chrisnh From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3819 posts, RR: 2 Posted (8 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2733 times:
I've seen that United Flight 121...a 757 from Barcelona to Newark...has had to tech-stop several times within the past week. Four times to Bangor, Maine and once to Gander. Headwinds aloft, obviously. But why can't UA schedule an aircraft that can actually make the route in spite of those headwinds? I'm not saying a 747 or a 777...but surely a 763 could do it, which isn't a WHOLE lot bigger than the 757 that is struggling.
SonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1178 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (8 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2669 times:
Once demand justifies it, you'll see a two class 763 on the route. Right now they are in the midst of converting 14 767's to two class international birds. I'd hope we'd see some of them on the more lucrative (and longer) EWR to Europe routes.
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6195 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (8 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2655 times:
Yeah this has been an issue with CO and UA's TATL 757 flying for years. The diversions on CDG-IAD brought back the 763 for this upcoming winter. CDG/AMS-IAD had insane diversion rates during the winter last year.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3755 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (8 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2640 times:
Well, after the HUGE brawl we had on here on a.net last winter about the CO TATL 757s having to make fuel stops on the westbound leg, what I've learned is:
1) Don't complain about it - would you rather they don't run a flight at all?
2) However many times it's had to stop for fuel really isn't that many times.
3) The passengers don't really mind.
There, I think that pretty much sums up the majority conventional "wisdom" here on this topic.
* For the record, I find it totally unacceptable to be flying these 757s at the far edge of their range capabilities and advertising it as a non-stop flight.
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6195 posts, RR: 9 Reply 4, posted (8 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 2574 times:
Quoting N62NA (Reply 3):
There, I think that pretty much sums up the majority conventional "wisdom" here on this topic.
Pretty much. Although when you factor in the actual routes and not the overall rates, it was quite high on some longer flights. Again, particularly CDG/AMS-IAD
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3755 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (8 months 1 week ago) and read 2302 times:
Quoting as739x (Reply 6): And yet every year, as the headwinds start, it becomes a common thread.
Yeah - if only UA would put the appropriate aircraft in terms of range capability on these "problematic" routes. Then we wouldn't have to discuss this.
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5106 posts, RR: 14 Reply 8, posted (8 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2144 times:
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 1): Once demand justifies it, you'll see a two class 763 on the route. Right now they are in the midst of converting 14 767's to two class international birds. I'd hope we'd see some of them on the more lucrative (and longer) EWR to Europe routes.
I never could see why the 757 was used on these routes at all. It can't be reliable at all because of this. I know it's a demand issue, but for the time being, they should just place that 75 on a route that it can actually fly on until demand picks back up.
It makes sense on EWR-UK routes but to places like FRA, ARN, BCN, MAD, I'll never understand either. Especially when in the past CO has filled up DC10s on these routes. It's due to a lack of fleet planning. However, if they were at all serious about this, they'd keep around the 762s to fill these routes.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4290 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (8 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1897 times:
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 9): However, if they were at all serious about this, they'd keep around the 762s to fill these routes.
You mean if they were at all serious about losing money? Flying a premium-heavy aircraft with no more seats than an economy-heavy aircraft with trip costs 40% lower is not a way to financial success.
If the 752 becomes untenable, they'll either go to a 2-class 763 (if it would actually be profitable) or drop the route.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8787 posts, RR: 52 Reply 11, posted (8 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1612 times:
It's cheaper and more profitable to operate the smaller 757 with the occasional fuel stop than to use the heavier 767-200. It is inconvenient, and it would be nice for passengers to be told ahead of time, but this is the way UA has decided to do it. It's not that different from India not equipping its airports with CAT III ILS capability and the extreme number of fog diversions there yet airlines refuse to retime flights to land during the daylight hours. Passengers get screwed because they thought they were flying nonstop even though the airline knew they sometimes would not.
UA knows the price of these fuel stops with missed connections, increased travel time, etc. It's still more economical to operate them with a fuel stop than use a bigger plane which they can't fill. The 757 isn't perfect for many of the transatlantic routes, but airlines will always push an airplane to its max in specific cases.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3819 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5106 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
