NWA 757 Routes Out Of NRT

dc10s4ever · Fri May 05, 2006 11:15 am

I was at NRT yesterday and counted at least 5 NWA 757s there. Just currious where they fly to out of NRT? Do they have crews for 757s based at NRT, or do they commute.
With all the widebody aircraft at NRT a 757 really looks out of place.

md90fan · Fri May 05, 2006 11:18 am

I know CAN gets 'em Smile

centrair · Fri May 05, 2006 11:27 am

I know of two besides NRT-CAN.

NRT-NGO-SPN
NGO-GUM

as739x · Fri May 05, 2006 11:33 am

Narita to:

Pusan, Korea
Nagoya,Japan
Guangzhou,China

Guam, US territory
*Currently I don't see the 757 flying Guam!

ASLAX

[Edited 2006-05-05 04:35:30]

stirling · Fri May 05, 2006 11:39 am

Pusan, Korea (PUS)

phil

phil

stirling · Fri May 05, 2006 11:42 am

Beat me to the PUS.

But to add, I thought the NRT-GUM route was a B742?

FlyGuyClt · Fri May 05, 2006 11:43 am

NRT-CAN
NRT-PUS
NRT-NGO-SPN

KIX-SPN
KIX-GUM

NGO-GUM
NGO-SPN

***NRT-GUM still listed as a 747-200.

Safe Flying Smile

warreng24 · Fri May 05, 2006 1:18 pm

I'm guessing that these particular 757's are based out of NRT exclusively.

How often are they ferried back state-side? I'm guessing they're ferried back via ANC.

bayareapilot · Fri May 05, 2006 1:41 pm

NRT-CAN is bogus. When the number of China slots available to US carriers is so few, 752 service is such a waste. UA, AA, and CO use 772s or 744s to serve China with their precious slots. If NW can't sell enough tickets I'm sure any of the other US carriers would be happy to use the slot with a larger aircraft.

as739x · Fri May 05, 2006 2:41 pm

Warren: I do believe they are used only for Narita service. I don't think that NW has any other 752 that are ETOPS. The 757 I was on last year from NRT-NGO was very beat up. It was time for that plane to head back for a once over. And I'd imagine yes, they would fly them via ANC.

ASLAX

lapper · Fri May 05, 2006 4:51 pm

Didn't they used to base A320's in Japan for these flights?

as739x · Fri May 05, 2006 5:09 pm

Lapper: They have had A320's in Japan, but the primary narrow body is the 757. Remember the A320 can't do the Japan-Guam/Saipan legs due to ETOPS. For a while the A320 did bounce around Asia.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Van Lint

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alastair T. Gardiner - WorldAirImages

ASLAX

calvin99 · Fri May 05, 2006 6:25 pm

Quoting AS739X (Reply 11):
They have had A320's in Japan, but the primary narrow body is the 757.

I believe there isn't anymore A320s that are based in Japan. A320 came when SARS happend, demand reduced significantly, so A320 was used to substitute their flight to Asia. I remembered seeing one of their A320 at HKG before.

as739x · Fri May 05, 2006 6:40 pm

Calvin: Yeah I knoe there are no more, thats why I said "Have had". But I think your right, I think it was cause of SARS that they sent the A320 to Japan.

ASLAX

bhxdtw · Fri May 05, 2006 8:48 pm

Guys,

Why dont NWA put Orient titles back onto their Asian flights ?

nice little blast from the past eh Wink

bobnwa · Fri May 05, 2006 8:55 pm

Quoting AS739X (Reply 11):
Remember the A320 can't do the Japan-Guam/Saipan legs due to ETOPS.

The 320's can't do it because of lack of range. I don't believe the NW 752's are ETOP certified

MaxQ2351 · Fri May 05, 2006 9:06 pm

Quoting Dc10s4ever (Thread starter):
Do they have crews for 757s based at NRT, or do they commute.

All I know for sure are the pilots on this issue, I don't know about FA's on this. Anyhow, pilots bid each month for the NRT legs on the 757 at NW. It used to be a VERY senior trip to bid, because the crews got paid full time just to commute over to NRT. A senior CA or FO could get all their hours for the month in just one or two trips. Now, since the new contract has been approved, the 757 NRT trips will most likely (time will tell) become very junior on the bidding since one of the deals in the new contract was that 757 crews will only be paid half time (or something like that) for the commute to NRT, not full time.

Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 15):
I don't believe the NW 752's are ETOP certified

Some of them are.....well, to some degree at least. The 5500 series, with the type-2 exits aft of the wing, and the older in NWA's fleet, are not. The 5600 series, with overwing exits, are overwater certified, just not ETOPS.

-Max

[Edited 2006-05-05 14:16:12]

PSU.DTW.SCE · Fri May 05, 2006 9:12 pm

There are multiple frequencies on NRT-GUM & NRT-SPN, where one of the dailies is a 742 and the other is a 752.

752's are not ETOP's, but they are overwater equiped. They replaced the A320's in Asia in order to offer increased capacity and to offer additional WBC (First) seats, range is not the issue.

The 752's are rotated over to Asia for approximately 6 months, bridged through ANC. These are the 5600 series international configuration 752's. Crews deadhead over to fly their trips and deadhead back to the states.

NRT-CAN is not bogus. This route does not take away a US-China slot, since it is within Asia. This route would never work with a larger widebody aircraft at NW. You are comparing apples and oranges here. No US carrier would offer a nonstop to CAN from the states.

FlyGuyClt · Fri May 05, 2006 9:16 pm

The 752' are not ETOPS. They are over water equipped. The 753's are mostly or all ETOPS at this point.

As far as the CAN comment. The 752' s to CAN are full and run from NRT. (Block time 5:15) There is no airplane that can fly U.S. mainland to CAN at the moment in any U.S. airlines fleet with out being severly weight restricted. The others you had mentioned run directly from the U.S. to China and don't fly into CAN. NWA is the only U.S. airline serving CAN. So sounds good to me. Right sized airplane for the right sized market. Plus. There are two runways in NRT. One for widebodies and one for narrow bodies. NWA did not have the extra wide bodied slot to run a larger airplane to CAN.

Safe Flying Smile

with some facts.

iluv747400 · Fri May 05, 2006 9:43 pm

Quoting FlyGuyClt (Reply 18):
There is no airplane that can fly U.S. mainland to CAN at the moment in any U.S. airlines fleet with out being severly weight restricted

That is so not true! First, UA and NW both have 744s that could do the trip easily from just about anywhere in the US. I'm no expert on weight restrictions, but UA runs 744s from ORD to HKG which is further than SFO-CAN or ORD-CAN would be.

Second, CO, UA and AA all have 772s which could make the trip. COs 772s do EWR to HKG, albeit with some weight restrictions I imagine. I bet from the west coast they wouldn't be "severe."

Third, UA has applied for new China allocations to run SFO-CAN non-stop with a 772 I imagine. It's not like it can't be done except with a stop in Tokyo.

commavia · Fri May 05, 2006 9:49 pm

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 17):
NRT-CAN is not bogus. This route does not take away a US-China slot, since it is within Asia.

Yes, it does. If Northwest were not using its precious U.S.-China authority for NRT-CAN, another carrier could be using it for a flight nonstop from the U.S. There are only a very limited number of weekly frequencies allowed for U.S. carriers to land in China -- regardless of the flight's origin. Northwest is now the only airline that continues to use its frequencies for flights from Japan, rather than the U.S.

Quoting FlyGuyClt (Reply 18):
There is no airplane that can fly U.S. mainland to CAN at the moment in any U.S. airlines fleet with out being severly weight restricted.

Huh? You might want to tell that to China Southern, then, since they fly a 777 several times weekly from LAX nonstop to CAN, and to UA, which has proposed flying a 747-400 daily SFO to CAN.

FlyGuyClt · Fri May 05, 2006 10:04 pm

Quoting Commavia (Reply 20):
Huh? You might want to tell that to China Southern, then, since they fly a 777 several times weekly from LAX nonstop to CAN, and to UA, which has proposed flying a 747-400 daily SFO to CAN.

Just seeing if anyone was paying attention of just spouting BS again.

Safe Flying Smile

MaxQ2351 · Fri May 05, 2006 10:04 pm

Quoting Commavia (Reply 20):
There are only a very limited number of weekly frequencies allowed for U.S. carriers to land in China -- regardless of the flight's origin. Northwest is now the only airline that continues to use its frequencies for flights from Japan, rather than the U.S.

