Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Impact Of Increased 757 Oceanic Ops  
User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2859 posts, RR: 25
Posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4124 times:

This is an open question, mainly to flying professionals (i.e., I'd rather not have a debate on whether 757 transatlantics are good/bad for service/IFE/opening new routes etc).

With the quite dramatic increase in narrowbodies now plying the oceanic tracks, and the prospect of Delta joining the fray, are they beginning to clutter and slow down the system ?

My personal example:

LHR - JFK. Filed for FL360 at the OEP, step to FL380. Ontime departure. Standard routing to 56 & 10. ATC congestion caps us at FL280 to BFS. We apply for oceanic a.s.a.p. after departure and are given FL 290, unless we can lose 15 minutes before OEP

We eventually get our requested level at 58 & 40, having passed slower traffic.

Whilst 757s are good for slimmer routes, is it to the detriment of other oceanic users?

Shamu


So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineHighFlyer9790 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 1241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4086 times:

all though i may not be a flying professional, i'd just like to point out that generally, the Atlantic has been the prooving ground of many aircraft to make their stapled routes. after 1969 the 747-100 and 200 ruled the pond for nearly 25 years until the 747-400 was introduced. then in the mid-90s the 767 took up medium density routes, then the brand new 777 added more option to the bunch, and now the 757 has just made trans-atlantic flying into just another flight. no matter what difference the 757 makes, i'm sure if A.net was around in the early 90s we would have been discussing the impact of the 767, or any twin engine plane for that matter. whenever a new aircraft comes along, an airline never wants to be landlocked into a few routes, so they try to expand as much as they can. for twin engined planes, this was answered through ETOPS. it pretty much made over water routes fair game for a lot of aircraft.

don't flame me for i am only offering another tidbit to think about!  twocents 

highflyer  wave 



121
User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2093 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4025 times:

They are the RJ of the Oceanic routes.

User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2859 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4022 times:

Quoting HighFlyer9790 (Reply 1):
don't flame me for i am only offering another tidbit to think about!

No flame deserved ! I guess another question I am asking (and again, I'm after fact, not hypothesis), is whether Boeing, at the design stage, regarded the 757 as an oceanic workhorse.

Was it the manufacturer that went ahead with ETOPS (and coincidentally oceanic routes), or pressure from operators to push the operating envelope?

Any feedback from those in the know would be much appreciated !

Shamu



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2859 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4005 times:

Quoting Col (Reply 2):
They are the RJ of the Oceanic routes.

No, No, No, they are the Miss Daisy of the Atlantic



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineHighFlyer9790 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 1241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3956 times:

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 4):
They are the RJ of the Oceanic routes.

No, No, No, they are the Miss Daisy of the Atlantic

the 757 isn't the smallest commercial aircraft flying the altantic as privitair has 737s and A319s operating routes too. i agree though that the 757 is a little new face to the area! lol

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 3):
Was it the manufacturer that went ahead with ETOPS

actually, it wasn't a manufacturer who went with it, it is an ICAO term used to permit a twin engine to operate a certain certified amount of minutes away from any land airport while over water. currently, the 777-300ER has the highest certification of 330 minutes. (?)

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 3):
No flame deserved ! I

thank you!

highflyer



121
User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2859 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3930 times:

Quoting HighFlyer9790 (Reply 5):
Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 4):
They are the RJ of the Oceanic routes.

No, No, No, they are the Miss Daisy of the Atlantic

the 757 isn't the smallest commercial aircraft flying the altantic as privitair has 737s and A319s operating routes too

I was referring to the sedentary M 0.78 that some operators fly at, not their MTOW.

Shamu

Size aint everything !



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3891 times:

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 6):
I was referring to the sedentary M 0.78 that some operators fly at, not their MTOW.

There are opperators who do the same thing with their 767 though too. Using a 757 on thin routes isn't too far off using a 762, except the superior comfort/seating arrangement of the 767 of course, but the ETOPS 757 does open up a number of direct routes, which is a good thing, in my opinion. How else would something like CLE-LGW be practical?



