vheca
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:20 pm

757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:42 am

I throw it open to the floor...

I dont mind the sleek looking 757 as I cruise through airports around the world or through websites like this. And I always wondered why we Australians seem to have lucked out on missing this Boeing species down here in Australia.

We have had associations with the rest of the Boeing fleet, from the 707, 727, 737, 747, 767 via Qantas and Ansett, and we will soon to be seeing the NG's of 777 and 787 breeds in Oz skies soon. But the 757 remained elusive.

Anyone care to help me why this was so?

Thanks in advance

VH-ECA
PAX on-312,320,722,732,733,73H,73W,739,742,743,74C,752,753,762,789,AB4,CR7,D1C,D28,DHT,F27,L11
 
mestrugo
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 5:07 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In O

Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:06 am

Quoting VHECA (Thread starter):
We have had associations with the rest of the Boeing fleet, from the 707, 727, 737, 747, 767 via Qantas and Ansett, and we will soon to be seeing the NG's of 777 and 787 breeds in Oz skies soon. But the 757 remained elusive.

Annnd Qantaslink's 717s.

[Edited 2007-10-25 22:07:28]
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:44 am

Just a wild guess - the B757 offered nothing in terms of capacity/range/economics that either QF or AN thought that they could benefit from?

I guess the extra in range/weight never outweighed the disadvantage of having "too much aircraft" for most routes that it could have been deployed on - or too little capacity for those that it would have been deployed on for it's range.
Smile - it confuses people!
 
anstar
Posts: 2882
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:55 am

i think they went for the 763's as it has a faster deplaning time. Tunirng a 757 around quickly is a bit difficult witht he single aisle. I also believe this is a reason why no Aussie airline has ordered the 739
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:58 am

Quoting ANstar (Reply 3):
i think they went for the 763's as it has a faster deplaning time. Tunirng a 757 around quickly is a bit difficult witht he single aisle.

That was also one of the reported reasons why LH decided not to opt for the B757-300 as a replacement for the A300.
Smile - it confuses people!
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:15 am

The answer is that it is not particularly efficient for any given mission.

In 2007, the A320 or A321 is much more efficient, and in 1987 and 1997 the 767-200 and then 767-300 offered much more versatility to Ansett and Qantas.

And it's not a great plane to be a passenger in: it's the same old 707 narrow cabin as the 727 and 737, but elongated.
 
vheca
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:20 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:30 am

Quoting VHECA (Thread starter):
We have had associations with the rest of the Boeing fleet, from the 707, 727, 737, 747, 767 via Qantas and Ansett, and we will soon to be seeing the NG's of 777 and 787 breeds in Oz skies soon. But the 757 remained elusive.

And Qantaslink's 717s.[/quote]

Oh yes, the baby one! I forgot about this one!

Quoting Koruman (Reply 5):
The answer is that it is not particularly efficient for any given mission.

In 2007, the A320 or A321 is much more efficient, and in 1987 and 1997 the 767-200 and then 767-300 offered much more versatility to Ansett and Qantas.

And it's not a great plane to be a passenger in: it's the same old 707 narrow cabin as the 727 and 737, but elongated.

Yet it has served ...err...well in the US and in Europe? Well at least for some considerable amount of time and using them on semi- to major- routes. I just wondered why it was ignored. It just seems that it was not presented as well as the 767, no?

And thanks for the quick replies!

VH-ECA
PAX on-312,320,722,732,733,73H,73W,739,742,743,74C,752,753,762,789,AB4,CR7,D1C,D28,DHT,F27,L11
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:41 am

Actually, a lot of European and North American airlines now find themselves with fully paid-off and depreciated 757s which they don't know what to do with (BA, CO, DL etc).

They are useless for freight, and much less efficient than 737NG and A320s for short-haul travel, so they are being used on trans-Atlantic flights to low-yield secondary centres which don't have freight requirements, like Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle or Bristol.

But what would be the equivalent Australian niche? The only comparable flights I can think of are PER-AKL (767 does this nicely for NZ), ADE-AKL (A320 does this well for NZ) and possibly Melbourne-Fiji.
 
tonymctigue
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:01 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:06 am

Quoting Koruman (Reply 5):
And it's not a great plane to be a passenger in: it's the same old 707 narrow cabin as the 727 and 737, but elongated.



Quoting Koruman (Reply 7):
Actually, a lot of European and North American airlines now find themselves with fully paid-off and depreciated 757s which they don't know what to do with (BA, CO, DL etc).

