Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Continental To Launch B757-200ERX  
User currently offlineJet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2280 times:

Today's Flight International reports that Continental is about to complete an order with Boeing for 25 firm oders of the B757-200ERX aircraft, plus 10 options. Lufthansa is also reportedly strongly interested in the aircraft.

Service entry is planned for 2002, 24 months after launch. No firm committments have yet been recieved by Boeing, but Continental is close to reaching agreement. The airline is expected to choose the RR RB211-535E4-B engine which already powers their 757 fleet. Continental wants to use the extra range for Trans-Atlantic flights surch as Newark-Rome etc...

The B757-200ERX has the strengthened wing and landing gear of the B757-300 and extra fuel tanks developed for the C-32A, increasing range by 500-700 nm)

Lufthansa is also interested in the B757-200ERX for long-thin routes, such as those from Berlin to the USA. This interest in the 757 from Lufthansa is significant, given Condor's large 752/753/763 fleet and Lufthansa's evaluation of the B757-300 for short-haul flights. This could be a major order for Boeing if Lufthansa breaks recent tradition of ordering Airbus aircraft for their narrowbody fleet.

ATA (and presumably other charter airlines) are also interested in the B757-200ERX.

This could be the developement that revitalises the B757 range, and could also stimulate some orders for the B757-300. Bad news for those of you who don't like long-haul narowbodies. Personally, I hope this developement is a success - It is testament to Boeing that the 757/767 are still being developed while unfortunately Airbus has failed to develop the A310, and as a result orders for that aircraft have evaporated!

Regards
JET SETTER

49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTWAneedsNOhelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1998 times:

Jet Setter, new A310s aren't 1) manufactured anymore 2) marketted or sold anymore. Whoops!

Good news for Boeing, though I doubt that ATA will be a taker. They just spent, what, 50 million, on an entirely new fleet. I think they've had enough for at least a little while.


User currently offlineGoa340 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1982 times:

Well I am one of them who hates long-haul with narrow bodies...who likes them? Imagine you are sitting in the last 3-4 rows and you are constantly disturbed by passangers who are on line for the lavs....usually in longer routes people have more luaggage in hand and it is frustrating to wait for people storing their bags while you are on line waiting to get to your seat.....good luck for those of you flying on CO's 757 to Europe!
Regards.


User currently offlineEyeSky From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 312 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1953 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Does anybody know what kind of range Boeing is projecting for the 757-200ERX? Will there be a range/payload tradeoff? I haven't had any luck getting into Boeing's website to find out.

User currently offlineJet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1945 times:

Airbus are still taking orders for the A310 (and A300-600R) and are building them on an ad-hoc basis as customers require. Although the last A310 was built 2 years ago, and there are no outstanding orders, if Airbus recieved an order for A310s they would be built. Similar to the Boeing/Continental/B767-200ER situation.

Anyway, you missed the point;

The orders dried up, which is why no new A310s have been built recently.
Obviously it would have been a different situation if Airbus had ceased production for whatever reason, and that was the why there are no new A310s on the production line!

GoA340,
Why would you be more disturbed sitting near the toilets on a long-haul 757 than if you were seated near the toilets on an A340/777/747/MD-11 ....


User currently offlineJumboClassic From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1930 times:

Has anyone actually flown trans-Atlantic on a 752? Please share the experience. How's the service, legroom, etc.? For such a big order, I would imagine CO has polled their passengers and they seem to be OK with it.

As for the strong interest from LH, I bet the folks in Tollouse are very busy trying to come up with an attractive offer.


User currently offlineJet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1906 times:

EyeSky,
No tradeoff with payload for range. Extra fuel will be accomodated by an increased MTOW of 122 660 Kg. Only difference will be slightly reduced hold space due to extra fuel tanks, which could restrict cargo capacity, but narrowbodies don't usually carry vast amounts of freight.