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2859 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3858 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 7):
but the ETOPS 757 does open up a number of direct routes, which is a good thing, in my opinion. How else would something like CLE-LGW be practical?

But this is what I raised in my initial post. I'm not querying whether the 757 is good for consumers, I'm questioning the operational impact on other carriers (vested interest).

Shamu



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3840 times:

Well isn't this proof of the Boeing strategy? The Airbus argument is that people will fly more hub and spoke. Therefore build a really big jet and fill it to the rim between point A and point B. From there people will fly onward to their final destination.

Boeing argues that people really want more point to point travel with more direct options and more flight between major destinations. It seems that the increased utilization of small aircraft across the Atlantic seems to validate Boeings theory (at least in that region).


User currently offlineHighFlyer9790 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 1241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3825 times:

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 8):
I'm questioning the operational impact on other carriers (vested interest).

All it means is basically the 757 is now another additive in a very crowded north atlantic sky. in order to make room for everyone, altitudes and speeds will be shuffuled regardsless. my dad was on an icelandair 757 cruising at FL260 which is quite low but then again the 757s will be the most suffuled as the 744s/777s are vets at those routes and are fine staying up at FL380.

im too lazy to count up daily departues from other east coast airports but BOS already has 5 daily deparures to LHR alone- thats not counting the rest of the U.K. and europe. JFK must be up there in departures. regardless, room has to be made.



121
User currently offlineHighFlyer9790 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 1241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3825 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 9):
Well isn't this proof of the Boeing strategy? The Airbus argument is that people will fly more hub and spoke. Therefore build a really big jet and fill it to the rim between point A and point B. From there people will fly onward to their final destination.

Boeing argues that people really want more point to point travel with more direct options and more flight between major destinations. It seems that the increased utilization of small aircraft across the Atlantic seems to validate Boeings theory (at least in that region).

you could have sumed that up in three numbers- 787.



121
User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3616 times:

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Thread starter):
Whilst 757s are good for slimmer routes, is it to the detriment of other oceanic users?

When 767s were added to the the transatlantic mix previously dominated by 747s, it was a much bigger problem then the 757 introduction, for three reasons:

1 - Difference in speed between 747 (M0.85) and 767 (M0.80) was much greater than between 767 and 757 (basically the same speed, but 757 sometimes needs to slow down to make the trip).

2 - No RSVM, so less capacity get to the lanes and cross the pond, less flyable altitudes.

3 - ETOPs procedures, traffic increase.

Also, you should get used to it. I agree whole heartedly with Boeing that average plane size across the atlantic (and Pacific) will decrease, just like the average US transcon plane size has been decreasing.

Get used to 787 replacing 777, A340 and 747 across the pond and 739ERX replacing 767 and 757. I can envision someone launching a JFK-LHR shuttle service with hourly or semi-hourly departures with a 739ERX within the next 6 years.



Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
User currently offlineAF022 From France, joined Dec 2003, 2147 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3573 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 12):
Get used to 787 replacing 777, A340 and 747 across the pond and 739ERX replacing 767 and 757. I can envision someone launching a JFK-LHR shuttle service with hourly or semi-hourly departures with a 739ERX within the next 6 years.

Alas, if only for the slots...

On a side note, has winglets encouraged more 757s to ply the skies above the Atlantic? Are the winglets a success?


User currently offlineHighFlyer9790 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 1241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3498 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 12):
Get used to 787 replacing 777, A340 and 747 across the pond and 739ERX replacing 767 and 757. I can envision someone launching a JFK-LHR shuttle service with hourly or semi-hourly departures with a 739ERX within the next 6 years.

Agree hands down, i couldn't have said it better myself. many east coast airports already have upwards of 5 daily LHR departures with a 777//747, not counting the rest of the U.K. and europe. BOS has 3 BA departures daily, (777/747) 2 AA departures, (777) and VS 2 departures (747).

Quoting AF022 (Reply 13):
On a side note, has winglets encouraged more 757s to ply the skies above the Atlantic? Are the winglets a success?

the winglets are a sucess on both the 757 and 737. while increasing range, it saves fuel too.