Yes, the 757 has found a new lease of life on TA routes with low yields but still a sufficient demand that makes the 752 the ideal AC for the job. Where I live on the west coast of Ireland, the nearest airport is Shannon (EINN) that currently CO, DL, US & GSM operate TA services to EWR, JFK, PHL & YHM respectively & previously AA operated to BOS also with a 752. They are perfect for an airport like SNN that have relatively small catchements but still enough demand to fill a 752. CO are the real master of using 752's on TA routes. They were the ones who really pioneered their use for such routes & they have been successful at operating 752's from EWR to SNN & BFS & making a profit on these routes where other carriers previously tried but failed. AA tried to copy CO but were not nearly as successful & both DL & US have both since started operating TA 752 services. However, they are horribly uncomfortable to sit on for a 7 hour flight, They are very narrow & you get this feeling the whole the whole time that the roof is about to cave in. At the same time though, people are just glad to have the oppertunity of getting direct flights to the US from their own local airoprts without the hassle of passing through overcrowded airports like DUB so they are willing to put up with the smaller AC. Also, many routes that start with a 752 get upgraded to a 763 after a couple of years of operation because once people get used to using the service, demands increase that warrents the use of a 763 but had they started with the 763, the route would not have lasted because of the excess capacity.
Airports: SNN GWY NOC DUB ORK BOS EWR JFK ORD MCI BOI SEA LHR STN CDG LYS FAO GVA HKG MEL ADL HBA
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3372
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:01 am

Quoting Koruman (Reply 7):
Actually, a lot of European and North American airlines now find themselves with fully paid-off and depreciated 757s which they don't know what to do with (BA, CO, DL etc).

Well BA is presently looking for 2 more B757.

Quoting Koruman (Reply 7):
They are useless for freight

But brilliant for package operators. BA sold a whole fleet of non-ETOPS B757 to DHL a couple of years ago.
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3372
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:07 am

Quoting Tonymctigue (Reply 8):
However, they are horribly uncomfortable to sit on for a 7 hour flight, They are very narrow & you get this feeling the whole the whole time that the roof is about to cave in

When I was young we all travelled around in B707 DC8 and VC10 in 6 abreast economy. It was the height of luxury then. I suppose you would rather sit in the middle seat of a 10 abreast wide body?
If the roof was falling down that is no fault of the B757, its bad maintenance!

And by the way, Icelandair has leased out a B757 to a South Pacific airline. (sorry can't remember the name) so you may see one in Oz soon.
 
tonymctigue
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:01 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:05 am

Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 10):
When I was young we all travelled around in B707 DC8 and VC10 in 6 abreast economy. It was the height of luxury then. I suppose you would rather sit in the middle seat of a 10 abreast wide body?
If the roof was falling down that is no fault of the B757, its bad maintenance!

I didn't mean that the roof was literally falling in. I just meant that because the cabin is so long & narrow it is really claustrophobic. You are right though about sitting in the middle seat of a 10 abreast wide body. It is not plesent. A window seat on a wide body is my preference. 752's are also terrible in turbulence. If you are in the very back & the plance hits turbulence, you can literally see the fuselage flexing.
Airports: SNN GWY NOC DUB ORK BOS EWR JFK ORD MCI BOI SEA LHR STN CDG LYS FAO GVA HKG MEL ADL HBA
 
ual777
Posts: 1528
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 6:18 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:26 am

Quoting Koruman (Reply 7):
They are useless for freight,

Tell that to UPS. Hint: they have 75 of them.
It is always darkest before the sun comes up.
 
vheca
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:20 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:14 pm

Quoting UAL777 (Reply 12):
Quoting Koruman (Reply 7):
They are useless for freight,

Tell that to UPS. Hint: they have 75 of them.

That's true. UPS uses a lot of these on freighter duties.

Quoting Koruman (Reply 7):
But what would be the equivalent Australian niche? The only comparable flights I can think of are PER-AKL (767 does this nicely for NZ), ADE-AKL (A320 does this well for NZ) and possibly Melbourne-Fiji.

Got a good point, especially in today's environment. But when the plane was fresh out of the box from Boeing, no Australian carrier, as far as what I have read here so far, had even considered it. Even for the South Pacific runs that 742 and 743 aircraft made (Prior to the Ansett amalgamation, for want of a better word!)

It just seems weird that all but one variant was looked at and subsequently operated in Australia on a regular basis! May be just an anomoly where like Kourman said, there was no comparable niche!

Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 10):
And by the way, Icelandair has leased out a B757 to a South Pacific airline. (sorry can't remember the name) so you may see one in Oz soon.

TristarSteve, I believe that Royal Brunei operated their 752 into Oz a number of times before it was sold on. But I would love to see a 757 operate, but time is short for the bird!

