Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Jomar777
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: United 757s

Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:18 am

JannEejit wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
XAM2175 wrote:

This has been discussed ninety-two million times over before but without recovering too much of it, this is hindsight speaking in the worst possible way - applying contemporary and knowledge and views to historical decisions without allowance for circumstances at the time.

For a start, the 757 wasn't designed for the work it's doing today - it was intended to deliver a more efficient, more capable, and more flexible aircraft to replace the 727 and also better target the capacity gap between the 737 and the 767, which had itself been designed to replace the 707 and slot in below the 747 and which - despite the concurrent design - was the "leader" of the pair from Boeing's commercial perspective at the time.

It was more than three years after the 757 first entered service in 1982 (with EA and shortly thereafter BA, both on short-range domestic shuttle flights) that ETOPS allowed operators to start developing the long-and-thin trans-Atlantic profile the 757 is known for today.

Regardless of this though there were more than a few times in the 757's life where airlines were just not interested in it, and the post-2001 slump where it not only gathered orders for only five new frames in three years but also actively lost six when CO converted its remaining orders for the 753 to the 738 was all the writing Boeing needed to call time. They used the production line space to consolidate all 737 production at Renton, and the improvement in production capacity and reduction in overhead achieved by doing has in my mind done a hell of a lot more for Boeing than keeping the 757 on the books ever would have.

Indeed arguing that the 757 should have been kept on life-support for nearly fifteen years to fulfil a few paltry niche jobs now is no different as I see it to arguing that the 717 should have been treated the same way, just because a few airlines now find them commercially and technically attractive.


Actualy, the fact you state that this has been discussed a million times before trully defeats your point. The B757 was NOT on life support. There were plenty flying when Boeing did stop the lines. The airlines were not interested on it only because, contrary to the B737, for example, Boeing never offer any sort of update/improvement on the product. It never got anything like a NG, for example. Economic downturn pushed airlines towards the A320 (A319 boom) and B737 but Boeing could offset this by upgrading the offer just like still tries with the ailing B747 nowadays although this one is a lost cause now.

There's no hindsight - it is simply a wrong business decision.


Just curious, did Boeing look around for a suitable 'NG' type engine upgrade for the 757 in the late 90's or early 2000's ? Was there anything 'off the shelf' that would have given the plane the upgrade you mention to lend appeal to further airline purchases ? What else could they have done to the 757 to keep it open and proceeding towards a Max version today ?


At that time, Boeing deemed unfeasible to review and make any sort of updates on the project. So nothing was moved forward.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: United 757s

Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:23 am

estorilm wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
estorilm wrote:
The 97t MTOW A321LR easily has the range, how could you say this? United's 757-200 TATL config is 169 seats, and the 321LR was configured for 4kmi at over 200 seats higher density. A similar config would yield nearly the same seating config and range, and wouldn't max out cargo space with the ACT's in there.

Oh yeah and all of this while offering 25%+ cheaper operating costs in an industry where 1% matters. :?

It really seems like a good plane for them, but as the OP implies - they'll have to pull the trigger on something fairly soon.


So tell me - why it has not been used for this market niche? Why does UA and others still use the B757? The A321 never did kill the B757 - Boeing did when decided not to continue with the program.

The A321 does not have the range and only a XLR version will be able to do the job.

Can you quote some numbers or something? I'm not even sure how to approach your argument (err opinion?) as I've already specifically quoted range and payload numbers for the 321LR which are in fact easily comparable to the 757-200. This isn't the 321CEO or 321NEO, I'm specifically talking about the 321LR, the same aircraft that's flown 11 hours and over 4,700mi. The same aircraft with a PAINT SCHEME of Paris to New York on it.

It hasn't been used for this niche yet because its first flight was 5 months ago and they haven't delivered the first aircraft yet? :lol: :lol:


But that's exactly the point - The A321LR is not being delivered/tested on this level yet. And the current A321 CEO and the NEO do not have the range. I am unsure why United did not order the A321LR - eityher they are wating to see how it does perfomr once the first ones are delivered or they do not see the case in ordering them (performance or commercial wise...).
 
77H
Posts: 1570
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:25 am

B747forever wrote:
A few years ago I started a thread about how UA was abusing the 757 on TATL routes over the winter months. For example, 60% of all TXL-EWR flights diverted that winter.

Check the thread for a heated discussion

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=584415


Thankfully, UA has come to their senses and either upgauged said routes or made them seasonal.


So instead of having year around service between two points you’re actually applauding service suspensions because 60% of flights lengthened the trip slightly for a fuel stop? Instead of a nonstop with a chance of fuel stop you prefer landing at an intermediate point, deboarding, shuffling to another plane and going through the chaos of reboarding, finding overhead space and settling back in?

Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

77H
 
Jomar777
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: United 757s

Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:28 am

767333ER wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
eamondzhang wrote:
So tell me how can you operate a plane that has not entered service yet? Tell me when 97t MTOW A321LR has entered service or got its type certificate?

And also tell me how many 757s have NOT been replaced by an A321? How many pax 757 are still in service and how many are flying TATL?

We got your Boeing fan and Airbus bash, move on.

Michael


MIchael - you should pay more attention on what you write my friend. You simply proved my point! The A321LR does not even have a certificaiton yet. So, You clearly stated the obvious point I am making - the A321 cannot replace the B757. Will the A321LR be able to? Who knows but orders are not that forthcoming yet for the frame.

Now, the basics since you missed this also: if you want to replace an Aircraft Model and has nothing like in the market, it is obvious you may move to what may (or not be) the best one available: the A321 (smaller range, less passengers and luggage - note - not the A321LR since as you say, it is not effectivelly there yet...) or the B787-8 / B787-9 (overkill).

B757s are reducing in numbers simply because, let's face it, they are too old to fly and burn too much fuel but, should Boeing had designed a NG during these years or, maybe a MAX nowadays, you would see many orders.

On a separate note, may I remind you that you DO NOT own Airliners.net so it is not your right to ask someone to move on.

The problem is when you upgrade an airframe with new engines and maybe even new wings you get a more efficient plane, but also much more capable and what happens then is the plane becomes less optimized for its original perceived role. Say for example a reengined 757 would do nearly 5000 nmi. The 757 for most of its life was not even used for TATL and has now been repurposed for that because it’s not very competitive elsewhere unless they want to reduce capex. What you then get automatically is a more efficient plane than the previous one, but a more overbuilt one as well. For any given flight you are utilizing less of those fuel tanks and less off all that heavier structure than you were before meaning you could put a smaller wing and smaller engines and do the same job for even cheaper which sounds a lot like the A321. You could stick it on routes half of the range of the real 757 which is what it has done in the past and still does, but you could also put a lighter A321 on that with smaller engines which would hold almost as many people and still probably burn less fuel while also being a cheaper plane to buy in the first place.