JC,
I've flown Trans-Atlantic on a B757.
- Legroom exactly the same in economy as on a comparable long-haul type.
- Seat exactly the same as a comparable long haul type for comfort.
- IFE better than many widebodies because the TVs are every few rows rather than a "big screen" at the front (PTVs excepted!)
- Inflight service on a long-haul flight should be the same whatever type you travel on!

I don't understand why there is such a strong negative-reaction to the use of 757s on long-haul flights.

As for Airbus coming up with a competitor for Lufthansa. The only thing they have is the A310, which is significantly bigger, heavier and more expensive to operate. The A330-500 couldn't compete with the 757 for this type of market. It seats around 100 passengers more, and is just too BIG for the business the B757-200ERX is aimed at. The A321 would need MAJOR work to go Trans-Atlantic on a similar basis to the 757; new wings, engines, landing gear, structural changes etc...Don't forget the B757-200ERX will be in service very quickly!!! (24 months after launch) Not enough time for Airbus to come up with anything  

Regards
JET SETTER


User currently offlineSv11 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1900 times:

What is the seating capacity for those trans-atlantic 752 flights? Is it still around 180? Airbus is probably pitching the A330-500 to LH but this is more of a 767-300er competitor. Its good to see the 757 pitched as a long-haul aircraft for thin routes-should get it some orders that way. I am not sure why CO is interested-it seems like their 767-200er on order would be a better choice for the role.

sv11.


User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1885 times:

Jet Setter, my sentiments exactly. Although I haven't flown long-haul on a 757 WHAT FRIGGING DIFFERENCE IS THERE??!!

IT'S AN AIRLINER WITH SEATS IN IT, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER AIRLINER. THE SEATS DON'T SHRINK YOU KNOW!!

The only way to fly in true comfort long-haul, would be to buy/hire a Bizjet, but we can't afford it, so just be happy you're getting there in one piece!

Sorry, but a Reality Check was in order.


User currently offlineJumboClassic From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1859 times:

sv11,
CO's 762 seat 174, while their international 752s seat 172. It's probably a lot cheaper for CO to fly 752 trans-atlantic than 762s and cary the same number of passengers.

Jet Setter,
I don't think that there is 100 seat difference between the 752 and the A335. If the 752 is 170-180 seats, the A335 should be around 200, depending on the airline. Swissair for example has just 196-seats in their 3-class A332s and 230 seats in 2-class configuration. The A335 is smaller than that, so it should be comparable to the 752 and especially the 753. When I said that Airbus folks will be busy, I meant also the LH short haul requirement for the A300 replacement. The y(LH) have stated, however, that the A330-500 is not the A/C that they want for that.


User currently offlineDash8 From New Zealand, joined Aug 2005, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1846 times:

Also, the arguement that it would take forever to board because it's a narrowbody is useless.

1) Widebodies have twice the more than twice the capacity. And 2 isles. So no difference there.

2) Airlines board by seat number. So basically no inconvenience there iether.

3) Boearding times will actually be shorter. So I really don't understand all of this non-sense.

And when you're airborne. Fewer pax in total. More personalised service. Seats don't shrink with the aircraft as said before either.
I wish I could go from CUR to AMS no a 757 instead of the MD-11. It would be great.

Regards,
Xander


User currently offlineSea_Tac2000 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1825 times:

You can tell how old a person is by their stupid complaints. It's obvious that a lot of people in this forum would have never survived the golden age of jet aviation. comets, 707s, dc8s, vc10 etc...

A narrow body on a long-haul...the HORROR!!!  


User currently offlineCstarU From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1814 times:

I've crossed the pacific in a DC-8-50.  

User currently offlineJet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1813 times:

B757-200 All economy seating, 235 max
A330-500 All economy seating, 350 max (est)

You can't compare a 3 Class Long-Haul A330-200 configuration (Swissair, FCY196) with a 2 Class Short-Haul B757-200 configuartion (Continental, FY183)

Lets compare like with like;
- 2 Class Long-Haul A300-600R (Similar to A330-500)
253 Seats (Emirates, C18Y235)

- 2 Class Long-Haul B757-200
175 Seats (Continental, C16Y159)

Difference: 78 Passengers

However the A330-500 is physically much LARGER and very much HEAVIER as a shrink of a 400 seat aircraft. Operating costs for the A330-500 will be much higher, seat/mile costs will also be higher. If an airline uses an A330-500 on the type of routes the B757-200ERX is intended for, chances are they will lose money on those flights.