Again thanks to all for answering something that has been a little bit of bother in my Aviation-minded head!

VH-ECA
PAX on-312,320,722,732,733,73H,73W,739,742,743,74C,752,753,762,789,AB4,CR7,D1C,D28,DHT,F27,L11
 
airbazar
Posts: 7106
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:46 pm

Quoting VHECA (Reply 6):
Yet it has served ...err...well in the US and in Europe?

Not many European legagy carriers operated the 757, at least since the A320/1 became available. Even fewer exist today. Most 757's in Europe are being used by tour operators.
In my opinion, the easy answer to the original question is that the 757 was taylor made for the domestic US market.

Quoting UAL777 (Reply 12):
Tell that to UPS. Hint: they have 75 of them.

But they don't have to carry passengers. I think that's what he meant.
 
Curmudgeon
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:19 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:49 pm

The 757 was considered as a 727 replacement back in the day, but the thinking was that it exceeded the single aisle max passenger capacity that the then airline management thought ideal (for turn-around times). Don't forget that through flights in Australia still deplane all passengers and groom the cabin, a process that would mean a :50 turn for a 757.

The 757 is a great aircraft for those airlines that can use its range/economy attributes, but it is too small for Australia. Sydney-Melbourne is one of the world's busiest routes, and is well served by wide bodies for peak and 737 for other times. The other city pairs are largely the same. Additionally, the cities served from Australia within the 757's range circle all demand bigger cabins.

By the way, the 757 cabin is unlike the 737/727...it is roomier. As for freight: As has been mentioned, the package operators love it, and are actively seeking additional 757 planes as/when/if they become available used.

The real missed opportunity in the Boeing catalogue was the 777...
Jets are for kids
 
NZ8800
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:56 pm

Except for brief leases (Freedom Air and Kiwi International) - commercial carriers across the ditch in New Zealand doesn't use the 757 either.
However, two of them operate as transport aircraft from Royal New Zealand Airforce Base Whenuapai, near Auckland.
Due to the low strength and short length of Whenuapai's runways, and the need to transport around 190 people at a time, they were much better replacements for the RNZAF's aging 727s than a wide-bodied aircraft.
Does the RAAF use them as transport aircraft?

I'd agree with other people's opinions above - the 757 just doesn't suit Australian operations. And the 737-800, which both Qantas and Virgin Blue use carries nearly as many passengers as the 757s.
The 767 does de-plane much quicker, as noted; and would be more suitable for busy routes between the State Capitals.
MDZWTA ~ Mobile Disaster Zone When Travelling Abroad
 
VHHYI
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:52 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:58 pm

Hello all, I saw this thread and I registered so I can reply to it  Smile

Ansett DID order the 757. Six of them+options back in the Abeles days, along with a few 737's
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...9B0DEEDF133AF93BA35753C1A961948260

One can only guess where they evaporated off to? Ansett Worldwide leasing?
This Porsche is like an Airbus;an Engineering marvel, but without passion - Jeremy Clarkson
 
sh0rtybr0wn
Posts: 373
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:16 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:02 pm

Quoting Curmudgeon (Reply 15):
The real missed opportunity in the Boeing catalogue was the 777...

No kidding. Mind boggling that QF doesn't have 40 of them.
 
anstar
Posts: 2882
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:16 pm

Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 18):
No kidding. Mind boggling that QF doesn't have 40 of them.

Why is it boggling? They went for the 330 instead
 
VHHYI
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:52 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:17 pm

Another thing I dug up..

http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/...ository1/media/npaper_4/r31560.pdf

VB appears to have been considering 757 for short term capacity in the aftermath of the AN collapse.
This Porsche is like an Airbus;an Engineering marvel, but without passion - Jeremy Clarkson
 
caspritz78
Posts: 229
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 4:51 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:27 pm

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 14):
Not many European legagy carriers operated the 757, at least since the A320/1 became available. Even fewer exist today. Most 757's in Europe are being used by tour operators.

Don't forget FI . They operate 16 757 of various configurations. Right now that is their main aircraft.
 
sh0rtybr0wn
Posts: 373
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:16 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:28 pm

Quoting ANstar (Reply 19):
Why is it boggling? They went for the 330 instead

77W would be best plane for the longest QF routes right now. Most popular long haul aircraft, especially for a place that's far from everywhere. It would have been the perfect plane for them, thats why I find it mind boggling.
 
flysherwood
Posts: 881
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:58 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:41 pm

Quoting Koruman (Reply 5):
And it's not a great plane to be a passenger in: it's the same old 707 narrow cabin as the 727 and 737, but elongated.