The A320neo compared to the older version gained a lot of efficiency with new engines, but also gained a lot of capability. Back in the days of the old engines there was some use for the A319’s extra range and capability over the A320, but with the new engines the longer variants have benefited more becuase now an A320neo can do the special performance missions the older A319 could with more seats. The A321neo gains traction in a similar it is much less under capable than the previous model and can do what the previous A320 could with more seats. The A319neo gains the engine efficiency and gains some capability but nobody needs the extra capability out of that thing which is why almost no one orders the thing. Again an optimized A319neo would have smaller wings and smaller engines reducing unneeded range and increasing efficiency, sounds a lot like an A220-300. This is issue I tried to describe with a reengined 757. Maybe the -300 would benefit more becuase other than a few routes, what could an original 757 do that a reengined -300 or reengined A321 for that matter couldn’t. In fact I could even see a reengined -300 having worked, but that’s a different discussion than this one. Just consider that no one badly wanted a 757 more optimized towards something like 5000 nmi range, but rather optimized up to what it could already do, but more efficiently which would require more reengineering for a reengineed 757 to do or the could just go with a stetched smaller plane with new engines which is much cheaper to do. As far as replacing it goes with the 797, the 767 is probably the one that needs replacing more as there have been more sold, there are more in service, and the thing is even still in production without a replacement that isn’t too big or too capable.

To answer the original question, becuase they’re good, they work, they’ve already been payed for, and because United hasn’t seen the need to bother with finding a solution as far as replacement goes.


I see your point and agree. But I wonder if the need for a TATL/long range single aisle aircraft is actually driving their decision as well as Airbus plans to extend the range of the A321 with the LR and, maybe, an ULR version. The same would apply with Boeing's new B797 plan...

I am due soon to fly EDI - ORD and will be on an United B752 (this is actually a seasonal route) - I kind of feel this flight will be much better than if they did put a, let's say B763 on the route.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: United 757s

Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:30 am

dampfnudel wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
dampfnudel wrote:
DL will get more than a whiff of it. I predict that both UA and DL will have their 797 orders announced on the same day, alongside at least one foreign carrier, possibly more. I think there’s even a fair chance AA could be there.


I predict that the B797 will launched by a foreign carrier plus either United (the most likely) or American. Delta burned a lot of bridges with Boeing with their CS Order and their continued strategy to avoid Boeing frames moving towards Airbus. It may sound good to them but, unless this policy changes, they will be left behind.

Time will tell

DL didn’t burn any bridges with Boeing. Anyone who says that is full of it. Boeing is run by reasonable and capable people who won’t let pettiness get in the way of business and a big order from DL.


They actually DID and if you feel people are full of it as you say for say so, then you may re-consider your ability to accept other people's opinions.

Let's see when DL makes new Boeing Orders and the impact of their ability to line themselves up as B797 launch...
 
Max Q
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: United 757s

Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:40 am

VC10er wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:
gsg013 wrote:
[quote="Cointrin3

Yep. Because CO did not have a large enough wide body fleet. They had 10 767-200ERs, 16 767-400ERs, 20 777-200ERs. That was it.


Ok, I have read this about Legacy Continental for so many years- but I never asked “why?”

I recall this discussion when CO was everyone’s favorite airline, when they had the Peter Max 772, when they took delivery of the 764. I vividly recall their DC-10s (and flew them a few times, cannot recall if they had MD-11s or L1011s in the globe livery- maybe they didn’t have them?) but I do know that the 764 replaced the 3 holers. What prevented CO at that time from getting there hands on more WBs? There was still the 763 and 764, maybe the line for 772s was too long? I know they would NEVER buy Airbus or take them for free. Given the mojo they once had (which frankly I never “fully” understood even though I flew them to Europe and Brazil semi often) so can someone tell me why they couldn’t get more when they needed WBs most?

I recall my reaction the first time I went to Europe on CO and when I entered the plane realizing “this is a 757!” And thinking can this plane make it?”- I was fully expecting a 767. I hated it, but back then they had those horrible square shaped recliners in BF. Once the bed was installed, I actually like the small cabin.
Thanks



Just to clarify, CO had 22 777-200 ER’s


The reason we were so short on aircraft was 9-11 and a rare ( apart from ordering far too many RJ’s ) unwise decision to cancel the 10 options on 764 and 10 on the 762 airframes


Money was tight after that cataclysmic event and G Bethune was rattled, cancelling that order may have seemed prudent in the short term but traffic did recover and then we were perennially short of aircraft


As a result we were flying 757’s from Newark into major European cities such as
London, Paris, Amsterdam etc


Not optimal, the 75 was and is great for smaller cities such as Lisbon, Hamburg, Edinburgh but we just didn’t have enough wide bodies



Sort of a historic problem at CAL, larger aircraft were always in short supply, we always needed more large people movers for international and domestic



The A300 was good in that respect
but was poorly maintained and once it was
removed moving large numbers of people between hubs without using double the number of aircraft became very difficult again



One of the many reasons why the merger was so inspired was the resultant, combined, far larger wide body fleet which
gave us a lot more flexibility
Last edited by Max Q on Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
Jomar777
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: United 757s

Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:43 am

eamondzhang wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
eamondzhang wrote:
So tell me how can you operate a plane that has not entered service yet? Tell me when 97t MTOW A321LR has entered service or got its type certificate?

And also tell me how many 757s have NOT been replaced by an A321? How many pax 757 are still in service and how many are flying TATL?

We got your Boeing fan and Airbus bash, move on.

Michael


MIchael - you should pay more attention on what you write my friend. You simply proved my point! The A321LR does not even have a certificaiton yet. So, You clearly stated the obvious point I am making - the A321 cannot replace the B757. Will the A321LR be able to? Who knows but orders are not that forthcoming yet for the frame.

Now, the basics since you missed this also: if you want to replace an Aircraft Model and has nothing like in the market, it is obvious you may move to what may (or not be) the best one available: the A321 (smaller range, less passengers and luggage - note - not the A321LR since as you say, it is not effectivelly there yet...) or the B787-8 / B787-9 (overkill).

B757s are reducing in numbers simply because, let's face it, they are too old to fly and burn too much fuel but, should Boeing had designed a NG during these years or, maybe a MAX nowadays, you would see many orders.

On a separate note, may I remind you that you DO NOT own Airliners.net so it is not your right to ask someone to move on.