So??? Most likely it is more profitable for them to run flights from Japan as opposed to the US. Why should they, for any reason, feel any obligation, to use their "precious" China slots for flights originating in the US. Those slots are NW's, and they will use them as they see fit. If they use them on a route that you simply do not personally approve of:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 20):
Yes, it does. If Northwest were not using its precious U.S.-China authority for NRT-CAN, another carrier could be using it for a flight nonstop from the U.S.

You seem to think that only flights from the US should be allowed. I think that is a very obtuse comment. As I said, if Northwests owns the rights to those slots, they'll use them as they damn well please. They will not surrender the rights to them simply because they do not use them for a flight from the US, which would be to your satisfaction, of course, if they did. I also can't get over this "another carrier could be using it [...]" comment. Since when do airlines surrender their routes so another airline, they are in direct competition with, could take it over?!?!?!?!?!

"Oh, okay, I'll give up my CAN slot so you can use it for one of your own flights. I'll give up my profit, and allow you to get even more profit, but as long as you are flying from the US I think it's worth it!!"

-Max

commavia · Fri May 05, 2006 10:55 pm

Quoting MaxQ2351 (Reply 22):
Most likely it is more profitable for them to run flights from Japan as opposed to the US. Why should they, for any reason, feel any obligation, to use their "precious" China slots for flights originating in the US.

Nobody's discussing profitability. Obviously NW is more profitable from NRT, or they would be flying it from somewhere else. And nobody ever used the word "obligation." They have an obligation only to use the slots, not to use them in any specific market. However, I think it would be more benificial for the market overall, and for the U.S., if seven of the few frequencies available to U.S. carriers were used for flights by U.S. carriers to China from, say, LAX, SFO, DFW, ATL, IAH, EWR, ORD, etc., rather than NRT.

Quoting MaxQ2351 (Reply 22):
I think that is a very obtuse comment.

"Obtuse?" Seen 'Shawshank Redemption' lately? Don't put words in my mouth. Those frequencies are NW's fair and square, and they can use them however they want. Nobody is saying they can't. All I'm saying is that it is unfortunate that when a market is so incredibly restricted relative to its overall market size, some of the precious few frequencies that are allocated by the governments to serve this huge and booming market are being used for flights not from the U.S. nonstop to China, but from Japan to China.

MaxQ2351 · Fri May 05, 2006 11:15 pm

Quoting Commavia (Reply 23):
Seen 'Shawshank Redemption' lately?

No, I've actually never seen that movie though everyone says it's one of those classics that you have to.

Anyhow, what's so wrong with Japan to China?? While I will not argue the fact that it is beneficial to fly US to China, I think there is still great benfit in flying such routes. If JAL or Air France or someone (just examples, no insinuation intended!!) started flying (hypothetically) domestic flights within the US, we'd all go ballistic. However, we don't really care if they fly from JFK or LAX internationally. I'd imagine it's the same case with China. So, perhaps that's why it's good that a US carrier operates such routes in the Far East. While I'm sure I will take heat for saying this, operating such routes, if for nothing else, reinforces the USA's global economic dominance. Anyone can fly LAX-NRT or LAX-CAN, etc etc, but opening a market that NW has with their NRT 752's is quite the venture, and they should be commended, not ridiculed for it.

It's the American way!! Why do they do it??? Because they can.

-Max

commavia · Fri May 05, 2006 11:21 pm

Quoting MaxQ2351 (Reply 24):
Anyhow, what's so wrong with Japan to China??

Nothing! It's just that when a market is so capacity-constrained, my view is that it would be more benificial to the U.S. economy if those precious few weekly frequencies could be used for flights nonstop between China and the United States, not nonstop between China and Japan.

Quoting MaxQ2351 (Reply 24):
If JAL or Air France or someone (just examples, no insinuation intended!!) started flying (hypothetically) domestic flights within the US, we'd all go ballistic. However, we don't really care if they fly from JFK or LAX internationally.

What does cabotage have anything to do with this?

Quoting MaxQ2351 (Reply 24):
It's the American way!! Why do they do it??? Because they can.

