Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Was There A 757-200ER Subtype?  
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 8705 times:

On occassion, some 757-200s are refered to as 757-200ERs.....can anyone share any information about this? I realize that some 757-200s have higher weights, some have equipment which allow ETOPS operations with 757-200s, etc, etc., but is there an official 757-200ER model and how does it differ from a base line 757-200?

Just recently, a European charter carrier Blue Panorama picked up an ex-TW/AA 752, and the aircraft was referred to as a 757-200ER.....what is the story?

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMitchell Gant From Montserrat, joined Aug 2000, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 8663 times:

There is no official designation 757-200ER, although there is a 757-200(ET) which simply means ETOPS-qualified.

User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 8655 times:

Is this an error in the db then?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Len Preskow



Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 8639 times:

Yes, it is. Its a very common misconception.

N


User currently offlineOHLBU From Finland, joined Jan 2005, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8596 times:

How silly of me, I always thought that ET stands for "extended tankage"  boxedin . Well, good to get that right.

Does the 757 have provision for extra tanks in cargo-holds and if it does is this used by some operator?


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16285 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8576 times:

Boeing did offer a 752ER very late in the program to both CO and LH but neither were interested.


Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8576 times:

Thanks for the answers, the information confirms my understanding that while not all 752s are created equal, there is no official 757-200ER.

At one point, I think that Boeing did look at developing a longer range variant of the 757 for long thin routes but it never was ordered or produced - too bad, as several airlines have now discovered that the 752 is a rather economical way to operate lower demand routes accross the Atlantic.


User currently offlineCrosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2598 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8471 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing never built a B757-200ER, but as YYZ717 says they did market a B757-200ERX in 2001 to Continental among others. The extra range achieved (400-500km) did not seem sufficient for anyone to place an order.

So, there is no 757ER. There is also no 757ET - as the correct meaning of ET is "extra tankage" and all 757s were built with the same max fuel capacity.

The 757's range is down to the Max Takeoff Weight of the aircraft, and that can be increased up to Max Structural Takeoff Weight (or decreased) to suit an airline's particular requirements - it's simply a paperwork excersise.

Both ER/ET are examples of people attempting to attach ETOPS capability to a type designation but as with every other type including 737, 757, 767, A320 etc there is no model designation to indicate ETOPS capability. If you see ER or ET after a 757's model designation, it's incorrect.

Regards
CROSSWIND


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8434 times:

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 5):
Boeing did offer a 752ER very late in the program to both CO and LH but neither were interested.

Doh! Seems like they could use a few of those now.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8395 times:

>> The extra range achieved (400-500km) did not seem sufficient for anyone to place an order.

Especially when winglet modification alone achieves a performance increase in that area without using additional fuel  Wink

>> Doh! Seems like they could use a few of those now.

Doesn't seem to be a terrible problem, CO is finding 757 from secondary sources and they will have new widebodies for delivery before 2010.


User currently offlineAerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7209 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8363 times:

BA refers to about 3 of their 757s as ER models, and the rest non-ER.

User currently offlinePANAM_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 4165 posts, RR: 90
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8268 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
COMMUNITY MANAGER

The following is from Flight International edition for week of June 8th 1985

Boeing's first customer for the extended-range 757, the 757-200ER, will be Royal Brunei Airlines. A $175 million purchase agreement was signed at Le Bourget for three 757-200s powered by RB.211-535E4s. The aircraft will enable Royal Brunei to begin one-stop services to Europe. Delivery is scheduled for June and July 1986

I cannot provide a link as that is from the actual magazine. Boeing's site lists the order as booked on May 30th 1985 and delivered as per the article. The model is designated 757-200 on the Boeing site, not as -200ER.

I'd be happy to scan and send the article if you'd like. Hope that helps.

Regards

PANAM_DC10



Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
User currently offlineQantasHeavy From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 379 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8253 times:

I had thought BA had a handful of 757s that were special for longer routes. As noted in a post before, those were referred to, rightly or wrongly, as ERs. I rode a couple LGW-TLV. They also were the first to connect Europe and the US nonstop with 757, BHX-JFK.