Have you ever flown on a 757? It is probably one of the funnest planes to fly if you are an enthusiast. The sheer power and acceleration in comparison with a A320 or 737NG is like the comparison between a Porche 935 Turbo Carrera and a Toyota Corolla.
 
rampart
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:44 pm

Quoting NZ8800 (Reply 16):
And the 737-800, which both Qantas and Virgin Blue use carries nearly as many passengers as the 757s.
The 767 does de-plane much quicker, as noted; and would be more suitable for busy routes between the State Capitals.

Knowing little about Australian commercial aviation, I venture a guess that the density of Australian airports, and concentration to the east coast, limit the need for medium and transcontinent range in the same seating capacity that the 757 offered. Compare this to the US, where there are many more cities, many more transcontinent and medium ranges, and dispersion of cities across the country. Europe is somewhat similar to the US, though the popular A321 fulfills some of the need. I would guess that Canada might be analogous to Australia -- lower density of cities, and the 757 wasn't popular there, either.

-Rampart
 
777STL
Posts: 2770
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:22 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:50 pm

Quoting ANstar (Reply 19):
Why is it boggling? They went for the 330 instead

No, it is mind boggling. Considering Boeing consulted a handful of airlines during the design phase of the 777, QF was one of these and the only one that didn't order the plane.

Not to start a B and A war here, but I don't think the 330 was necessarily the best aircraft for QF, so much as they were nearly given the 330s as a primer for the 380 deal.

As to the 757? I think considering OZ geography, the 762 and consequently the 763 were better aircraft for QF. More versatile in that they could do a trans-con, and then turn and operate an Asia flight or even a NZ flight.
PHX based
 
OceansWorld
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:00 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:56 pm

Quoting VHECA (Thread starter):
Anyone care to help me why this was so?

A few earlier details. During the '80s, when AN and TN were the domestic airlines, one went for a bunch of B767-200s while the other preferred the A300B4-203s. They then had B727-200s too. Australian ordered B737-300s and -400s when Ansett choosed the A320s to add to their B737-200/300s.
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:20 pm

Thinking about the geographical spread of cities accross Oz, it is fairly easy to see why the 757 was not as popular as the 738 has been. Those cities that needed the extra capacity did not need the extra weight and payload the 757 offers. Those that are farther spread apart were better served by widebodies becasue of cargo needs, and less frequent flights were the pay off.

I know EI played off the A321 against the the 752 in the early 90's for the high density London-Ireland routes. In the end the lighter A321 suited them better, and offered a similar passenger count. They would never have used the range of the 752's, and the lack of cargo capacity would have amage them less than attractive on TA routes.

The A321 and 757 have an advantage over the 739 as they have full size miship exits, in Europe where airbridges are less common some operators (charter op's especially) deplane/ & board from L2 &L4, which speeds up the process a bit, and negates the lack of a second isle somewhat.

Brian.

[Edited 2007-10-26 11:22:39]
Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:31 am

Quoting Leskova (Reply 4):

That was also one of the reported reasons why LH decided not to opt for the B757-300 as a replacement for the A300.

Actually, LH concluded that the single aisle layout of the 753 did not result in longer boarding, deplaning or turn times....passenger reaction to the 753 was rather poor as many considered it a down-grade from the widebody A300/A310s that LH was thinking about replacing with the 753.

Quoting Koruman (Reply 5):
The answer is that it is not particularly efficient for any given mission.

Strange, with over 1000 sold, I guess that the 752 must be good at something?

Quoting Koruman (Reply 7):
Actually, a lot of European and North American airlines now find themselves with fully paid-off and depreciated 757s which they don't know what to do with (BA, CO, DL etc).

Since the 752 is efficient on mission from 200 to 4000 miles, the airlines know exactly what to do with them....the 757 is probably the most efficient way to move about 180 passengers over any given segment. The 757 is a huge money maker.

Quoting Tonymctigue (Reply 8):
However, they are horribly uncomfortable to sit on for a 7 hour flight, They are very narrow & you get this feeling the whole the whole time that the roof is about to cave in.

Oh dear, this nonsense yet again.......sorry, but the days of widebody comfort are very long gone and a coach seat is a coach seat. Your personal space on a 757 is no different than on a widebody, and so much depends upon how the particular airline configured an airplane. And the roof is going to cave in? That is just plain funny.

Quoting NZ8800 (Reply 16):
I'd agree with other people's opinions above - the 757 just doesn't suit Australian operations. And the 737-800, which both Qantas and Virgin Blue use carries nearly as many passengers as the 757s

But the 738 came many many years later than the 757. I think that Qantas and Virgin Blue effectively using the 738, and NZ using the A320, is evidence that many the Australian and New Zealand carriers could have benefited from the 752.