Regards
JET SETTER


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1795 times:

I dont care if the leg room and seat width on a trans atlantic 757 is the same as that of a transatlantic 767 or A340. Narrow-bodies on long flights are a hideous proposition. The air is stale, the cabin feels cramped, and you feel like you're in a tube. Unless, the airlines can really offset the chlaustrophobia by increasing seat pitch on the long range narrow bodies (unlikely !), I'll stick to flying wide-bodies. In order of preference - 744, 777, A340/330, 767. I like the space and the option of taking a short walk every now and then on an 8 hour flight.

User currently offlineJumboClassic From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1789 times:

Jet Setter,

I should have made myself clear. Yes, I understand the economics of flying a smaller, lighter plane across the Atlantic. My comment on Airbus replacement was for the A300 short haul. I put it here because LH's interest in the 752ERX might influence their decision to order the 753 for the A300 replacement instead of the A335 (as Airbus hopes they do).

This brings another point. The A330-500 was supposed to be launched mainly because LH and SQ had interest in such a plane for replacing their A300/A310. Now that LH is inclined to go Boeing, I am wondering if we will ever see the A335...


User currently offlineJet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1780 times:

Sea_Tac2000, CstarU,

I think we should start a support group for people who have survived a long-haul flight on a narrowbody aircraft. There are appear to be only a few of us who know the true horror of this type of flight! 10 hours on a 757, with only 2 engines and 1 aisle!!! It has taken me years to recover from the physical and emotional damage that was done to me by crossing the Atlantic in the economy cabin of a 757! I would like to share my pain with others who have had similar experiences... 

In all seriousness, an economy seat is an economy seat, irrespective of what aircraft it is installed on. The ratios of passengers to crew and passengers to toilets will be the same/very similar. There may be slightly less space to move around on a narrowbody - but how long do you spend moving around on an average flight. 1 maybe 2 minutes out of 9 hours? From a personal view my personal flying hell is being stuck in any of the middle block of seats on an widebody, always 2-3 seats plus an aisle away from a window!

The advantages of narrowbody longhauls are;
- More direct flights to smaller airports ie shorter, more convenient journeys
- Faster boarding/disembarking/baggage handling
- Faster service on board

Apart from that from a comfort/seating viewpoint - there is little to choose between a narrowbody and widebody.

As a final thought;
Isn't it the B747 and the other early widebodies that are responsible for the end of the "luxury" of flying in economy as you would have found on a DC-8/707/VC-10. When the 747 arrived, airlines realised they had to drop fares to fill the things and as a result put in more seats to make it pay. Once airlines realised people would put up with minimum pitch and 10 abreast seating, and no lounges - that's how they made their economy class cabins. If you want to complain about uncomfortable long-haul flying - Blame the 747!


User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1779 times:

Jaysit

"The air is stale" HUH?????

It's recycled, just like in any other airliner; the proportion of fresh to recycled depends upon what the crew elect, plus the class of cabin.

So no more stale than any other airliner.

"The cabin feels cramped" and "you feel like you're in a tube"-well, those are YOUR "feelings", not ours!!  


User currently offlineSea_Tac2000 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1770 times:

I can't even tell you how many times I've flown 707 and dc8s cross the pacific, atlantic and to south america...never had a problem.

It's really the young generation that think comfort can only be found in a widebody. And "we" know that this is false!



User currently offlineIlyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1774 times:

I flew SFO-ANC-SVO in an Aeroflot Ilyushin IL62M back in 1993. Keeping in mind the IL62 does not have any of the creature comforts of the 757, the flight was just fine.

