BHXDTW From Eritrea, joined Feb 2005, 1087 posts, RR: 5 Posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 19833 times:
Just reading a few threads on the 757...
NWA is soon or hopefully deploying 75's to Europe..
US/DL has been rumoured to use them across the pond...
CO has made the type the workhorse of its european ops using them to open new thin routes, previously not served or unlikely to ever be served..
AA has also decided to operate the type to Europe, i.e NCL (before it was decided to pull the route)
With the new Winglets being installed on a lot of these carriers 757's will the 757 now see a new lease of life ?? Will the likes of BA ever use this same strategy to utilise their 757's on Longer range thin routes (i.e the old BHX-JFK/YYZ route) ??
It seems to be that after the 757 range was discontinued, all of a sudden a lot of US airlines are re-discovering the potential this plane can offer..
Your thoughts ??
(Also, whats the chances of the 767 receiving winglets ?? )
7E72004 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3587 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 19828 times:
I don't think the 767 will receive winglets...the -200 series is already too "old" to get them that it would not be economically viable. As for the -300 series, i could maybe see it but highly doubt it. And the -400 has raked wingtips if i am not mistaken (please correct me if i am wrong).
In terms of the "757 revival," I think airlines are using them to a much fuller extent than they used to. It saves fuel in some regards and not as costly to operate (less people on a 757 than a 767).
The next generation of aircraft is just around the corner!
I think you might be right. Even though IMO a 5000Nm 757 would open up even more routes. There was talks about a BBJ3 based on the 757 a few years back using extra fuel tanks. When Boeing closed the line of the 757 they got a hole in their product portfolio. The 737-900ER could do 90 % of the routes currently served by the 757.
From my understanding a 757Next generation a couple of years after the launch of the 737NG would see the 757 line continue.
BHXDTW From Eritrea, joined Feb 2005, 1087 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 19566 times:
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 2): There was talks about a BBJ3 based on the 757 a few years back using extra fuel tanks. When Boeing closed the line of the 757 they got a hole in their product portfolio. The 737-900ER could do 90 % of the routes currently served by the 757
There is already a lot of 757 privat e jets around, I dount Boeing would start a BBJ3 now... tho I could be wrong..
Im hoping BA will use their 757's accross the pond again one day....
Tho I dont think they have too many left ? most went to DHL I think ?
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 19255 times:
Its a very interesting situation........in recent years, actually since the 757 family was discontinued, the type is having a renaissance and now is being used in different roles. As you pointed out, the 757 is suddenly a workhorse accross the Atlantic.
The 757 is now simply being used differently than in the past...for several reasons:
1. Aircraft like the 738 and A320 have taken over many of the routes once flown by the 757, such as transcons and high demand NYC-Florida services. Why? the new types better match seats and demand and allow for increased frequency on routes.
2. Legacy carriers are looking to longer haul and inteational routes as a way to increase revenue.
3. Widebody aircraft are expensive and in short supply at the legacy carriers....we all know about CO, but DL, UA, NW, AA all have the same problems.....all have cut back on their widebody deliveries, and/or have returned aircraft pursuant to re-organization, and/or have retired older ineffecient aircraft and did not replace them.
Thus, the airlines have 757s in their fleet, they were available to open up some of these new routes, and off they went. The strange thing is that no airline was interested in ordering more 757s and that would probably still be the case; the only exception is the 753, the undiscovered money machine that did not get the attention it deserved....the men and women at CO and NW would like to have more of the type and the 753 would have been very useful for DL on ATL-FLorida routes and to AA on MIA-Caribbean services, but the opportunity was missed.
TristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3855 posts, RR: 34 Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 18930 times:
Quoting BHXDTW (Reply 3): Im hoping BA will use their 757's accross the pond again one day....
Tho I dont think they have too many left ? most went to DHL I think ?
The B757 that went to DHL all had RB211-535C engines. This engine is not ETOPS approved. BA still has 13 B757, all with RB211-535E which could be ETOPS, but are not presently maintained as such.