What? This has absolutely nothing to do with America's economic dominance, nor with any other "American way" of apparently serving other nations' bilateral air markets. This is simply about that I feel -- in my personal opinion -- that Northwest using its coveted China slots to fly to China from NRT, instead of say, DTW, is a waste of the slots when compared to how any number of U.S. carriers (all of whom are already lining up for 2007 and 2008 authorities) could be using them right now, with nonstop flights from major U.S. hub gateways.

AeroWesty · Fri May 05, 2006 11:26 pm

Quoting Commavia (Reply 25):
it would be more benificial to the U.S. economy if those precious few weekly frequencies could be used for flights nonstop between China and the United States, not nonstop between China and Japan.

A case could also be made that operating via NRT gives more access to CAN from the U.S., instead of half the country having to backtrack to MSP or DTW.

burnsie28 · Fri May 05, 2006 11:40 pm

Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 7):
I'm guessing that these particular 757's are based out of NRT exclusively.

Yes they are configured differently then the ones here in the states.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 20):
There are only a very limited number of weekly frequencies allowed for U.S. carriers to land in China -- regardless of the flight's origin.

You think maybe its because NW has more slots, each airline has so many slots. NW expanded into China where no other US Airline is. A 757 works just fine. Some service is better then none.

As for the crews they are primarily Minneapolis based 757 crews.

commavia · Fri May 05, 2006 11:46 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 26):
A case could also be made that operating via NRT gives more access to CAN from the U.S., instead of half the country having to backtrack to MSP or DTW.

If UA had the frequencies instead of NW, they would be flying nonstop from the U.S. mainland, from a huge U.S. gateway, namely SFO, and would provide incoming connections from cities across the U.S., far, far more than NW offers over NRT, and without double connections necessary.

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 27):
NW expanded into China where no other US Airline is.

Not by choice. There is at least one other U.S. carrier that is currently actively seeking authority (and frequencies) to operate nonstop from the U.S. to CAN.

FlyGuyClt · Fri May 05, 2006 11:51 pm

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 27):
As for the crews they are primarily Minneapolis based 757 crews.

50/50 MSP and DTW.

Safe Flying Smile

AeroWesty · Fri May 05, 2006 11:55 pm

Quoting Commavia (Reply 28):
If UA had the frequencies instead of NW, they would be flying nonstop from the U.S. mainland, from a huge U.S. gateway, namely SFO

Obviously, when the authority was granted, the U.S. thought it would be better for NW to have them.

I don't know the history of the CAN rights issue--could it be no one else applied for them? Were they originally issued for non-stop authority from the U.S. then moved to NRT? There are a lot of variables that could come into play--none of which have been addressed here other than "it would be better if ..."

I'm sure reading the argument NW made vs. any competitor at the time would reveal the decision-making process.

The "why should CO get Heathrow for free" argument comes to mind as a counterpoint.

FlyGuyClt · Sat May 06, 2006 12:59 am

On a side note. Have any of you ever been there? The facility is like nothing you have ever seen. The place is mamoth ! ! !

Safe Flying Smile

as739x · Sat May 06, 2006 2:42 am

Bobnwa: The A320 can easily do flights to Guam/Saipan. Its only 3 1/2 hrs from Japan. Its the over water issue's. I do believe most of the 757's over there now are over water equipped only though.

ASLAX

PSU.DTW.SCE · Sat May 06, 2006 3:39 am

Some A320's are overwater equipped - hence the ones that fly into the Carribean, CUN, and used to operate to BDA.

It was additional capacity and ability to offer more WBC (first) seats that led NW to upgage to 752's from the A320.

ANITIX87 · Sat May 06, 2006 8:41 am

Random question. Can someone book NRT-CAN on NW alone? Or do they have to be transit passengers with tickets for another NW flight originating or going to the States?

TIS

AeroWesty · Sat May 06, 2006 8:54 am

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 34):
Can someone book NRT-CAN on NW alone?

Yes.

centrair · Sat May 06, 2006 9:27 am

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 34):
Can someone book NRT-CAN on NW alone?

This is why sometimes NW is considered Japan's 3rd International Carrier. Its the nice thing about 5th freedom.