121
User currently offlineAAL0616 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 272 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3412 times:

The winglets are a measurable daily operational improvement on BOS-SNN and BOS-MAN where the MAN flights have had the winglets and you can more or less compare fuel efficiencies and time performance in varying weather conditions.

Baron95 is completely correct in his assessment and this is backed up by all the serious work being done to analyze fleet planning for the next number of years at every current or potential oceanic carrier.

Spacing, climb/descend speeds and enroute altitudes are definitely funky the past several seasons and getting more so. Even domestic USA airspace is different than it used to be, although this is also because we're now using the tighter altitude separations. But, yes, the presence of the 757 along with the other ETOPS equipment definitely reshuffled the arrangements across the pond.

Not a technical problem but perhaps a nuisance from time to time if you are driving heavier and faster metal.


User currently offlineHighFlyer9790 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 1241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3144 times:

Quoting AAL0616 (Reply 15):
Spacing, climb/descend speeds and enroute altitudes are definitely funky the past several seasons and getting more so. Even domestic USA airspace is different than it used to be, although this is also because we're now using the tighter altitude separations. But, yes, the presence of the 757 along with the other ETOPS equipment definitely reshuffled the arrangements across the pond.

I think that once the 787 is introduced, it will most likely see trans-atlantic service will it not? so unless the 757/767s swap places with the 787, won't an additional aircraft further swamp the north atlantic skies? i think the 787 will be very good replacing 757/767 markets. because the 787 should be able to operate similar to the 747/777, i think some of the funkyness we experiance now will be reduced??



121
User currently offlineRedtailmsp From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 206 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3073 times:

Lots of good comments here by many contributors. BlueShamu, I agree with you that there will continue to be significant increases in transatlantic flying due to the decisions to use 757s on many eastcoast/midwest-Europe flights. However, with the advent of RVSM opening up many more optimal flight levels, I don't think things are as bad as they were prior to RVSM. We at NWA don't see very many enforced reroutes onto other tracks anymore since the advent of RVSM and the virtual doubling of available flight levels, and I am sure that people from other carriers would agree with this. The NAT tracks are basically minimum time tracks laid down between London-New York and v.v. every day. Many of the 757s are operating from smaller markets away from the core London-New York market. Consequently, many 757 flights will not be on the optimal London-NYC tracks, but will be on either adjacent tracks or on random routings away from the tracks. You will find more traffic at higher flight levels now with the advent of A330s/777s, and there are definite issues with different mach numbers of the various aircraft types flying transatlantic now - fl360 and above are often crowded wheres fl330/340 are often wide open. I think you will see more locking into one altitude across the Atlantic because of the increased traffic already at higher levels, and this is even without the extra 757s added to the mix. If you can't get an optimal altitude, you or your dispatcher can request an adjacent track with either Shanwick or Gander, who are very accomodating.

User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7057 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3009 times:

BlueShamu330s
"Whilst 757s are good for slimmer routes, is it to the detriment of other oceanic users? "

Ok you are saying that the reason you did not get your initial flight level is because of 757's going across the pond at the same time as your flight, no other a/c types, just 757's, there were no A330's , B767, B777, or A340s?

If this was not a thread to trash the B757 then it certainly is a good reason for BA and the main US carriers who fly to LHR to upgrade to the A380 to reduce the congestion.


User currently offlineHighFlyer9790 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 1241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2878 times:

Quoting Par13del (Reply 18):
If this was not a thread to trash the B757 then it certainly is a good reason for BA and the main US carriers who fly to LHR to upgrade to the A380 to reduce the congestion.

On BA & the A380...
http://airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2875965/

Frequency is a valuable thing, so one flight a day with 600 pax isn't exactly what trans-atlantic airlines want necessarily...



121
User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5615 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2777 times:

Quoting HighFlyer9790 (Reply 19):
Frequency is a valuable thing, so one flight a day with 600 pax isn't exactly what trans-atlantic airlines want necessarily...

To a point, this is true. But there sometimes comes a point where all extra frequency does is add cost and DOES NOT add enough to extra reveau.