The aircraft that used to operate GLA-JFK was PEC and this aircraft is still in service and still has all the long haul galleys and toilets fitted, and old world traveller economy seats in the rear cabin.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12675 posts, RR: 13 Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 18915 times:
Just being used better, they are being repositioned in their use. With the 737-800 & 900 (and soon the 900ER), along with the A-320, that covers a lot of transcon USA and long distance overland routes that the 757-200 was and still good at, but probably with slightly better ops costs. Thus 757's can be shifted to use in locations where they have an advantage over the 737 like high altitude (DEN), high temps (PHX) or where the range of the 757 is better. They can also be changed around a bit for modest distance trans-atlantic ops (but sometimes requiring a fuel stop westbound as to -200's). The 757 is also a workhorse of the charter operators, especially in Europe.
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2647 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 17910 times:
Quoting N801DM (Reply 4): Several of the privately operated 757's have aux fuel tanks in them increasing the range to around 6000 nm. It is a very impressive mod unfortunately with this mod you sacrifice payload.
Thank you. I was not aware that the 757 was certified with aux fuel tanks. Do you know how many needed for that long range? The BBJ3 Boeing offered where to have 4500Nm range and I believe 3 tanks.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
Boo25 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 294 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 17038 times:
BA this very month are removing all existing IFE from its 757's - not sure if they are EROPS/ETOPS rated anyhow.......
I think BA are biding their time with the 757s, they just slot in where needed, and will stay at LHR too....
BA want to get the pension crisis sorted and then order new a/c - supposedly the older A320s to be replaced first, followed by Longhaul replacements and later on 757/767 - they used to play a huge part , but are now sidelined by endless Airbus / 777's .....................
AvroArrow From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 1044 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 16630 times:
In my opinion it would seem that the 757 is now being used in a role that the 787 was created to fulfill. Perhaps the Boeing marketing for the 787 got traditional carriers thinking about the way they used their existing 757 fleets?
Give me a mile of road and I can take you a mile. Give me a mile of runway and I can show you the world.
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4787 posts, RR: 17 Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 16118 times:
Quoting AvroArrow (Reply 15): Perhaps the Boeing marketing for the 787 got traditional carriers thinking about the way they used their existing 757 fleets?
Well, I think that it's a couple of things.
First, CO proved -- contrary to what all the "experts" said -- that non-holidaymakers will take a 757 across the Pond, especially if it gets them nonstop to their destination or to an airport closer thereto. This really opened up the eyes of their competitors.
Second, the majors couldn't ignore CO's success in diversifying its revenue base with international flights. While B6 is cutting back dramatically on its long-haul domestic flights, folks like CO are getting substantially higher revenue per available seat mile on more-similar-than-not stage lengths by going international. (It was ingenious for B6 to go to BDA, for example. It's a shorter stage length than many Florida destinations, and $250 each way used to be considered a low fare.) DL recently put out some stats on their international expansion, and there's no doubting the yield bonus that they're getting. How do you do International on-the-cheap with minimal additional capital investment? Break out the 757s (among other things, like stop using 767-400ERs in a high-density configuration to fly ATL-MCO).
Quoting OyKIE (Reply 13): The BBJ3 Boeing offered where to have 4500Nm range and I believe 3 tanks.
I think you are thinking of the studied 757-200ER which was to have three aux tanks and fly 4,500 nm with a full passenger load. Actually, I don't know how many tanks were to be used, but early on, Boeing claimed a range of over 7,000nm for the 752 based BBJ3, and I believe that was calculated without winglets. Now that would have been sweeeeet!!
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 12): ... the 737-800 & 900 (and soon the 900ER), along with the A-320, [ ... ] covers a lot of transcon USA ...
Sorry to be a wet blanked here (hah!), but having been a passenger on transcon 737 flights, I feel compelled to say that these machines were never meant to provide comfortable long-range service (eg SFO-EWR).
They were built with the assumption that a small percentage of pax would use the lavs -- which is reasonable on a 1-2 hour flight -- but on a 5-hour transcon, that assumption is no longer true. It seems that there is *always* a line at the lavs, which can really make the flight uncomfortable, especially with the new "post 9/11 security rules".
I can imagine that Transatlantic 757 flights must be similar.
I have basically stopped booking flights on transcon "slaveships" for that reason.
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4787 posts, RR: 17 Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 11975 times:
Quoting Lredlefsen (Reply 21): They were built with the assumption that a small percentage of pax would use the lavs
Well...wrong. They may have been *configured* like that, but configurations can be changed, and different airlines used different configurations. It's really not correct to assume that you'll have to wait to pee on any particular aircraft; it all depends upon how that airline has equipped that ship.