|Quoting NWADTWE16 (Reply 30):|
Agreed with all comments referring to the 757 on Trans-Atlantic..that would just suck for the passengers and i think airlines are looking pathetic when those birds land at Global airports..i understand its a financial thing so dont get on me for that comment please =)
A couple thoughts on the 757 across the Atlantic:
1) The length of an Atlantic crossing isn't a lot longer than an East to West Coast flight with a good headwind - I've done PHL
with only a few minutes' difference in air time with headwinds going west and tailwinds going east, especially in the winter. With only a few exceptions, most TATL 757s are going to the Iberian peninsula, France, the Low Countries, Ireland and the UK - e.g., within an hour's flight of the Atlantic. It's not like they're going deep into Europe to places like FCO
on 10 hour flights.
2) The people who notice/care about the narrowbody vs. widebody issue seem to be a vocal minority. The widebodies do give more room to do a bigger business/first class product and have larger galleys and potentially more restrooms per passenger, but in general the coach cabins are pretty similar and the 757 doesn't let an airline do, say, a 2-5-2 Y configuration which buries people deep in a row and doesn't let some of them get out easily. I've crossed the Atlantic at least 30 times in the 757, and I've never booked away from it to avoid the on board configuration - the advantage in the nonstop has been the selling factor.
3) The 757 has opened more markets to nonstop service from the eastern US, and likely has preserved service in others. In the case of US (the airline), a market such as PHL
might not exist without it, AF
/DL might have dropped PHL
rather than try to compete with the US A332, PIT
(DL) might not exist, and there might be less frequency on BOS
(AA) without the ability to use an aircraft more in line with demand. And let's not forget the service that CO
built out of EWR
to smaller European markets either.
US wasn't the first to fly the 757 across the pond, and they are hardly the only ones who do. The benefits outweigh the costs, or else the market would have killed off the concept.
I don't understand comments such as "i think airlines are looking pathetic when those birds land at Global airports" - very few people are judging the external appearance of aircraft, and certainly not enough people to affect the profitability of routes. Is BA
embarrassed to fly the A318 on LCY
? It sure is small besides a 747 or A380, but they do it because it fills a market need, presumably profitably.