybe could order it, to replace A300. They probable seem no longer interest, as boeing has withdrawn certification.
Maybe one or two legacy airlines will order it in the US, but not in large numbers as the 757.

For any other region the North East Asia (and maybe India), I see no market for the 787-3. They could better order the 787-8/9 and misuse it for popular short-haul routes, or just use the big NB's (739ER and A321).

edit: Keep in mind that airports in Japan are heavily slot-restricted, so NB's are not an option.

Boeing lists the 787-3 range as 2,500-3,050 nm., not 2,000 nm. I assume that these range projections include a respectable payload. This range is sufficient for high density US transcontinental routes, including:

Miami - Seattle: 2,724 nm.
Boston - San Diego: 2,588 nm.
New York - Los Angeles: 2,475 nm.
Atlanta - San Francisco: 2,139 nm.

A June 4, 2007 Seattle Post newspaper article says that the European certification was dropped due to increased (certification) fees that the European authroities are imposing. Since the 787 production slots are sold out for years to come there is no rush to certify the 787-3 for European service; I do think that it could play a role inn the future. For the Seattle Post article, see: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... ing04.html

cageyjames · Post by **cageyjames** » 01 Aug 2007, 18:51

earthman wrote:It's just a lot harder to find some place to walk around and stretch your legs on a 757 than on a widebody.

If you're stuck in a plane for 8 hours, you do want to be able to get up and walk around a bit.

I suppose, but these transatlantic flights are about as long as transcon so it really isn't an issue IMO.

As for the 783 being a 757 replacement, I'm not so sure about that. I mean its almost 100 seats larger than the 752 which was the definitive 757.

David747 · Post by **David747** » 01 Aug 2007, 23:03

The 757 is a capable aircraft for the routes mentioned in the article, but it will be a tight squeeze indeed. Now, the other day I observed a Continental 757 with winlets. Does anyone know when continental added winlets to several of the 757's. It seems that with the added winlets, the plane gets better range and fuel efficiency. Maybe Boeing shut down the 757 production a little quick.