NYC Int'l From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (14 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 665 times:
TWA operates a 757 between JFK and Lisbon and I was just thinking would'nt it be more economical for them to operate more 757s to europe instead of half empty 767s? I don't mean to offend any one in St. Louis but how many people are actually traveling between STL & London-LGW?
Navion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 981 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (14 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 662 times:
I think the issue is St. Louis is a hub to which traffic gathers as opposed to passengers originating in St. Louis to go to Europe.
Something I found interesting which I read about 2 or 3 years ago was a statistic which said a PW powered 757 could carry more load than a RR powered 757. The RR engine is certainly the most popular engine on the 757 so it must have great qualities, most importantly it's reliability. But the PW engine may weigh less (I actually don't know but am speculating on a reason for the more payload across the Atlantic claim I read). Does anyone have an answer?
AA777 From United States of America, joined exactly 14 years ago today! , 2465 posts, RR: 31 Reply 2, posted (14 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 662 times:
What about peak seasons? soon those " Half-Empty "
767 will be full. So, it wont be long before the 767's will be in use.
JZ From United States of America, joined May 1999, 252 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (14 years 2 months 4 weeks ago) and read 662 times:
Do you know it for a fact that the 767 are half empty? They used to fly L-1011 and 747 between STL and LGW. I can't imagine how many people would be on board on those planes. If they had half empty 747 or L1011, then they should have 70% load factor on the 767, right?
TP343 From Brazil, joined May 1999, 312 posts, RR: 5 Reply 6, posted (14 years 2 months 4 weeks ago) and read 662 times:
I saw recently a TW752 in Lisbon and I just wondered how felt the passengers flying a narrow-body over the Atlantic!
I don't want to be offensive, but I would never choose flying it if I could fly a wide-body!!! I'd prefer flying TAP A310-300.
fly777ual From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4510 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 662 times:
I agree with TP343. The 757 is a great airplane, but if you had to fly in economy for those eight hours, I think that it would be awful. The 757 seat is only 17" wide. ugg.
Gordon From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 662 times:
TWA has no choice but to fly the 767 STL-LGW. The 757 does not have the legs to make it that far non-stop.
BryanG From United States of America, joined May 1999, 418 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 662 times:
I don't have the specs for the engine question, but the Rolls-Royce Web site has a lot of data about their engine line. They give weigh data for some of them. I heard that about 75% of the 757 sales are R-R powered, I think because they're more fuel efficient than the older PW fans. The current RB211 model that is being used now is newer than the 757 itself. On some of old pictures of 757s, you'll see a R-R engine that looks a just like the RB211 on the L-1011 or the 742. I think that just about all the airlines that ordered the early R-R fans (mostly BA) have replaced them with the newer R-R fans.
Also, most airlines do not operate the 757 across the Atlantic unless they have to (except Icelandic). For example, Continental operates 757s to Europe now, but they announced that the 757 flights will be replaced by DC-10 flights as soon as they get enough 777s to cover a few more routes that are currently flown by the DC-10s. The trans-Atlantic range is just a handy little feature of the 757 that allows airlines to expand their overseas markets even without having to worry if they have enough widebodies to cover all the routes.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 10, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 663 times:
I know I am in the minority by saying this but I really do prefer flying narrow-bodies to widebodies. The seat with dosen't really bother me as much as when they don't put enough pitch in the seats.
Rule of thumb on RR engines. They weigh more and burn a little more gas but they don't have to be taken apart as often so the maintaince is less. RR sacrified a little of the first to charicteristics to make their engines more reliable
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 1999, 981 posts, 
, 2465 posts, 
From Brazil, joined May 1999, 312 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2010, 0 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