I suppose if it came down to it - the right ticket price to the right destination - I wouldn't mind flying a single-aisle on a long-haul route. Heck, if the IL62 wasn't bad, then the 757 or 737-800/900 would be a breeze! And as one member mentioned in a previous post, we're losing sight of how far we've come - imagine transatlantic flights in a 2-3 DH106 Comet! We're really spoiled nowadays.


User currently offlineFederico From Belgium, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1760 times:

HEY Sea_Tac!!!! How you been? I know exactly what you're talking about...geez ...I used to love those PAN AM 707 between Buenos Aires and Miami, New York!
I even got a chance to fly an AR Comet (thank god it didn't blow up on me)...

Support group??? sure why not LONG LIVE LONG HAUL NARROW BODIES!  
 

Federico
Argentino In Seattle

PS Sea_Tac check user info   , and your email!!! once in a while...lets hang out soon!


User currently offlineN-156F From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1748 times:

Hey! I'm in the younger generation you describe, and I'd jump at the chance to take a B757 across the Atlantic over the B767-200ER I was stuck in on my one trip over the pond! I'd take a narrowbody any day, as I'm partial to the fact that you're never more than 2 seats from a window or an aisle. True, the aisle argument doesn't hold up on a B767 (or some other widebodies), but the window does. Plus, flying on a B757 (which I have done transcontinental before) feels so much less claustrophobic. I've also noticed that the B757 is quiter than the B767-200ER I flew across the pond on (though the B763s I routinely fly are quieter yet). I must say that I, though being in that younger generation, would much prefer flying a B757 over the pond than anything else (expect maybe a Russian airline or F/C on a B744/B772  ).

User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1741 times:

Yeah, I guess they are my feelings as a pretty extensive globe trotter.
Fortunately, they are shared by millions of others as well.
As for comparisons with the old 707s and DC-8s, service standards were totally different in the 1960s and 70s. The better carriers really tried to woo passengers with food and drink and the leg room on those old birds was far superior than the cramped quarters you find today.
Additionally, what choice did you really have in 1968? You could fly a 707, a DC-8, or if you were lucky, a VC-10.

Having flown a TWA 757 from JFK to Lisbon, and even a red eye transcon A320, I can attest that I will never do that again. Unfortunately, this wasn't like flying a TWA 707 First Class (or even coach) in 1970 !! It was just awful. A 757 was not designed for comfort with 180 passengers on board on an 8 hour trip.

What are you dudes gonna be nostalgic for next? Transatlantic Connies?

We're not really spoiled now. We just found technological advancements, and as we all know progress is awesome !
So give me a transatlantic 777 with a PTV and room to breathe any day !


User currently offlineSea_Tac2000 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1732 times:

Exactly...technological advancements are awesome...so.....a long range 757 could be extremly comfortable with ptvs and room to breath and all that other sutff that doesn't spoil you Jaysit! Connies? Never got to go in one of those! Not that old !



User currently offlineEWR757 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 360 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (13 years 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1730 times:



Jaysit:

With regards to the 757, the air is recycled completly through the cabin every 90 seconds or so.

I am not a techno enough individual to know enough to get the exact time but I believe the capacities for packs (which provide air for pressurization and A/C) on widebodies are the same.

The air quality is the same on a narrowbody and a widebody.


