Godbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2753 posts, RR: 15 Posted (14 years 11 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2265 times:
Why does Boeing want to bring out the 757-200ERX??? The 767-200 isn't much larger but it has more space in the cabin making long air travel more comfortable. I would for everything in this world prefer a 767 over the 757 on a flight over the atlantic! So I really can't understand Boeing with the 757-200ERX!
777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (14 years 11 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2133 times:
The 767-200ER has not been discontinued, it is still offered to existing customers , military organizations, and new customers if the price is right. The 757-200ERX is cheaper, more fuel-efficient, and a better fit at airports where the runways are not long and do not have the equipment to handle such a large aircraft as the 767.
King767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 11 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2129 times:
The 767-200ER has not been discontinued! It is there if anyone wants it. Of course the 757-200ERX will have a lower operating cost (Lets use our heads, whats cheaper to operate, a widebody, or a narrowbody.) The 757-200ERX is going to operate in a niche market, from smaller city's (that cannot support a 767 or A330) to mainly Europe.
"In my opinion this will result one of the major advancements in the air travel economics in this decade."
See how economical it is to operate a 757, let's say JFK-CDG. It would not be economical to operate a narrowbody aircraft from large point to point destinations, as cargo is a big factor in profit. Also, to answer TEDSKIS question as to why Boeing would even think of airlines operate an "uncomfortable" narrowbody on such long-range routes, well, I don't think Boeing or any aircraft manufacturer really cares what people think (even though I would not mind hopping the pond on a 757). Boeing cares about what airlines want, and airlines want $, which this aircraft would provide on thin, long-range routes.
Godbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2753 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (14 years 11 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2110 times:
But still I can't understand that airlines would rather get a 757 then a 762. Since airlines want to make sure that customers stay with them and for service a wider cabin really is an advantage. Plus that the 767 can carry cargo where the 757 has to have extra fuel-tanks.
So I could understand every charter airline to go for the 757-200ERX instead of the 767-200 since cargo ain't important for them and so they want to reduce costs where every possible so for example by reducing drag through a smaller cabin. Well but airlines really must think different since the last airline to order the 767-200 was CO and before that there havn't been orders for 7 years...
King767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (14 years 11 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2110 times:
I was not saying that a Narrowbody would be "uncomfortable" on long-range flights, but just making refference to what Godbless stated. I would have no problem flying a 757 or 737NG across the pond.
Economics outweigh creature comforts. On the routes that the 757-200ERX will be operated, there is not going to be much of a choice who to fly to Europe. And if there is competition, they most likely are going to be operating a 757 or similar aircraft too, leaving the customer with no choice, unless they wanted to fly into a hub. An airlines is not going to operate a 767 or similar sized aircraft on such thin, low yield routes.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 17593 posts, RR: 50
Reply 9, posted (14 years 11 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2067 times:
The 757-200ERX will not compete directly against widebodies but would instead compete against connections.
The 757-200ERX will open up routes that otherwise would require a connection like NY-Berlin, from a business travelers perspective a nonstop is always more desirable than a connection. This is the same debate seen with RJs and 737s or A319s, the RJ opens up many more flights opportunities that would otherwise require a connection like NY-Madison Wisconsin.
Cba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4534 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (14 years 11 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2064 times:
According to Boeing's specs, this aircraft would have the range to fly Houston Paris nonstop. In my opinion, 10 hours on a 757 is just too much, unless they add an inch or so in seat pitch and give us PTV's.
Gregg From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (14 years 11 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2059 times:
Narrow boddies are not that bad. (I agree with the previous post that many 757s are more comfortable then DC-10s.. No "center of the center" seat. I'd much rather fly a 757 from the city that I live in, to Europe, South America, etc. Also if you travel in first or bus, all seats in a 757 are on a window or isle... I was happy when I flew a 707 30 years ago from Houston, stopping in LAX, HNL, then on to Tokyo. And ANY seat in a 757 is better then the center of a 5 seat seating section of a wide body.
But yes, a 767 is the most comfortable in steerage for long flights, no doubt about it.