User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13120 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8203 times:

I can say from personal experience that BA did have some 757-200's 'ER's that operated in the mid 1990's JFK-Birmingham. Birmingham was kinda a hub for BA then, to relieve some flights at LHR. I must say it was rather pleasant to have used that flight (I was connecting to Dublin, Ireland)

User currently offlineCkfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5251 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8201 times:

There is a subfleet of 757-200s with the ETOPS rating. AA has 757s with the ETOPS rating, used for trans-Atlantic and Hawaii routes.

A friend of mine is a pilot with AA and flies the 757 and the 767. According to him, the FAA only allows pilots to be checked out on a maximum of 5 aircraft types. At the time that AA bought the assets of TW, AA already had 5 types in the 757/767 family: 757-200, 757-200 with the ETOPS rating, 767-200, 767-200ER, and 767-300ER.

It's for this reason that AA had to initially keep the TW 757s, which have P&W engines and other differences, assigned to the STL crew base and flown by ex-TW pilots. The only other option was to have pilots check out on either the 757 or the 767. For various reasons, AA decided that wasn't an option.

Now that the 767-200s have been retired, all AA pilots can now check out on on both P&W and RR-powered 757. My friend was in DFW several weeks ago for refresher training, so I'll ask him if he is checked out on the ex-TW birds.


User currently offlineSocal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8074 times:

Wow that would be awesome to have such an aircraft. Big grin


I Love HNL.............
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26536 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8039 times:

Quoting Crosswind (Reply 7):
The extra range achieved (400-500km) did not seem sufficient for anyone to place an order.

The APB blended winglets seem to have taken care of that issue anyway



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineManchesterMAN From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 1228 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8029 times:

Quoting Ckfred (Reply 14):
Now that the 767-200s have been retired, all AA pilots can now check out on on both P&W and RR-powered 757.

United retired their 762s, AA's are still very much in operation AFAIK.



Flown: A300,A319,A320,A321,A330,A340.A380,717,727,737,747,757,767,777,DC9,DC10,MD11,MD80,F100,F50,ERJ,E190,CRJ,BAe146,Da
User currently offlineCalAir From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 298 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7488 times:

I remember that the CKT 757's they operated in the mid 1990's from the BA mainline fleet were the "ER" models. My schoolfriend at the time flew with them from MAN-GOI on a 757, he said they had rows of 3 seats each as the flight was so empty, and he said it was a really good flight. Had to tech stop en route but not sure where.


British Caledonian...we never forget, you have a choice
User currently offlineCrosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2598 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7293 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PANAM_DC10 (Reply 11):
Boeing's first customer for the extended-range 757, the 757-200ER, will be Royal Brunei Airlines. A $175 million purchase agreement was signed at Le Bourget for three 757-200s powered by RB.211-535E4s. The aircraft will enable Royal Brunei to begin one-stop services to Europe. Delivery is scheduled for June and July 1986

I remember the ER tag being applied to Royal Brunei's 757s at the time. I can only guess that was Flight International's interpretation of the first ETOPS 757 built - as far as I can tell there wasn't anything "Extended Range" about Royal Brunei's B757s.

Quoting QantasHeavy (Reply 12):
I had thought BA had a handful of 757s that were special for longer routes. As noted in a post before, those were referred to, rightly or wrongly, as ERs. I rode a couple LGW-TLV. They also were the first to connect Europe and the US nonstop with 757, BHX-JFK.



Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 13):
I can say from personal experience that BA did have some 757-200's 'ER's that operated in the mid 1990's JFK-Birmingham. Birmingham was kinda a hub for BA then, to relieve some flights at LHR. I must say it was rather pleasant to have used that flight (I was connecting to Dublin, Ireland)



Quoting CalAir (Reply 18):
I remember that the CKT 757's they operated in the mid 1990's from the BA mainline fleet were the "ER" models. My schoolfriend at the time flew with them from MAN-GOI on a 757, he said they had rows of 3 seats each as the flight was so empty, and he said it was a really good flight. Had to tech stop en route but not sure where.