------------

I am actually surprised that no Australian carrier ordered the 757 back in the 1980s......it has the range to operate each and every domestic Australian route, it would have been an ideal Trans-Tasman airplane (the right size for smaller routes and it would allow frequency on heavily travelled routes), and the 757 could have operated thin regional routes between Australia and Asia (say services to Bali). That the Australian carriers made other choices for various reasons is understandable, but claiming that the 757 is somehow not a good airplane or is an uncomfortable airplane is simply ridiculous. And, that the 737NGs are very capable and can operate most of the missions that could be flown by a 752 is also not a complete argument, as the 737NG came to market years and years after the 752 was introduced.
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:50 am

Quoting Rampart (Reply 24):
I would guess that Canada might be analogous to Australia -- lower density of cities, and the 757 wasn't popular there, either.

It was popular, to a degree. Canada 3000, Harmony and a host of package tour operators used them extensively within Canada and to Sun destinations. The failure of these carriers had little to do with the selection of airplane type.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
lrdc9
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:27 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:57 am

Quoting Koruman (Reply 7):
North American airlines now find themselves with fully paid-off and depreciated 757s which they don't know what to do with (BA, CO, DL etc).

How could that possibly be? Delta just bought MORE from AA(ex-TWA birds)!!!!!!!!!!!!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephen Dobbins


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dan Rabolt


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris W. - ATL Spotters

Just say NO to scabs.
 
CXfirst
Posts: 2919
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:13 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:57 am





In addition to that, the New Zealand Air Force 757 has been to Australia plenty of times. Even the mexican governmental 757 has been here!

-CXfirst
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19287
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:01 am

Quoting Curmudgeon (Reply 15):
By the way, the 757 cabin is unlike the 737/727...it is roomier.

Fuselage width is the same but the 757 may (not certain) have slightly more headroom due to a repositioned cabin floor since the 757 fuselage is taller than the 727/737 fuselage. That wouldn't be a very meaningful difference but may give an impression of slightly more room. I've never noticed any difference apart from the windows which seem to be positioned slightly higher on the 757 compared to the 727/737.

Quoting VHECA (Reply 13):
TristarSteve, I believe that Royal Brunei operated their 752 into Oz a number of times before it was sold on. But I would love to see a 757 operate, but time is short for the bird!

Defunct Canadian carrier Canada 3000 operated the 757 for a couple of years on their YVR-HNL-NAN-SYD route which must have been one of the longest scheduled routes ever operated by the 757. They had upgraded to the A330-200 and A340-300 before they shut down.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Craig Murray



Another defunct carrier, Royal Tongan Airlines (liquidated in 2004), also operated a 757 for a while on their Tonga-Australia routes. It was leased from Royal Brunei Airlines.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



There are about 150 A.net photos of 757s taken in Australia, including many government and VIP aircraft.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4402
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:28 am

Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 22):
77W would be best plane for the longest QF routes right now. Most popular long haul aircraft, especially for a place that's far from everywhere. It would have been the perfect plane for them, thats why I find it mind bogglin

Obviously NOT in QFs opinion! And I would suggest than the QF route & fleet planning people had/have a LOT more information at their finger tips than you or I ever could.

While the B777 is a magnificent aircraft, that DOES NOT mean it fits within every carrier's needs. While I don't know why QF did not order the B777 you have to consider the time frame when the aircraft could have been ordered and what was happening at that time. I suspect the last time QF seriously looked at the B777 (except for ULH variants) was in the late nineties when the decisions were made that resulted in QF ordering the A380 & A330. The time before that I suspect was in the early nineties when the that batch of B744s were ordered.

Another factor is ETOPS. QF is NOT an enthusiastic ETOPS operator. Yes they have ETOPS180 approval, but they only use it between Oz & HNL and over small parts of Indonesia & the Philippines between Oz and some Asian cities. Many, many senior QF pilots are deeply suspicious of ETOPS. I suspect this is slowly changing.

Number of aircraft types. QF (International) has historically tried to minimise the number of aircraft types it operates. It has limited itself to two aircraft types from the end of piston engined aircraft in the 1950s until the A330 started arriving in 2004. The main reason for this was due to distance from manufactures QF had to do everything maintenance wise itself and introducing a new aircraft type was expensive. This is changing as the industry itself is changing with things like "power by the hour" etc.