Note...this thread is a breath of fresh air on A.net. Seems like it has been ages since we had a thread that actually was fun to read and not full of just hot air and bashing.

crownvic · Sat May 06, 2006 9:56 am

I recently flew the NRT CAN sector using NW and the economy section was packed full, while first class was empty...Thank goodness as I was the only Westerner onboard, I was able to sweet talk my way up front! And yes it is a long flight

jad0761 · Sun May 07, 2006 7:06 am

Quoting MaxQ2351 (Reply 24):
if for nothing else, reinforces the USA's global economic dominance

what american global dominance????, last time i checked and i also did read the book The World Is Flat, the U.S. doesn't have that world dominance that you speek of anymore and our economy and political situations have not helped in that aspect either, the world is a level playing field now, i suggest reading the world is flat and then you will undestand what i am tlaking about

azjubilee · Sun May 07, 2006 8:39 am

The reason NWA uses the authority to CAN from NRT and not nonstop from DTW is SIMPLE. They can provide CAN service to ALL their worldwide customers. IF they were to serve CAN only from DTW, they would effectively abandon ALL their customers that live in Asia. By having a hub in NRT they can draw pax not only from the US but their LARGE group of Asian customers that fly NWA regularly. NWA boards about 1 in 10 people that fly from Japan.

With the 787 coming on line I predict NRT overflight to points in Asia from the DTW hub. Then using smaller gage a/c for the interport. This way, NWA can still provide a comprehensive schedule and options to their worldwide customers.

AZJ

stirling · Sun May 07, 2006 9:06 am

Quoting Crownvic (Reply 37):
And yes it is a long flight

For some reason, NW is 45 minutes slower on the west-bound, and about 25 on the east-bound.....I didn't think the 757 was that much slower than the 767s and 777s? What gives?

FlyGuyClt · Sun May 07, 2006 10:22 am

NWA has to use the "narrow" body runway in NRT for 757's and this adds taxi time as it is on the other end of the airport in comparrision to their gates. However, if you luck out and get the other runway depending on traffic. You get there early.

Safe Flying Smile

gigneil · Sun May 07, 2006 11:33 am

Quoting AS739X (Reply 11):
Lapper: They have had A320's in Japan, but the primary narrow body is the 757. Remember the A320 can't do the Japan-Guam/Saipan legs due to ETOPS.

Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 15):
The 320's can't do it because of lack of range

Sure it can.

Quoting MaxQ2351 (Reply 24):
If JAL or Air France or someone (just examples, no insinuation intended!!) started flying (hypothetically) domestic flights within the US, we'd all go ballistic.

Yeah. You're missing the point. The flights are from Japan to other countries. They're not domestic routes.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 28):
If UA had the frequencies instead of NW, they would be flying nonstop from the U.S. mainland, from a huge U.S. gateway, namely SFO

UA has sufficient rights that they could move around to CAN. They haven't seen fit to do that.

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 33):
It was additional capacity and ability to offer more WBC (first) seats that led NW to upgage to 752's from the A320.

Well, yes, but only after downgauging from the 757 to the 320 in the first place. Smile

The reality of the matter is that NW runs 757s because they could get slots on the narrowbody runway when none were available on the main runway, increasing the scope of their operations to profitably include secondary Asian markets

N

nwa744tpa · Sun May 07, 2006 11:58 am

I recall that NW has a finite number of slots for widebody traffic, and that when the new runway was opened it was too short to operate with widebody aircraft. In order to take advantage of new route authorities to mainland China, it was decided to use narrow-body aircraft for a new destination, rather than give up an obviously more lucrative wide-body slot for the service. At the moment, there are a few 744's which are still out of service due to leasing issues related to bankruptcy, with the remaining 744's maxed out on the Trans-Pac schedules. I believe NRT-TPE was canceled (instead operated through KIX) in order to accomodate NRT-CAN.

bobnwa · Sun May 07, 2006 9:55 pm

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 42):
Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 15):
The 320's can't do it because of lack of range

Sure it can.

You are right. In my haste, I was trying to point out that none of the Northwest narrow bodied aircraft were ETOPS except 753, while all the mainline narrow bodies (DC-9, A-320, B-757) had aircraft that were over water equiped. Don't know about the A-319. Thus the decision to use a 757 fron Japan to Guam had nothing to do with ETOPS.

FlyGuyClt · Sun May 07, 2006 10:00 pm

Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 44):
Don't know about the A-319. Thus the decision to use a 757 fron Japan to Guam had nothing to do with ETOPS.

There are currently "0" A 319's in the NWA fleet that are over water equiped.

Safe Flying Smile

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net