Where & what this point is varies with every city pair. On the Atlantic, JFK-LHR is one extream where more frequency by the dominate carriers (BA/AA) anyway, does not add to market power only capacity and in that case two A380 is cheaper than three B744s or five B767s or 8 B757 flying wing tip to wing tip.

In other city pairs other factors come into play. One of these is feasable departure/arrival times. For example SYD-LHR, you can depart SYD from 0600 to 1000 and 1700 to 2100 and remain legal. No body uses the 0600-1000 times, everybody is into the 1700-2100. Any departures outside these time are to intermediate ports with a connection, which generally means a longer lay over and longer total time.

So SYD curently has two QF & two BA departures in the 1700=2100 time slot. So for QF to increase capacity into LHR, and it is a growing market, it means either a third B744 or A380 replacing the existing B744. In this sitution the third departure does not advantage anybody so the larger aircraft is cheaper.

This is of course without considering the slot sitution at LHR.

There are undoubtly other city pairs in the world with similar coditions or conditions which mittagate in favour of larger aircraft rather than extra frequency. Let hear about them!

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineLijnden From Netherlands, joined Apr 2003, 562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2741 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The impact of the 757 going transatlantic is simply a question of demand. Instead of 1 747 per day, 3 flights with a 757 provides more choice and flexibility for both passengers and cargo. Anyway, don't forget that the 757 was original made as a replacement of the DC-8 and 707/720 which flew already the oceans of the world before anybody knew ETOPS.


Be kind to animals!
User currently offlineC680 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2636 times:

I think a lot of folks are missing BlueShamu330s point (as I understand it)

So let me try to translate.

There are only so many lanes on the transatlantic highway. Aircraft like the B757, B737, A320 families and many corporate jets can only cruise at M 0.78 in the north Atlantic tracks for fuel reasons.

Because of the way the way the tracks work, faster aircraft may have to either slow down, or fly at an altitude that is not optimal for their fuel burn in order to pass slower traffic.

Are these slower aircraft messing everything up for everyone else?

And even better, if everyone is going to be limited to some lowest common denominator airspeed, then what is the point of buying faster planes (A350, A380, B747, B777, B787) for these routes when they will not be able to operate at their best efficiency?

IMO, the issue is not the planes that fly the tracks, it is the way the tracks are managed. While we now have RVSM that has increased the capacity of the tracks, many people have pointed out that there is a movement to increased frequency in the north atlantic. Some argue we should all switch to A380 or B747 due to "slot restrictions" but that argument is silly. We are *not* running out of airspace. It may be time to consider adding additional tracks - like adding lanes to a road. IIRC the track separation is fairly wide. It should not be too difficult to implement some sort of RHSM so long as aircraft are equipped with INS or GPS (which I beleive is a requirment anyway)

This is an excellent thread, thanks for starting it BlueShamu330s!!!



My happy place is FL470 - what's yours?
User currently offlineJoeman From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 703 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 2442 times:

RE: 757:

Quoting Col (Reply 2):
They are the RJ of the Oceanic routes.

Now I understand why the seasonal only CO CLE-LGW flight is 757.


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...
What Is On The Nose Of This 757? (Photo) posted Tue Sep 5 2006 16:17:46 by United787
Safety And The Impact Of Technology posted Wed Feb 23 2005 17:07:02 by Timmytour
Why No UA 757-200 Ops Across The Atlantic? posted Wed Aug 9 2006 20:48:51 by DptMAN
Impact Of BOS Big Dig Tunnel Closure On Logan Ops posted Wed Jul 12 2006 22:58:28 by BWI757
Economic Impact Of Airbus On The US Economy posted Mon Oct 17 2005 18:42:00 by Flying-Tiger
The True Impact Of A Curfew posted Wed Jun 1 2005 14:43:28 by 6thfreedom
Impact Of The 787 On Global Markets posted Tue Apr 12 2005 00:03:34 by B707Stu
Impact Of Aviation On The World. posted Tue Mar 8 2005 21:30:47 by Dan2002
Impact Of The 737 posted Sat Oct 2 2004 22:30:41 by Pilotchris
What's The Reg. Of The AA 757 "5FP"? posted Tue Dec 9 2003 06:26:48 by N949WP