Given the above AND all the other thousands of factors that go into fleet decisions, I don't find it surprising that QF stuck with its historical view of not more than two aircraft types, nor do I find it surprising that in the late 1990/early 2000s it modified it somewhat to meet changing needs. Given the A380 was ordered the B777 had no chance and the A330 was really ordered IMHO to give QF experience in large FBW aircraft before the A380 arrived. The good deal Airbus offered didn't hurt either.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10022
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:29 am

Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 22):
77W would be best plane for the longest QF routes right now. Most popular long haul aircraft, especially for a place that's far from everywhere. It would have been the perfect plane for them, thats why I find it mind boggling.

It quite astounds me when this sort of comment comes up. So, the armchair CEO from the comfort of his own living room could have saved Qantas all that time and money evaluating the aircraft types for them... yeah, sure. Yeah sure They bought the A330s because they evaluated that they were the most suitable for their requirements... I think, with no disrespect, that they know a lot more than you do in this situation about what's best for them.

Quoting VHECA (Reply 13):
TristarSteve, I believe that Royal Brunei operated their 752 into Oz a number of times before it was sold on.

Sadly saw on of the ex Brunei machines at Kemble being broken up a few years ago.


Dan Smile
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
tpaewr
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat May 19, 2001 9:01 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:49 am

CO flew the 752 GUM-CNS, often as a replacement for the 727 when the weather pushed the flight path outside the 727's range.
 
StearmanNut
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 9:54 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:52 am

I have flown on a QF 757 from SYD to Cairns twice.
If wishes were horses, a Tail Dragger I would fly...
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:13 am

Quoting StearmanNut (Reply 36):
I have flown on a QF 757 from SYD to Cairns twice.

I didn't think that QF ever had 757's did they? Was it a different aircraft/operator perhaps?
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5549
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:40 am

Quoting StearmanNut (Reply 36):
I have flown on a QF 757 from SYD to Cairns twice.

I doubt that but will qualify my doubt with the note that during the pilots strike of 1989 there were all kinds of strange things in Australian skies from airlines and operators all over the world so if it was '89 then that is a possibility. QF fight but not QF metal.

Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:27 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 28):
Quoting Leskova (Reply 4):

That was also one of the reported reasons why LH decided not to opt for the B757-300 as a replacement for the A300.

Actually, LH concluded that the single aisle layout of the 753 did not result in longer boarding, deplaning or turn times....

Could be... would differ from what was reported at the time, but still could very well be a reason.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 28):
passenger reaction to the 753 was rather poor as many considered it a down-grade from the widebody A300/A310s that LH was thinking about replacing with the 753.

I never get why people consider that a downgrade - same as a change from an A300 to an A320... personally, I'd consider it an upgrade, but maybe that's just me...  Wink

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 33):
While the B777 is a magnificent aircraft, that DOES NOT mean it fits within every carrier's needs.

That's a sentence some people should print out and hang on their walls above their computer screen - that simple fact often gets lost around here...

Quoting 777STL (Reply 25):
Not to start a B and A war here,

Writing that and then following up with this...

Quoting 777STL (Reply 25):
but I don't think the 330 was necessarily the best aircraft for QF, so much as they were nearly given the 330s as a primer for the 380 deal.

... somehow doesn't quite chime right...

But what the hell... we all know Airbus gives planes away for free...  Yeah sure
Smile - it confuses people!
 
OceansWorld
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:00 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:54 am

Quoting StearmanNut (Reply 36):
I have flown on a QF 757 from SYD to Cairns twice.

QF has never operated or leased B757s.

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 38):
I doubt that but will qualify my doubt with the note that during the pilots strike of 1989 there were all kinds of strange things in Australian skies from airlines and operators all over the world so if it was '89 then that is a possibility.

During the strike, Ansett has leased two B757s from Air 2000 while Australian has done the same but with Monarch.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 28):
I am actually surprised that no Australian carrier ordered the 757 back in the 1980s......it has the range to operate each and every domestic Australian route

During the '80s both Ansett and TAA/Australian had a fleet of B727-200s, with of them being around till 1997 for Ansett and 1993 for Australian.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:17 am

Quoting Leskova (Reply 39):
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 28):
passenger reaction to the 753 was rather poor as many considered it a down-grade from the widebody A300/A310s that LH was thinking about replacing with the 753.

I never get why people consider that a downgrade - same as a change from an A300 to an A320... personally, I'd consider it an upgrade, but maybe that's just me...

I happen to agree with you, but we are among the minority here; the theme at a.net lately has been: bigger is always better and widebody=good and narrowbody=bad!

Quoting Leskova (Reply 39):
That's a sentence some people should print out and hang on their walls above their computer screen - that simple fact often gets lost around here...