You're just not reading my text as you claimed. Tell me, which airline replaced their 757 fleet with something other than A321 in the relevant size? Boeing has 737-900ER, which are very similar in size to 757, but tell me how many airlines used 737-900ER to replace 757 v.s. the number of airlines that replaced their 757 with A321? And just as you mentioned, 757 is old; do you really think a 35-year design can kill a design that is 10 years younger, built more example than 757 ever did, and burn significantly less fuel for a similar profile (other than hot & high condition)?

757 was originally designed to fly transcon USA route. Tell me how many of that is left? Even Hawaii, once a 757 highland, is now filled with A321s from various operators. A321 is even flying TA as you know, again once dominated by 757 (in narrowbody field). Tell me again 757 can't be replaced in 99% of their mission.

You just can't get over the fact that 757 is done and dusted. It's outdated, even if Boeing ever built a NG version of 757 it still won't compete with modern airliners, especially since 757 is overbuilt. Larger fuel tank, more thrust, heavier engines, etc. which does make 757 a good candidate for a lot of missions that it was not originally designed to, but these characteristics also ensured that in the modern world where efficiency is the king, A321 is here and here to replace 757.

Michael


Sorry but you are not accurate. The B737-900ER does not have the specs or capacity of the B757. It is not a direct replacement.

Why there are less B757s nowadays? Very simple - they are OLD. They need replacement. Obviously you will replace by whatever is around that is somehow closer (or not...) to what you want. Some airlines actually hold back further (maybe further than they should) and that's why we are discussing one of them (United) right now. I do not know how clear this can get for you.

If Boeing did make a NG version of the B757 in the past - it would sell but, if they did not follow up, for example, with a MAX version, those would also be old right now. Do not, even for a second, believe that the B737 would be around nowadays, for example, if Boeing did not consistently and timely invested in the program. Point - they sold and sell much more than the B757 ever would.

Finally, it not me that cannot get over that the B757 is not going to be around soon. It is YOU that still believe that the present A321 is here to replace them. Why are Delta and United still holding on to their B757s, then? Why haven't them ordered the more fuel efficient A321LR yet? Why is Boeing running a B797 project (and why many - myself included - feel that this is going to be a replacement for the B757)?

Maybe you are too Airbus minded - I do not blame you because they have a good portfolio. But their so called direct replacement for the B757 is not shifting.

Accept it.
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: United 757s

Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:49 am

Max Q wrote:
VC10er wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:


Ok, I have read this about Legacy Continental for so many years- but I never asked “why?”

I recall this discussion when CO was everyone’s favorite airline, when they had the Peter Max 772, when they took delivery of the 764. I vividly recall their DC-10s (and flew them a few times, cannot recall if they had MD-11s or L1011s in the globe livery- maybe they didn’t have them?) but I do know that the 764 replaced the 3 holers. What prevented CO at that time from getting there hands on more WBs? There was still the 763 and 764, maybe the line for 772s was too long? I know they would NEVER buy Airbus or take them for free. Given the mojo they once had (which frankly I never “fully” understood even though I flew them to Europe and Brazil semi often) so can someone tell me why they couldn’t get more when they needed WBs most?

I recall my reaction the first time I went to Europe on CO and when I entered the plane realizing “this is a 757!” And thinking can this plane make it?”- I was fully expecting a 767. I hated it, but back then they had those horrible square shaped recliners in BF. Once the bed was installed, I actually like the small cabin.
Thanks


My bad, yes. They originally had 18 I think, or maybe 20, and then leased two more later (much later) and well after 9/11. If I recall correctly, the 777s were used on the following routes at CO (IAH to NRT, LGW, then LHR 2 x day) and from EWR to TLV, HKG, NRT, PEK, PVG, 1 x daily LGW then LHR, DEL and BOM).

Just to clarify, CO had 22 777-200 ER’s


The reason we were so short on aircraft was 9-11 and a rare ( apart from ordering far too many RJ’s ) unwise decision to cancel the 10 options on 764 and 10 on the 762 airframes


Money was tight after that cataclysmic event and G Bethune was rattled, cancelling that order may have seemed prudent in the short term but traffic did recover and then we were perennially short of aircraft


As a result we were flying 757’s from Newark into major European cities such as
London, Paris, Amsterdam etc


Not optimal, the 75 was and is great for smaller cities such as Lisbon, Hamburg, Edinburgh but we just didn’t have enough wide bodies



Sort of a historic problem at CAL, larger aircraft were always in short supply, we always needed more large people movers for international and domestic



The A300 was good in that respect
but was poorly maintained and once it was
removed moving large numbers of people between hubs without using double the number of aircraft became very difficult again



One of the many reasons why the merger was so inspired was the resultant, combined, far larger wide body fleet which
gave us a lot more flexibility
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2351
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: United 757s

Wed Jul 25, 2018 11:24 am

Jomar777 wrote:
Sorry but you are not accurate. The B737-900ER does not have the specs or capacity of the B757. It is not a direct replacement.


The fallacy is assuming that the 757 needs a direct replacement. Replacing from below and above has worked for 90% or so of the fleet.

Jomar777 wrote:
If Boeing did make a NG version of the B757 in the past - it would sell but, if they did not follow up, for example, with a MAX version, those would also be old right now. Do not, even for a second, believe that the B737 would be around nowadays, for example, if Boeing did not consistently and timely invested in the program. Point - they sold and sell much more than the B757 ever would.


And that, right there, is why Boeing invested twice in major 737 upgrades over the past couple of decades and not in 757 upgrades.

In a world of finite resources, you invest where you think you’ll get the greatest return. In the 1990s (NG) and in the early 2010s (Max), both times the answer was 737 and not 757/direct replacement.

Even the MOM is rumored to be as much, if not more of a low-end 767 replacement than a 757 replacement.
I was raised by a cup of coffee.
 
Andy33
Posts: 2567
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:13 pm

In fact over half the 757s ever built (there were 1050) have already been replaced in passenger service and are now freighters, stored, or scrapped. I'd fear for the viability of the 797 if it is specifically designed as a 757 replacement. Why? because of the 757s that remain by the time you exclude freighters, military, and VIP transports, you end up with around 430 frames in active commercial passenger use. And a 797 couldn't enter quantity production until 2025/2026 at the earliest, by which time a lot of the surviving passenger 757s, especially outside the USA, will have been replaced by new or used examples of models already in the Boeing or Airbus ranges because the airlines simply can't wait that long. I'm quite sure Boeing are well aware of this. It's important to the aviation industry that the 797 succeeds and it is much more likely to as a low-end 767 than as a 757 replacement. There are a lot more 767s around, for one thing.
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4835
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:25 pm

GSP psgr wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:
Redwood839 wrote:

Shame! If they still use it out of BHX I could also do that. I'm about that halfway point between em.