I promise you, there is absolutely no such thing as a B757-200ER!!!

Boeing never produced a 757ER, they all have the same fuel capacity (unlike true ER aircraft versions like the 767/777) increased MTOW aircraft however do have the ability to carry more fuel for a given payload.

"ER" variants by definition have higher fuel capacities.

B757-200s are available in different MTOWs, with or without ETOPS, to suit operator requirements which will affect the range of the aircraft - but these are all just variations of the standard B757-200.

B757-200s modified for ETOPS operations do have extra equipment - they do not have additional fuel tankage - they retain the standard 34.2T max fuel.

An ETOPS and non-ETOPS B757 with the same MTOW will have the same range. An ETOPS B757 can go where a non-ETOPS B757 cannot, ie more than 60min from a suitable diversion airport, but it cannot fly any further.

In fact, due to the extra equipment on an ETOPS B757, it's basic mass will be slightly higher, so it will probably have very slightly less range than a non-ETOPS aircraft with the same MTOW.

B757s are available in a range of MTOWs, independent of ETOPS capability. Some fleet listings incorrectly refer to an ETOPS B757 as a B757ER, but that's wrong.

Boeing actually studied a B757-200ERX in 1999 (not 2001 as I stated above) which would have featured additional fuel tankage in the rear cargo hold. Boeing approached Continental to be the lauch customer. This modification would have provided an additional 500km of range, and Boeing were confident Continental would be interested in it for longer flights into continental Europe from EWR. In the end nobody, including Continental, committed in the type.

For example the First Choice Airways B757 fleet breaks down as follows
They operate ETOPS 180min, ETOPS 138min and non-ETOPS B757-200s. The fleet breaks down as follows

180min ETOPS - MTOW 113398kg
G-OOOG/OX/G-CPEP

180min ETOPS - MTOW 104326kg
G-OOBC/BD/BE/BF/OY

138min ETOPS - MTOW 113398kg
G-OOOK/OZ

non-ETOPS - MTOW 108860kg
G-OOOBG/BH

non-ETOPS - MTOW 104326kg
G-OOBI/BJ/G-CPEU/EV

As you can see there are ETOPS and non-ETOPS aircraft for each MTOW. Whatever the MTOW though, they all have the same fuel capacity.

non-ETOPS G-OOBH actually has more range than 180min ETOPS G-OOBC, but of course the ETOPS aircraft can go where a standard B757 cannot.

Despite the fact that G-OOBC is ETOPS 180min capable (and may be incorrectly refered to as "ER") it's MTOW of 104326kg means it only has the same approx range of non-ETOPS G-CPEU and a sighnificantly less than G-OOBH!

After some paperwork involving the CAA and Boeing it is also possible to increase/decrease the MTOW of the B757 (and most other aircraft types) as aircraft are often certified by airlines at less than their structural MTOW to save money, as many charges are based on the declared MTOW of the aircraft. If you don't require the highest weight version on every aircraft accross the fleet, it saves money, and if you require more or less heavyweight aircraft an application can be made to the CAA to increase/decrease the MTOWs of specific aircraft as required. Last winter G-OOBC was operated at 108860kg due to several "heavyweights" spending the winter in Canada.

You'll also notice Boeing don't refer to the B757-200ER like they do to ER variants of the B767/777 etc, since all B757s that have rolled off the line at Renton have the same fuel capacity...

Hope that all makes sense.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Koen Duijnmayer
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Miguel Nobrega - Madeira Spotters


Regards
CROSSWIND


User currently offlineAirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4513 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7192 times:

So what does the ET stand for? It's not extended tankage.


PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
User currently offlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3362 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7132 times:

Quoting ManchesterMAN (Reply 17):
United retired their 762s, AA's are still very much in operation AFAIK.