How philosophical!  Wink

Quoting Leskova (Reply 39):
But what the hell... we all know Airbus gives planes away for free...

As I have said before, I want one of those ""free"" Airbus airplanes; all kidding aside, that QF ordered the A330s in conjunction with their to be delivered A380s seemed to result in the (false) conclusion that somehow Airbus ""threw in"" the A330s as part of the deal which is simply not the case. Did QF get a good deal with respect to the A330s, sure they did, but thinking that QF got the A330s for free is just silly. And, when QF originally assigned the A332s to short haul, quick turn domestic Australian operations and ran into some issues with the type, some concluded that QF made a mistake with the A330s which, again, is untrue.

Quoting OceansWorld (Reply 40):
During the '80s both Ansett and TAA/Australian had a fleet of B727-200s, with of them being around till 1997 for Ansett and 1993 for Australian.

Yes, I recall.....if my memory is correct, both airlines had rather young 72S airplanes (didn't both airlines actually replace older 72S airplanes by ordering new 72S?). Later, when QF moved along to the 734 as a 72S replacement and AN moved along to the A320 as a 72S replacement, didn't both airlines convert their 72S to freighters?

In any case, I do agree that both TAA and Ansett having rather new 72S airplanes was a big factor in neither airline going for the 757-200.
 
OceansWorld
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:00 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:35 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 41):
Later, when QF moved along to the 734 as a 72S replacement and AN moved along to the A320 as a 72S replacement, didn't both airlines convert their 72S to freighters?

First, it wasn't QF that moved from 72S to 734, but rather TN (Australian Airlines) with the first aircraft arriving back in 1990. AN got its first A320s at the end of 1988. You can check this for both here:

http://www.planespotters.net/Airline/Ansett-Airlines
http://www.planespotters.net/Airline/Australian-Airlines-(TN)

On the matter of 72S freighter, only Ansett converted in 1983 one of its 1974-built aircraft. As a side note, Ansett received four new B727-277 in June and July 1981, fitted with more powerful engines and long-range fuel tanks that allowed unrestricted year round SYD-PER services.
 
airbazar
Posts: 7106
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:34 pm

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 41):
I happen to agree with you, but we are among the minority here; the theme at a.net lately has been: bigger is always better and widebody=good and narrowbody=bad!

It's not that one is good and one is bad as much as one is better for some missions and the other is better for other missions. And it's not just a.netters that think that way, it's the flying public in general. And if the flying public thinks like that airlines will be reluctant to offer a product that customers don't like.
Having said that, I'll play devil's advocate here. There is good reason for people to think that way. You can't possibly say that riding inside a 757 feels just like a 777 or any other widebody for that matter. The feeling of space alone is a huge difference, regardless of the fact that the seats are the same. For those of us who feel very comfortable inside an airplane it may not be a huge difference, but there are a lot of people for whom flying is an ordeal and that extra bit of spaciousness makes a huge difference.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:01 pm

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 43):
Having said that, I'll play devil's advocate here.

A dangerous game.  Wink

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 43):
The feeling of space alone is a huge difference, regardless of the fact that the seats are the same.

Yet most passengers dont chose their flights based upon the type of equipment with which a flight is operated....the following factors are far more important to most passengers than type of airplane:

1. Fare.
2. Schedule.
3. Nonstop is preferred over connections.
4. Airline Name recognition.
5. Frequent Flyer program.

Only after those factors are addressed will a passenger even consider what type of airplane is flying a route....and most dont care. As long as the airplane gets a pax to his or her destination safely and without too much drama, most passengers (and not a.net members) are satisfied.

And, while some prefer larger widebody airplanes due to the ""illusion of space"", others are happy with smaller airplane since boarding, deplaning, waits at the immigration line and baggage claim are all easier with the smaller amount of passengers accommodated by a smaller aircraft.

Two things to consider:

1. If narrow bodies airplanes are inferior for longhaul flights, why have the Privatair services operated on behalf of LH, SR and KL become so popular? And what about the Dedicate services from AF? Why are these airlines putting some of their highest yielding premium frequent flyers on long range narrow body flights?

2. When flying on a 747, many many passengers prefer the upstairs cabin since its quiet and private....the space and feeling on the upper deck of a 744 is just like what? The premium cabin of a narrow body airliner.

