CMK10 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 513 posts, RR: 3 Posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1803 times:
I was leafing through my OAG and i was perusing the JFK-SJC flights for a possible trip and i was wondering, whats it like being on a 757 across the country? Ive taken them LGA-MCO and LGA-ORD and TXL-LHR, but never for around 5 hours. Is it bearable? (keep in mind I'll be in coach)
"Traveling light is the only way to fly" - Eric Clapton
Sjc>sfo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1796 times:
I just did JFK-OAK last thursday. It's not too bad at all really. I've also done SJC-JFK-SJC on a 738.
The service is fine, and with AA there's plenty of leg room so its beareable.
Unfortunately the aircraft used on the OAK-JFK-OAK route are SUB-STANDARD. I think they are either ex-TWA, or they just haven't replaced the seats yet, first class looks like crap, and on both my flights they had about 12 blankets for 120 or so people in coach. Which was especially bad on the return considering it was a flight leaving at 9:30PM!!!
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (12 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1632 times:
This is a route I've done a few times, including leaving tonight for a meeting tomorrow morning, then heading back. As was mentioned, the aircraft flying this route have the old interior; but I think only the 757's recently have the newer interior (I've never actually BEEN on a 757 that had the new interior; but I heard the new deliveries have it).
But it's not a bad flight overall. SJC-JFK is being downgraded back to the 757 as well soon, from the summer's 767-200.
Trvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1535 times:
I recently flew SAN-BOS in an AA 757, and quite suprisingly, I didn't find it all that bad. What was surprising was that it was bearable in spite of the fact that the plane had the old AA seats/interiors. But it wasn't too bad...the legroom helps, and there's some food (most likely a full meal and a "snack").
It helps to sleep, though...while the flight isn't bad, it's not too interesting, either.
Airplanetire From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1809 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1508 times:
I have done over 40 trans cons (most of my flights because of family in Calitfornia) and probably about 30 of them have been on DL 757s. The other 10 were on other Delta aircraft. These flights were between ATL or CVG (depending where I lived at the time) and SAN. The fact is that it is the same as being on a twin aisled aircraft for the same amount of time. Beverage carts blocking the only aisle is not a problem. They aren't in the aisle for all that much time, so you just don't get up during that time, or if you must, you go the direction heading away from them, if possible. You'll enjoy!
Tcttx From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1478 times:
Actually, except for "looks," I much prefer AA's old interior. The F seats were much more comfortable IMO than these new blue seats, and in Y, with the new seats, when you lift the armrests, they aren't flush with the seatbacks. Other than that, they do look much more sharp in the dark blue.
Bombayhog From United States of America, joined May 2001, 557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1442 times:
A very large percentage of AA 757s are in the old interior, and I find the seats to be somewhat uncomfortable, in addition to ugly.
Nevertheless, the 757 is fine for transcon flights. I guess I would prefer a 767 if I had a choice between the two, but the 757 is adequate. Plus, it's a great looking jet, and it has a fun climb rate.