UA suspended BHX a year or so ago. Perhaps they'll leave MAN as 757 - nothing is confirmed yet...


Among the ended 757 routes, BHX is the one that surprised me the most. NCL, BRS, and BFS were all rumored to be marginal performers, but BHX was double daily at one point. I'm shocked that they didn't keep it on a summer seasonal basis at least, though LHR has been upgauged to all widebodies.....and those seats down the back need filling somehow.

Going double daily rather killed the yields and the one year experiment was not repeated alas. BHX remains a mystery in so many ways. Great airport, good facilities, connections to public transport but no easyJet base and no legacy US connection. CO was a DC10 at one point (!) I think the game-changer was CO getting into LHR in 2008, limited number of aircraft ended up going where the money had been spent to get slots.
 
estorilm
Posts: 762
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: United 757s

Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:55 pm

Jomar777 wrote:
estorilm wrote:
Can you quote some numbers or something? I'm not even sure how to approach your argument (err opinion?) as I've already specifically quoted range and payload numbers for the 321LR which are in fact easily comparable to the 757-200. This isn't the 321CEO or 321NEO, I'm specifically talking about the 321LR, the same aircraft that's flown 11 hours and over 4,700mi. The same aircraft with a PAINT SCHEME of Paris to New York on it.

It hasn't been used for this niche yet because its first flight was 5 months ago and they haven't delivered the first aircraft yet? :lol: :lol:


But that's exactly the point - The A321LR is not being delivered/tested on this level yet. And the current A321 CEO and the NEO do not have the range. I am unsure why United did not order the A321LR - eityher they are wating to see how it does perfomr once the first ones are delivered or they do not see the case in ordering them (performance or commercial wise...).


How has it not been "tested on this level" yet? You do realize the A321LR test frame flew 4,750mi with a simulated real-world load to break the single-aisle range record three months ago, right? Plus it's basically a 321NEO systems-wise, which is PLENTY tested and in service.

Also no, that wasn't your point - your entire original argument was regarding the A321"XLR" as being the only AB plane even remotely capable of replacing the 757.
Jomar777 wrote:
The A321 does not have the range and only a XLR version will be able to do the job.

The XLR is hardly a sketch at this point, so the whole "well it's not in service yet" argument doesn't hold much water since that's the plane you brought up, while the LR is real, and is more than capable.

It's built, it's flying, it's done the routes, it's for sale, deliveries this year. The XLR has nothing to do with this.

As far as United goes - regardless of their apparent affinity for Boeing in the long-range single aisle market (I really think they had tried hard to get the MoM to actually happen) they're out of time, and pretty soon will need to start altering routes. Lead time on a 321LR is years away, which is still far closer than any other option they've got - some of the 757s will be in dire need of a replacement by then.

They really need to pull the trigger now, or lose all possibility of a decent deal, as Airbus can basically charge whatever they want to down the road as desperation increases and the MoM business case (at least short term) falls apart completely. As someone above said, I wouldn't be surprised if they were all gathered around a table as we speak.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: United 757s

Wed Jul 25, 2018 4:45 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
There's no published life limit on that airframe NOR Engine ,And? As long as the upgrades are available? They may fly them indefinitely. Besides? They're paid for.


Two issues with this: first, there is what is effectively a life limit at 50,000 cycles, and, second, each heavy check is more expensive than the last and maintenance costs would eventually become unsustainable. UA needs some sort of replacement for the sCO 757-200s and the 757-300s in the mid- to late 2020s. (Same timing for Delta with its 75S and 753 fleets.)
 
GSP psgr
Posts: 715
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:09 am

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Wed Jul 25, 2018 6:33 pm

skipness1E wrote:
GSP psgr wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:

UA suspended BHX a year or so ago. Perhaps they'll leave MAN as 757 - nothing is confirmed yet...


Among the ended 757 routes, BHX is the one that surprised me the most. NCL, BRS, and BFS were all rumored to be marginal performers, but BHX was double daily at one point. I'm shocked that they didn't keep it on a summer seasonal basis at least, though LHR has been upgauged to all widebodies.....and those seats down the back need filling somehow.

Going double daily rather killed the yields and the one year experiment was not repeated alas. BHX remains a mystery in so many ways. Great airport, good facilities, connections to public transport but no easyJet base and no legacy US connection. CO was a DC10 at one point (!) I think the game-changer was CO getting into LHR in 2008, limited number of aircraft ended up going where the money had been spent to get slots.


That's probably some of it; I think Brexit clearly didn't help, and AA/BA ATI was probably another nick at the profitability. I wonder if AA might give PHL-BHX another go at some point (I think they tried it summer seasonally once...or was that JFK-BHX?). I could also maybe see YYZ-BHX on a Rouge 767; that might be the most likely of all.
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: United 757s

Wed Jul 25, 2018 7:26 pm

CarlosSi wrote:
Because anything bigger won't fill the plane, and most smaller stuff doesn't have the range; it's why United wants Boeing to build this 797; to replace its 757/767 fleet, although it will increase the volume on some routes as it'll most likely be bigger than the 757 (unless UA goes for the a321LR).

738 MAX (not 739).... could maybe do EWR-DUB? EWR-UK?


I think its not just because everything else is too big, not in all cases. For example Hamburg got an upgrade to the 767 in 2015, temporarily downgraded to 757 this year. I think its because of 767s and 777s getting the cabin upgrades. Next year Hamburg gets the 767 again.
Manchester is another example, I really cant Imagine that a 767 wouldnt work in the EWR-MAN route. MAN and HAM both have very high loadfactors on the 757. But MAN still remains to be odd.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
David_itl
Posts: 6408
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Wed Jul 25, 2018 7:47 pm

Why is MAN odd? If Thomas Cook doing mostly point to point on A330s to New York is operating on a daily basis, why is United struggling to upgrade to 767s when they can throw in connections?. Maybe inferior equipment and service?
 
Bald1983
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Wed Jul 25, 2018 8:02 pm

77H wrote:
B747forever wrote:
A few years ago I started a thread about how UA was abusing the 757 on TATL routes over the winter months. For example, 60% of all TXL-EWR flights diverted that winter.

Check the thread for a heated discussion

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=584415


Thankfully, UA has come to their senses and either upgauged said routes or made them seasonal.


So instead of having year around service between two points you’re actually applauding service suspensions because 60% of flights lengthened the trip slightly for a fuel stop? Instead of a nonstop with a chance of fuel stop you prefer landing at an intermediate point, deboarding, shuffling to another plane and going through the chaos of reboarding, finding overhead space and settling back in?

Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

77H


Continental was very smart to deploy the 757's across the Atlantic to smaller European markets. United was very smart to go with it as well, after the merger. EWR was CO's cash cow.
 
coairman
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:31 am

Re: United 757s

Wed Jul 25, 2018 8:47 pm

axiom wrote:
Why wouldn't they be flying on TA routes? As Cointrin says, they're the right size for the right mission.

A random sample of UA 752 flights today, showing a good mix of routings including TA but also Hawaii/Florida/South America...
EWR-DEN
EWR-GLA
EWR-HAM
EWR-LAX
EWR-LIM
EWR-MAN
EWR-MCO
EWR-TPA

ORD-EDI
ORD-SFO

IAD-LHR

SFO-BOS
SFO-EWR

DEN-OGG
DEN-LIH
DEN-KOA


You can also add:
IAD-LIS
IAD-EDI
IAD-DUB, etc
The views I express are of my own, and not the company I work for.
 
Eirules
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 5:17 am

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:00 pm

I don’t really see the issue with UA continuing to fly 752s on transatlantic flights. The birds are in better shape than the AA ones doing similar runs, have PTVs from front to back and if they’re putting them on runs which are well within the range of the aircraft, what’s the problem? Yes some routes could do with a bigger aircraft if it was available but for some the 752 is plenty so as long as they’re in good shape why not keep flying them
The way you cut your meat reflects the way you live....
 
coairman
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:31 am

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:08 pm

I think transatlantic 757 flights are perfectly fine. Without them UA wouldn't even fly non-stop from the hubs to those cities like IAD-LIS,EDI, DUB, etc. The 757 has less capacity and fills the void offering less empty seats and higher yield. As mentioned before, without the 757's, UA wouldn't be flying to many secondary European cities, and if they did fly widebodies, there would be way too much capacity, which could diminish the yields.

It was a pleasure flying IAD-LIS nonstop without flying via EWR and saving time and potential headaches. Or connecting through a European Hub like FRA,MUC, or BRU.
The views I express are of my own, and not the company I work for.
 
alggag
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 6:34 am

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:36 pm

I've done a few TATL 757 flights and I don't see what the issue is. Maybe I'm weird but I actually like narrow body TATL flights.
 
codc10
Posts: 2897
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:53 pm

David_itl wrote:
Why is MAN odd? If Thomas Cook doing mostly point to point on A330s to New York is operating on a daily basis, why is United struggling to upgrade to 767s when they can throw in connections?. Maybe inferior equipment and service?


757 flights to the British Isles are generally fine in both directions save for the worst winds aloft over the NA or extended ATC holds at EWR. No question MAN can support the volume but presumably UA has better deployment for its WBs.
 
User avatar
HoboJoe
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 11:03 pm

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:46 pm

jules48 wrote:
Why are United still operating 757,s on transatlantic routes.Noticed UA71 Hamburg to Newark this morning.
Surely they have enough 767s or even 739Max if they enough range.

Because they are a crap airline
 
User avatar
kgaiflyer
Posts: 2741
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:22 am

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:54 pm

"It was a pleasure flying IAD-LIS nonstop without flying via EWR and saving time and potential headaches. Or connecting through a European Hub like FRA,MUC, or BRU"

Those in the DC area who - because of geography and gridlock - do transatlantic through BWI, it really can be annoying. First, you do BWI Concouse D to EWR Concourse A. Then you do the shuttle from Concourse A to Concourse C at EWR. Then you locate your gate in the correct wing.

After doing this once or twice - the 757s out of neighboring IAD - all of a sudden - make perfect sense.
 
User avatar
kgaiflyer
Posts: 2741
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:22 am

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:58 pm

HoboJoe wrote:
jules48 wrote:
Why are United still operating 757,s on transatlantic routes.Noticed UA71 Hamburg to Newark this morning.
Surely they have enough 767s or even 739Max if they enough range.

Because they are a crap airline


You clearly have never flown WoW Airlines.transatlantic.

Or maybe NK is more to your liking. :lol:
 
xdlx
Posts: 965
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: United 757s

Thu Jul 26, 2018 12:09 am

Jomar777 wrote:
estorilm wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
The A321 does not have the range, although Airbus is working on this.

The 97t MTOW A321LR easily has the range, how could you say this? United's 757-200 TATL config is 169 seats, and the 321LR was configured for 4kmi at over 200 seats higher density. A similar config would yield nearly the same seating config and range, and wouldn't max out cargo space with the ACT's in there.

Oh yeah and all of this while offering 25%+ cheaper operating costs in an industry where 1% matters. :?

It really seems like a good plane for them, but as the OP implies - they'll have to pull the trigger on something fairly soon.


So tell me - why it has not been used for this market niche? Why does UA and others still use the B757? The A321 never did kill the B757 - Boeing did when decided not to continue with the program.

The A321 does not have the range and only a XLR version will be able to do the job.


The A321 a 25yr OLD design that CAN NOT replace a B757... XLRWBF or whatever, unless you change the wing... it is,what it is!
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 887
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: United 757s

Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:42 am

xdlx wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
estorilm wrote:
The 97t MTOW A321LR easily has the range, how could you say this? United's 757-200 TATL config is 169 seats, and the 321LR was configured for 4kmi at over 200 seats higher density. A similar config would yield nearly the same seating config and range, and wouldn't max out cargo space with the ACT's in there.

Oh yeah and all of this while offering 25%+ cheaper operating costs in an industry where 1% matters. :?

It really seems like a good plane for them, but as the OP implies - they'll have to pull the trigger on something fairly soon.


So tell me - why it has not been used for this market niche? Why does UA and others still use the B757? The A321 never did kill the B757 - Boeing did when decided not to continue with the program.

The A321 does not have the range and only a XLR version will be able to do the job.


The A321 a 25yr OLD design that CAN NOT replace a B757... XLRWBF or whatever, unless you change the wing... it is,what it is!


Sadly, nothing has changed in the NB market since 1988 - hence why an aircraft from 1993 with 2010's engine technology is considered state of the art, and from what test flights have shown with the ACT variant, it looks like the A321 has finally caught up to the 752's good range performance.

On a side note, it's too bad Airbus couldn't have kept alternative rock alive in the process - music today sucks! :fight:
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
Jomar777
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: United 757s

Thu Jul 26, 2018 9:58 am

hOMSaR wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
Sorry but you are not accurate. The B737-900ER does not have the specs or capacity of the B757. It is not a direct replacement.


The fallacy is assuming that the 757 needs a direct replacement. Replacing from below and above has worked for 90% or so of the fleet.

Jomar777 wrote:
If Boeing did make a NG version of the B757 in the past - it would sell but, if they did not follow up, for example, with a MAX version, those would also be old right now. Do not, even for a second, believe that the B737 would be around nowadays, for example, if Boeing did not consistently and timely invested in the program. Point - they sold and sell much more than the B757 ever would.