I belive he was referring to the baseline 767-200 version and not the 767-200ER, which I believe is still flying for American Airlines.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ben Wang
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kazim Alikhan - t.dot photography



User currently offlineCkfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5251 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6928 times:

ManchesterMAN:

I was referring to the original 8 767-200 non-ERs that AA received in the early 80s, and not the -200ER models. The -200 ERs have been pulled off trans-Atlantic routes and are now flying transcon routes.


User currently offlineIfly2eat From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6643 times:

There are other options that carriers who use the B-757 for ETOPS order in order to make the aircraft ETOPS capable. For example, a second fuel crossfeed valve, and a HDG (which is a backup power source for a lose of both engine driven generators and APU generator.) I could go on but I will start sounding like a manual, suffice to say it is not just paperwork.


Fly the friendly skys and stay out of mine.
User currently offlineCrosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2598 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 6480 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ifly2eat (Reply 23):
There are other options that carriers who use the B-757 for ETOPS order in order to make the aircraft ETOPS capable. For example, a second fuel crossfeed valve, and a HDG (which is a backup power source for a lose of both engine driven generators and APU generator.) I could go on but I will start sounding like a manual, suffice to say it is not just paperwork.

Please re-read my post. I said that it was just a paperwork excersise to increase the MTOW up to max structural MTOW, noting to do with upgrading to ETOPS status which is completely independent of MTOW.

Quoting Crosswind (Reply 19):
After some paperwork involving the CAA and Boeing it is also possible to increase/decrease the MTOW of the B757 (and most other aircraft types) as aircraft are often certified by airlines at less than their structural MTOW to save money, as many charges are based on the declared MTOW of the aircraft. If you don't require the highest weight version on every aircraft accross the fleet, it saves money, and if you require more or less heavyweight aircraft an application can be made to the CAA to increase/decrease the MTOWs of specific aircraft as required. Last winter G-OOBC was operated at 108860kg due to several "heavyweights" spending the winter in Canada.

Regards
CROSSWIND


25 Ifly2eat : Crosswind, Chill! I wasn't referring to your post. If I was I would have quoted it. People on this forum take everything so personal as if someone is
26 PANAM_DC10 : I'd agree with you on the last statement. Boeing have no such model listed anywhere on their site. Please keep in mind I was only quoting what the FI
27 CalAir : I wasn't suggesting that Boeing had ever designated the 757ER, but Caledonian and BA listed their aircraft as the 757-200ER
28 AirxLiban : Can someone please say what ET stands for?
29 Post contains links B747-437B : Extra Terrestrial. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083866/
30 Post contains images Myt332 : BA also have a tendency to call their Boeing 757's "Rolls Royce 757's". Maybe Sean is correct about it standing for Extra Terrestrial. I assume in th
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Was There Ever A 757-100? posted Sat Jul 19 2003 17:55:24 by Dan2002
Was There Ever A Design For A Trijet SST? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 22:58:12 by 747400sp
Why Was There A PIA A310 In Boston (BOS) Today? posted Fri Sep 15 2006 04:59:40 by Reggaebird
Was There Some Magic Non-Rev Stamp In HKG Or FCO? posted Mon May 15 2006 16:00:59 by Malaysia
Cell Phone Interference: Was There A Crash? posted Thu Apr 27 2006 18:02:29 by YYZYYT
Why Was There A NW A330 At EWR Today? posted Mon Mar 27 2006 01:41:51 by Nycfuturepilot
Was There Another Pan Am? posted Tue Feb 21 2006 02:52:25 by Phuebner
Why Was There An Aeroflot IL62 In Tacoma Today? posted Tue Aug 2 2005 01:23:47 by Clickhappy
Was There Ever A DC10-40 posted Fri Jul 29 2005 17:59:37 by Jetsetsteve
Was There A Problem At LGW Today (Fri 10th) posted Fri Jun 10 2005 22:57:24 by VS747SPUR