25 Capt.Picard : OK, so I'm dragging on and on and on with a silly argument....AND I'M ENJOYING IT!! Jaysit, come off it "millions of others" YEAH RIGHT! Millions of o
26 Tan Flyr : I guess I better hand in my application for the support group!!! Iloved the 707's & DC-8s. The DC-8-61 had to be longer than a 757 and was quite a pla
27 Cba : Why would anyone want a 757-200ERX when the 767-200 holds about the same amount of passengers and can fly almost 6,000 nm.
28 USAirways737 : Because it weighs a lot more than the 757-200.
29 Jet Setter : Cba, 2 of your recent questions; -Why order the A321 when the 757-200 seats 10 more people, and has a longer range (7240km)? -Why would anyone want a
30 AKelley728 : A question to everybody: Will the 757-200ERX have the same cockpit as the 767-400er?
31 Boeing747-400 : Yes, it probably will, all of Boeing's new plane will have a 747X and 777-type cockpit. Rgds, B744
32 Boeing747-400 : Yes, it probably will, all of Boeing's new plane will have a 747X and 777-type cockpit. Rgds, B744
33 Jaysit : For all you transatlantic narrowbodied afficionados . . . I suggest taking an Icelandair 757-200 from the East Coast via Rejkyavik to Europe. Enjoy. T
34 Ishky15 : I flew JFK-KEF, and all you need is good inflight entertainment.
35 Boeing747-400 : EWR757, what's the registration of the plane you fly? I bet that there are plenty of photos of that exct airplane here. Rgds, B744
36 USAFHummer : Long-hauls on a 757 are pretty decent. I found them fairly comfortable on cross-country flights (PHL-SAN, PHL-LAX). I'd fly a 757 trans-atlantic anyti
37 Aspen1 : i would love a narrow body on a transatlantic flight. it is so much cozzier. I mean i love the 767's configuration of 2x2x2 in business. A 2X2 in a na
38 Flaps : Given the choice, I would choose the narrowbody every time for all of the reasons listed above. What good is all of the extra space of a widebody when
39 Iahcsr : 1/You are to fly EWRCPH. Given a choice which would you choose: A widebody EWRLGW, then connecting to CPH? Or a 757 nonstop EWRCPH?2/A 757 costs about
40 Fanoftristars : Someone made a comment about the 757 as being quieter than the 762, while the 763 is quiter yet. Did you have a decible measuring system? It really de
41 COexERJ : Wow! Sounds great! The 752ERX would be great for international expansion from CLE!
42 Airmale : great i think its about time the narrow body 757 got a longer range to suit airlines that have had to drop stations in the past cause they couldnt fil
43 AKelley728 : Airmale: When Boeing launched the 757 twenty years ago there was a short version of it - the 757-100. It generated absolutely no airline interest, and
44 LHMark : I purposely chose Icelandair on my last Europe trip because A. I've always wanted to see Iceland (I saw the airport) and 2. I wanted a 757 across the
45 Okforalll : Unless I've missed someone's comments, I think you've missed the point. The additional range of this aircraft will allow more point to point service f
46 Tan flyr : Thanks OKforall, you helped clarify my point. its the smaller point to point service that will benefit from this aircraft. Probably perfect for the th
47 Capt.Picard : LHmark; It's the same on ANY airliner, wide or narrowbody; the cart will get in the way anyway; most can squeeze past when the FA moves the cart sligh
48 Jaysit : Captain Picard, I knew Captain Picard on Star Trek, and believe me, you are no Captain Picard. Just a rude blow-hard who likes to scream on message bo
49 DL727-200adv : Personally I’d rather avoid a long flight on a narrow body. On my last trip to HNL my flight from IAD to SFO was a 757-200 connecting to a 747-2
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...
Continental To Launch EWR-STN posted Tue Oct 3 2000 03:23:25 by Ishky15
Continental Airlines To Launch Daily Non-Stop... posted Mon Aug 26 2002 17:32:15 by Flyingbronco05
Boeing Finally Offers B757-200ERX To Airlines! posted Tue Jun 19 2001 03:13:58 by Crosswind
B757-200ERX Launch Nears posted Tue Nov 21 2000 13:40:13 by #-B777-#
OFT To Launch Investigation Into 'unfair' BAA posted Tue Dec 12 2006 09:30:16 by GSM763
LH Tipped To Launch Pax 747-8 posted Tue Dec 5 2006 11:25:52 by Planemaker
Not So Much A Rumor:AC To Launch YEG-FRA. posted Wed Nov 29 2006 05:23:20 by Wolsingerjet
JetStar To Launch Nagoya Flight posted Fri Nov 10 2006 05:33:39 by Jimyvr
HK Air Firm 30 737/787; To Launch London Flight posted Thu Nov 2 2006 06:45:24 by Jimyvr
Aeromexico To Launch MEX-YYZ Service posted Wed Nov 1 2006 23:50:35 by RicardoFG