And that, right there, is why Boeing invested twice in major 737 upgrades over the past couple of decades and not in 757 upgrades.

In a world of finite resources, you invest where you think you’ll get the greatest return. In the 1990s (NG) and in the early 2010s (Max), both times the answer was 737 and not 757/direct replacement.

Even the MOM is rumored to be as much, if not more of a low-end 767 replacement than a 757 replacement.


Let's summarize by just stating that, if the replacement had worked for 90% of the cases as you state, there would be no MOM from Boeing neither Airbus's advertisement of the A321LR as the B757 replacement. So it is not a fallacy but a pure fact.

As for the MOM being a low-end 767 - please explain the need for such aircraft rather than a B787-7 (or a new sales push for the B787-8).. No need for an MOM for this. Just slightly lower and we have the B737-9 and B737-10. So, IF you are right (which I doubt it at present... who knows in future...), the B797 MOM Project is irrelevant.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2351
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: United 757s

Thu Jul 26, 2018 11:34 am

Jomar777 wrote:
As for the MOM being a low-end 767 - please explain the need for such aircraft rather than a B787-7 (or a new sales push for the B787-8).. No need for an MOM for this. Just slightly lower and we have the B737-9 and B737-10. So, IF you are right (which I doubt it at present... who knows in future...), the B797 MOM Project is irrelevant.


Ask United. They’re the ones still looking for a replacement for the 767 despite having all three versions of the 787 either in service or on order.
I was raised by a cup of coffee.
 
Redwood839
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:26 am

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Thu Jul 26, 2018 1:03 pm

skipness1E wrote:
GSP psgr wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:

UA suspended BHX a year or so ago. Perhaps they'll leave MAN as 757 - nothing is confirmed yet...


Among the ended 757 routes, BHX is the one that surprised me the most. NCL, BRS, and BFS were all rumored to be marginal performers, but BHX was double daily at one point. I'm shocked that they didn't keep it on a summer seasonal basis at least, though LHR has been upgauged to all widebodies.....and those seats down the back need filling somehow.

Going double daily rather killed the yields and the one year experiment was not repeated alas. BHX remains a mystery in so many ways. Great airport, good facilities, connections to public transport but no easyJet base and no legacy US connection. CO was a DC10 at one point (!) I think the game-changer was CO getting into LHR in 2008, limited number of aircraft ended up going where the money had been spent to get slots.


I would highly avoid calling BHX a great airport facilities wise, same for MAN.

Gutted for BHX haven't been cut, it brought many memories. That's the flight both I and my wife arrived on when we moved to the UK
 
Austin787
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:39 pm

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:34 pm

HoboJoe wrote:
jules48 wrote:
Why are United still operating 757,s on transatlantic routes.Noticed UA71 Hamburg to Newark this morning.
Surely they have enough 767s or even 739Max if they enough range.

Because they are a crap airline

Try flying WOW Air. Or Ryanair. Or Spirit. Or an AA 757 which have worn interiors and no PTV's.
 
estorilm
Posts: 762
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:52 pm

Austin787 wrote:
HoboJoe wrote:
jules48 wrote:
Why are United still operating 757,s on transatlantic routes.Noticed UA71 Hamburg to Newark this morning.
Surely they have enough 767s or even 739Max if they enough range.

Because they are a crap airline

Try flying WOW Air. Or Ryanair. Or Spirit. Or an AA 757 which have worn interiors and no PTV's.

I remember flying in a United 757 years ago that still had the ash trays and the tube-style headphone things on them. They must have been one of the last to get rid of those seats. :lol:
 
mcg
Posts: 1095
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:49 am

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Thu Jul 26, 2018 4:06 pm

Just ever so slightly off topic, but do 757 operators conserve 757 hours and cycles by using them primarily on routes that only 757's can operate (e.g. DEN - Hawaii and east coast - Europe) and avoid using them on routes where other aircraft can successfully operate?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:32 pm

mcg wrote:
Just ever so slightly off topic, but do 757 operators conserve 757 hours and cycles by using them primarily on routes that only 757's can operate (e.g. DEN - Hawaii and east coast - Europe) and avoid using them on routes where other aircraft can successfully operate?


That is what Icelandair is planning to do in the near future, at least in regards to the 757-200. The 737MAX will replace the 757 on the shorter routes. The 757-300 and 767-300ER will stay on slot restricted higher capacity destination like LHR, JFK and AMS.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4268
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Fri Jul 27, 2018 2:37 am

I have a question. So far the things I’ve read and images I’ve seen is that the 797 (if it is indeed launched) will be a twin aisle. Is that confirmed as much as a yet to be airplane can be at this point?
I’m assuming United would was 2-2 at least in Polaris - so would the 797’s width be somewhere in between a 757 & 767?
After having flown a 767 that was fitted with Polaris it felt like the 767 could have used 10” additional width for wider seats and aisle. As much as I loved my Polaris 767 ride, certainly one of the best looking 767 interiors out there, but it is a bit cramped.
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
dampfnudel
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:42 am

Re: United 757s

Sun Aug 05, 2018 3:04 am

Jomar777 wrote:
dampfnudel wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:

I predict that the B797 will launched by a foreign carrier plus either United (the most likely) or American. Delta burned a lot of bridges with Boeing with their CS Order and their continued strategy to avoid Boeing frames moving towards Airbus. It may sound good to them but, unless this policy changes, they will be left behind.

Time will tell

DL didn’t burn any bridges with Boeing. Anyone who says that is full of it. Boeing is run by reasonable and capable people who won’t let pettiness get in the way of business and a big order from DL.


They actually DID and if you feel people are full of it as you say for say so, then you may re-consider your ability to accept other people's opinions.

Let's see when DL makes new Boeing Orders and the impact of their ability to line themselves up as B797 launch...

Do you have a legitimate source for your “insight” into Boeing’s “beyond repair” relationship with DL? I say “beyond repair” because that’s the impression you gave me and that struck me as BS. If I was wrong, please correct me. Boeing and DL are both in the business of making money and grudges are often the enemy of that, especially in an industry as closely aligned and integrated as this. We need to respond here with a clear and logical mind in order to make the conversation more meaningful. I’ll listen to opinions, I’ll debate them, but in the end I usually only accept facts and hard proof.
A313 332 343 B703 712 722 732 73G 738 739 741 742 744 752 762 76E 764 772 AT5 CR9 D10 DHH DHT F27 GRM L10 M83 TU5
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2957
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: United 757s

Sun Aug 05, 2018 3:39 am

Aptivaboy wrote:
Surely they have enough 767s


Actually, no they don't. They're currently taking several of Hawaiian's 767s as they come off of lease. Also, United recently asked Boeing about the possibility of acquiring some new-build 767s in search of some intermediate lift. Although this didn't pan out, it underscores how badly United needs some middle of the market, however defined, planes.

I agree with Jomar777. United will likely be the North American launch customer for the 797. The fact that United didn't order the A321 at Farnborough is suggestive that they're satisfied with Boeing's progress on the 797/MOM and are willing to wait, barring an amazing sweetheart deal from Airbus. It isn't proof, of course, but again suggestive. Your mileage may vary.


I'm pretty sure UA will not be the launch customer. Your reason makes no sense. Boeing knows UA will be loyal to them so why throw them the bone of being the LC? They want to win business back from DL, look for DL to be the launch customer.
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2957
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: United 757s

Sun Aug 05, 2018 3:43 am

STT757 wrote:
UA at any given time has both 777-200ERs and 767-300s out of service for Polaris cabin updates. This has caused shortage in the 777-200ER fleet, which is why there are the A models flying EWR-MAD, BCN etc..,.


Need clarification. I just looked up EWR-MAD and is the UA seat map accurate? 2-4-2 in business class? That has to be a mistake.
 
User avatar
adambrau
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:44 pm

Re: United 757s

Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:47 am

jumbojet wrote:
STT757 wrote:
UA at any given time has both 777-200ERs and 767-300s out of service for Polaris cabin updates. This has caused shortage in the 777-200ER fleet, which is why there are the A models flying EWR-MAD, BCN etc..,.


Need clarification. I just looked up EWR-MAD and is the UA seat map accurate? 2-4-2 in business class? That has to be a mistake.


No it's probably not a mistake - probably only for summer where most pax are flying coach - and hopefully the last summer. I am off to BCN in a week's time and although I don't love the 777HD with 2-4-2 in business the kicker is that I get to BCN without a connection in FRA/MUC/ZRH/BRU. The seats in 'Polaris (the old IPTE seats) are v. comfortable and a nonstop flight saves me 5 hours. DL cover Spain/France much better than UA, but if you can get a nonstop with a lay flat seat not much beats it. As for people traveling EWR-HAM I am sure that they wish the aircraft on UA was not a 757 v a 788, but avoiding the connection in FRA/LHR/MUC etc would be a plus I would have thought.
JFK Friendly
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: United 757s

Sun Aug 05, 2018 12:05 pm

jumbojet wrote:
STT757 wrote:
UA at any given time has both 777-200ERs and 767-300s out of service for Polaris cabin updates. This has caused shortage in the 777-200ER fleet, which is why there are the A models flying EWR-MAD, BCN etc..,.


Need clarification. I just looked up EWR-MAD and is the UA seat map accurate? 2-4-2 in business class? That has to be a mistake.


This summer, UA has been operating the 777-200 (not -ER, the -200As) on the relatively short EWR-DUB, EWR-MAD, and EWR-BCN routes. These planes have the old 2-4-2 IPTE business class arrangement and are densely packed in Economy. These routes, in summer particularly, are about volume, not premium, and UA has 777-200ERs rotating through maintenance to install the Polaris business class cabin, and now premium economy. A couple of years ago, UA began operating the -200As between certain hubs to move traffic more efficiently, and also uses the -200As on some of its transcons from EWR to LAX/SFO (mostly SFO). These are some of the oldest 777s flying.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Sun Aug 05, 2018 12:53 pm

mcg wrote:
Just ever so slightly off topic, but do 757 operators conserve 757 hours and cycles by using them primarily on routes that only 757's can operate (e.g. DEN - Hawaii and east coast - Europe) and avoid using them on routes where other aircraft can successfully operate?


I don't think 757 operators are deliberately conserving cycles. Certainly they can be found on some short flights out of ATL. Rather, the 757 payload advantage works best on transcon / TATL operations where 737s and A32x aircraft are near or at their limits. 757s carry freight and full holds of cargo across the Atlantic; 737s and A321s can't do that. On shorter routes, 737s and A321s provide cost savings, as well as being available new.
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: United 757s

Sun Aug 05, 2018 1:09 pm

adambrau wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
STT757 wrote:
UA at any given time has both 777-200ERs and 767-300s out of service for Polaris cabin updates. This has caused shortage in the 777-200ER fleet, which is why there are the A models flying EWR-MAD, BCN etc..,.


Need clarification. I just looked up EWR-MAD and is the UA seat map accurate? 2-4-2 in business class? That has to be a mistake.


No it's probably not a mistake - probably only for summer where most pax are flying coach - and hopefully the last summer. I am off to BCN in a week's time and although I don't love the 777HD with 2-4-2 in business the kicker is that I get to BCN without a connection in FRA/MUC/ZRH/BRU. The seats in 'Polaris (the old IPTE seats) are v. comfortable and a nonstop flight saves me 5 hours. DL cover Spain/France much better than UA, but if you can get a nonstop with a lay flat seat not much beats it. As for people traveling EWR-HAM I am sure that they wish the aircraft on UA was not a 757 v a 788, but avoiding the connection in FRA/LHR/MUC etc would be a plus I would have thought.


Thats the ultimate sell pitch, at least for me. Nothing worse than arriving at AMS in the early morning tired after that red eye TATL flight and then have to wait for 2-3 hours until the connecting flight departs, walking around like a ghost or lying somewhere like a homeless. The same goes for Business travellers I am sure, but not for the basic Economy crowd, they look for the best price and would also transfer two times to save 50 bucks.

The 787-8 would be the perfect plane for EWR-HAM IMO, but also a lot of other routes of course. Compared to the 763ER slightly bigger Business Class, more Economy seats, more cargo and I think around the same amount of fuel needed(?).

Well next year the 767 comes back to HAM, I dont know if its that much better than the 757, let the technical delays and cancellations start again!
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
User avatar
cathay747
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 8:47 pm

Re: United 757s

Sun Aug 05, 2018 1:58 pm

Jomar777 wrote:
oldannyboy wrote:
It's because it pleases the many A.net's weirdos. That's why 757s are flying across the Atlantic.


The so called A.net weirdos do not own airlines so your point is flawed.

If A.net bloggers, me and you included, really could sway the Airlines:

1) BBD would have kept the C-Series Program and shifted at least 500 of them (delivering them 2 years earlier than now...);
2) Concorde would still be flying;
3) B747 would still be selling loads;
4) PANAM would still be flying;
5) The Boeing Stratocruiser would still be around (this last one is silly... i know... just me being me... I wish I could have flown on one...)