Think about it.
 
airbazar
Posts: 7106
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:48 pm

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 44):
Yet most passengers dont chose their flights based upon the type of equipment with which a flight is operated

Oh yes they do, especially the ones that count the most such the the FF passengers. That is one reason an airline like SQ does not operate narrowbody aircraft. In their studies they found out that their passengers would rather fly on a widebody, and pay more for it. There are a lot of clueless travelers out there, but there are also a lot of them who know what aircraft they're getting into and what kind of amenities will be available.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 44):
1. Fare.
2. Schedule.
3. Nonstop is preferred over connections.

Not in that order. In fact you'e mixing 2 different types of customers: Those who value time, and those who value money. Usually you can't get a cheap fare flying non-stop at prime time. And when you need to transport a large number of people for the smallest cost, a small narrowbody isn't the answer. A non-stop TATL on a 757 route will almost always be more expensive than a one-stop connection. For example, I can do NYC-LHR/CDG/MAD-LIS for less money than NYC-LIS on CO's 757 unless I book way, way in advance. Make no mistake. the only reason you are seeing 757 flying TATL is because these carriers can't afford to buy new aircraft. It's a stop gap measure to save their butts from the claws of LCCs.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:57 pm

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 45):
That is one reason an airline like SQ does not operate narrowbody aircraft. In their studies they found out that their passengers would rather fly on a widebody, and pay more for it.

Asian pax are one group that overwhelmingly prefer widebody airplanes.......thus SQ flies an exclusively widebody fleet. I am not so sure that the same parameters apply to other parts of the world.

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 45):
Make no mistake. the only reason you are seeing 757 flying TATL is because these carriers can't afford to buy new aircraft. It's a stop gap measure to save their butts from the claws of LCCs.

And on this, we will simply have to agree to disagree. The 757 is a very capable, effective and efficient on shorter transatlantic services from Northeast hubs to the UK/Ireland/Western Europe. 1000s of passengers happily fly 757s across the Atlantic each and every day, paying good fares and enjoying nonstop services that were previously unavailable......are all of these pax somehow wrong?
 
nzrich
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:51 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:33 pm

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 28):
But the 738 came many many years later than the 757. I think that Qantas and Virgin Blue effectively using the 738, and NZ using the A320, is evidence that many the Australian and New Zealand carriers could have benefited from the 752.

Well in NZ the 757 really is not a option at all domestically it would not make sence with tight turn arounds and it would of meant a reduction in frequency to handle the increase in passenger numbers so was not going to happen ..

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 28):
it has the range to operate each and every domestic Australian route, it would have been an ideal Trans-Tasman airplane (the right size for smaller routes and it would allow frequency on heavily travelled routes

The tasman is a funny route both QF and NZ use the a/c on other routes as well ie NZ 763 also operate to the pacific islands and LAX and prior to the 777 Asia too ..All requiring FREIGHT capacity as its a big part of those routes.. So really the 757 was not a ideal fit for in NZ and the Tasman ..Even the 2 LCC carriers that did operate it ditched it quickly ..
"Pride of the pacific"
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:12 pm

Quoting Nzrich (Reply 47):
Well in NZ the 757 really is not a option at all domestically it would not make sence with tight turn arounds and it would of meant a reduction in frequency to handle the increase in passenger numbers so was not going to happen

Agreed, the 757 is far too big for domestic NZ operations.

Quoting Nzrich (Reply 47):

The tasman is a funny route both QF and NZ use the a/c on other routes as well ie NZ 763 also operate to the pacific islands and LAX and prior to the 777 Asia too ..All requiring FREIGHT capacity as its a big part of those routes.. So really the 757 was not a ideal fit for in NZ and the Tasman ..Even the 2 LCC carriers that did operate it ditched it quickly ..

While SYD-AKL is opeated primarily by widebody aircraft, other Trans Tasman routes are flown with narrowbody airplanes. Yes, cargo is a big issue on such flights, but there are many 737s and A320s flying over the Tasman.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19287
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: 757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz?

Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:26 pm

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 44):
When flying on a 747, many many passengers prefer the upstairs cabin since its quiet and private

Private but in my experience (and I've heard many similar comments) not quiet. In fact I think the upper deck is the noisiest cabin on a 747 due to aerodynamic noise over that part of the fuselage. Not a big difference but noticeable. I believe the 747 cockpit is also noisier than on many other widebodies.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 44):
the space and feeling on the upper deck of a 744 is just like what? The premium cabin of a narrow body airliner.

But due to the curvature of the top of the 747 fuselage in the upper deck, the overhead bins are small and won't hold most standard size carryon bags. Hauling a couple of heavy carryon bags up the stairs can also be a chore, especially at airports like LHR where many flights (especially BA) often board from buses at remote stands and you also have the long climb up the stairs from the ground first. If you're on the upper deck it's about like climbing to the 3rd or 4th floor of a building.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos