MIflyer12 wrote:TW870 wrote:SXM isn't a performance problem given Princess Juliana's 7500-foot runway at sea level.
In addition to SNA and EGE, two other airports that immediately come to mind that make full use of the 757's performance are BOG and MEX, and 8,300 and 7.300 ft. MSL. I don't know enough about exact performance data, but I am guessing even the 321N would have trouble with BOG-JFK full from that altitude.
I was thinking about BOG-ATL. I was also thinking about SLC-BOS on a 95F day. Any DL dispatchers want to note how many seats you'd need to block on a 739?
Yep, that is another great example, especially as we saw A339s - a hugely capable airplane - on SLC-AMS tech stopping at MSP due to high density altitude in SLC.
At the end of the day, though, you always see this in the industry with technological change, as no new portfolio of aircraft can completely replace what came before. A good example is that after the 1979 oil shock, long haul on 707s and DC-8-50s and -60s became prohibitive due to those airplanes' terrible fuel unit costs. But the DC-10-30 and long haul L1011s' trip costs were considerably higher, which made longer, thinner long haul much more difficult. Those issues didn't really get fixed until the 767ER airplanes began to appear in the mid-1980s. In today's case, the money saved on transitioning medium haul flying away from the 757 and toward the 321 and 737 derivatives will save way more than the lost revenue on routes that don't work anymore.
Meanwhile, watching the short-haul 75s roll into ATL - ORF, RIC, and IND in the last 30 mins.