You left three big ones off your list:

6) AA would de-hub PHX
7) every European major + the ME3 would all fly nonstop from their respective hubs to HNL
8) all 3 of the US3 would have ordered the 748i
Try a Little VC-10derness
 
AleksW
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:18 pm

Re: United 757s

Sun Aug 05, 2018 3:31 pm

xdlx wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
estorilm wrote:
The 97t MTOW A321LR easily has the range, how could you say this? United's 757-200 TATL config is 169 seats, and the 321LR was configured for 4kmi at over 200 seats higher density. A similar config would yield nearly the same seating config and range, and wouldn't max out cargo space with the ACT's in there.

Oh yeah and all of this while offering 25%+ cheaper operating costs in an industry where 1% matters. :?

It really seems like a good plane for them, but as the OP implies - they'll have to pull the trigger on something fairly soon.


So tell me - why it has not been used for this market niche? Why does UA and others still use the B757? The A321 never did kill the B757 - Boeing did when decided not to continue with the program.

The A321 does not have the range and only a XLR version will be able to do the job.


The A321 a 25yr OLD design that CAN NOT replace a B757... XLRWBF or whatever, unless you change the wing... it is,what it is!


It was a similar discussion on A.net based on some graphs of range vs payload. But I can't find direct link. The consensus was that the A321LR is capable to take around 90-95% of 757 payload, fly a bit further, and burn 20-25% less fuel.
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: United 757s

Sun Aug 05, 2018 4:41 pm

AleksW wrote:
xdlx wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:

So tell me - why it has not been used for this market niche? Why does UA and others still use the B757? The A321 never did kill the B757 - Boeing did when decided not to continue with the program.

The A321 does not have the range and only a XLR version will be able to do the job.


The A321 a 25yr OLD design that CAN NOT replace a B757... XLRWBF or whatever, unless you change the wing... it is,what it is!


It was a similar discussion on A.net based on some graphs of range vs payload. But I can't find direct link. The consensus was that the A321LR is capable to take around 90-95% of 757 payload, fly a bit further, and burn 20-25% less fuel.


It can take the payload, yes, but it lacks the space to stow it AFAIK. Also it remains to be seen how capable the A321LR will be on a route like ARN/TXL/HAM-EWR in the deepest winter with strong winds.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
2travel2know2
Posts: 2960
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Sun Aug 05, 2018 4:54 pm

B747forever wrote:
A few years ago I started a thread about how UA was abusing the 757 on TATL routes over the winter months. For example, 60% of all TXL-EWR flights diverted that winter.

Check the thread for a heated discussion

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=584415


Thankfully, UA has come to their senses and either upgauged said routes or made them seasonal.
UA flying B757 TATL winter time outside EWR-Eire/UK is a really bad idea.
And if UA has to operate those routes seasonal (at least weeks before XMAS and after New Year), it should make westbound passengers very aware that the flight most likely will include a tech-stop and it's timed it accordingly.
I'm not on CM's payroll.
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:51 am

I'm pretty sure UA will not be the launch customer. Your reason makes no sense. Boeing knows UA will be loyal to them so why throw them the bone of being the LC? They want to win business back from DL, look for DL to be the launch customer.


I’m curious as to why you would say that. Delta may, indeed, eventually order the 707/MOM. However, its United that needs it far more. UA has no reason to be loyal to Boeing if they aren’t treated well - loyalty runs both ways. Boeing learned this the hard way from the likes of Frontier and even United back in the A320 order days. Boeing needs a large launch order, and United needs the lift far more than Delta.

Accortding to Planespotters, Delta currently operates a fleet of 59 A321s, with 3 more to follow. These are relatively young aircraft. They also recently ordered the 100 A321-NEOs (source: https://news.delta.com/delta-selects-ai ... et-renewal) in December, 2017. Delta seems to have already decided that the A321 in its various guises is the right plane. They may opportunistically snap up some 797s at a good price and for the right niche mission, ‘cuz that’s how Delta rolls, but they are far less needful of a plane in the MOM category than United.

On the other hand, United currently operates a fleet of 77 752s and 753s, and many of them are getting up there in age, some approaching 30 years. Go here (https://www.planespotters.net/productio ... us=current) and start running the 757 fleet. N502UA is 29 years old. Yes, the 753s are much younger, but they’re also in the minority. The 767 fleet isn’t much different. Indeed, United just accepted two of Hawaiians younger 767s when the leases ended, with at least one more to follow, that’s how much they need lift in this broad category.

No, my reasoning makes perfect sense. United needs the MOM badly as its fleet ages. Remember, A-Net was all a twitter when they approached Boeing a few months back about restarting 767 passenger production, which should indicate how badly they need the lift. I’ll never say that Delta won’t order the 797, just that United seems far more likely. And, one other thing: unlike Delta, United hasn’t pulled the trigger on an A321 order. Now, just why is that? What in the world could they be waiting for? Hmmm...
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Why is United still operating 757's on transatlantic routes?

Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:11 am

EDIT to my above. I said 707. Ha! I meant 797, although I wouldn't mind if the 'ol girl made a comeback! Heavily smokin' four holers four-ever!
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4570
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: United 757s

Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:13 am

Jomar777 wrote:
Why are Delta and United still holding on to their B757s, then? Why haven't them ordered the more fuel efficient A321LR yet? Why is Boeing running a B797 project (and why many - myself included - feel that this is going to be a replacement for the B757)?


The US airlines are holding on to their 757s because they are owned and fully paid off, and the resale value is nil. It is by far more economical to squeeze them into some niche market in this case.

The A321LR is expensive and has a long waiting list. In the case of Delta, getting rid of the MDs also has priority.

Boeing is not running a 797 project yet, and your feelings are just that, feelings. The Boeing studies could turn out to be anything from a rewinged 737 to a clean-sheet 767-sized replacement.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: United 757s

Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:07 am

VSMUT wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
Why are Delta and United still holding on to their B757s, then? Why haven't them ordered the more fuel efficient A321LR yet? Why is Boeing running a B797 project (and why many - myself included - feel that this is going to be a replacement for the B757)?


The US airlines are holding on to their 757s because they are owned and fully paid off, and the resale value is nil. It is by far more economical to squeeze them into some niche market in this case.

The A321LR is expensive and has a long waiting list. In the case of Delta, getting rid of the MDs also has priority.

Boeing is not running a 797 project yet, and your feelings are just that, feelings. The Boeing studies could turn out to be anything from a rewinged 737 to a clean-sheet 767-sized replacement.


Actually they ARE running a MOM/797 - I might be wrong on my "feelings" as you say but this is a certainty. That's why the endless debates and blogs about it.

YOu made a great point on the situation of those B757s on DL and UA's fleet but maintenance and, most of all, fuel costs do offset considerably the "savings" they are making in keeping those planes rather than invest on the A321LR for example.

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