Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
| Quoting Atlantaflyboy (Reply 47): Regarding the 757 F seating Discrepancies. There are (4) configuarations out there 22F (missing 6a/b), 158Y - Ex-ATA birds w/ overhead CRT's throughout 22F (missing 1c/d), 158Y - Ex-AA birds soon to get 16C, 15bY and avod throughout 24F (6 rows a/b, c/d), 159Y - Original Delta 757 Config w/ CRT's throughout 26F (missing 7c/d), 158Y - Ex-Song birds w/ AVOD throughout Hope this helps! |
| Quoting DTWAGENT (Reply 48): Question here. Could the B757-300's be used on trans-atlantic flghts? Or is the range to short for these flights out of say JFK, BOS ? |
| Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 49): Maybe to Ireland from BOS and JFK, but not much farther. |
| Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 46): Quoting AmtrakGuy (Reply 44): I got a question to ask about A321 -- is their CASM similiar to 757-200? and how much difference with 757-300? On missions they can fly the A321 will usually have lower costs than a 757-200. It's a lighter, newer, and more efficient airplane. But its performance isn't nearly as good. It has much less range than a 757 and worse field performance. Even US transcons have sometimes been a struggle for the A321, as have hot LAS and PHX ops. |
| Quoting Flyingclrs727 (Reply 3): Because they bought the 767-400 for domestic service. |
| Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 62): The 757-300 market was very narrow and I don't see how it would fit into DL operations as the 767-300 would suffice where the 757-200 isn't sufficient... |
| Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 63): Well, Delta did operate the 767-200 until 2005. Since the 767-200 was also primarily used on domestic runs, the 757-300 would have been an ideal replacement for them. |
| Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 64): The 767-200 is not larger than the 757-200, and thus a 757-200 is a fine replacement for the 767-200 when "widebody luxury" is not needed. |
| Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 56): Once you start replacing that many things, I would imagine the cost goes up, up, up. |
| Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 61): The 737 may save weight being closer to the ground, but it may add that weight back in the engine/nacelle/pod department due to complexity. |
| Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 61): The real reason the 737 is close to the ground is so that it is serviceable at any airport where it can physically land, since it doesn't require elevated ground equipment or baggage conveyors. In this modern era for carriers buying new 737NGs, that's not really important anymore |
| Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 64): The 767-200 is not larger than the 757-200, and thus a 757-200 is a fine replacement for the 767-200 when "widebody luxury" is not needed. |
| Quoting Gigneil (Reply 68): The 753 is a heinous aircraft. Its inflight motions are sickening, turn times are among the longest in the industry - longer than a 767 of any size or shape. Its relatively underpowered and the wing loading is extremely high, so the hot/high performance you are used to with the 752 goes right out the window. |
| Quoting Gigneil (Reply 68): The 753 is a heinous aircraft. Its inflight motions are sickening, turn times are among the longest in the industry - longer than a 767 of any size or shape. Its relatively underpowered and the wing loading is extremely high, so the hot/high performance you are used to with the 752 goes right out the window. |
| Quoting Nosedive (Reply 60): When did NW get A321s? |
Look to see them on the MSP-PHX/SEA/LAX/LAS routes
| Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 21): Hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure DL wishes they had ordered the 753 especially in today's environment. But they didn't. Chapter closed. For now. |
| Quoting Gigneil (Reply 68): Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 64): The 767-200 is not larger than the 757-200, and thus a 757-200 is a fine replacement for the 767-200 when "widebody luxury" is not needed. I'm sorry dude, but it really is significantly bigger. |
| Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 13): The 753 can do shorter transatlantic. |
| Quoting Gigneil (Reply 68): ts relatively underpowered and the wing loading is extremely high, so the hot/high performance you are used to with the 752 goes right out the window. |
| Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 64): The 767-200 is not larger than the 757-200, and thus a 757-200 is a fine replacement for the 767-200 when "widebody luxury" is not needed. |
| Quoting Gigneil (Reply 68): Its inflight motions are sickening |
| Quoting Gigneil (Reply 68): turn times are among the longest in the industry - longer than a 767 of any size or shape |
| Quoting N1120A (Reply 74): The 762 IS larger than the 752. It is significantly heavier, and carries more passengers in similar configurations. Further, it carries far more cargo, both by weight and volume. |
| Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 16): As discussed about a million times, Boeing cannot and will not resume production of the 757. Is it so hard to understand that the machinery needed to produce the 757 no longer exists? It gone......and while the 757 is one fantastic airplane, its based on 1980s technology. |
Restarting a production line costs a fortune! There are efficiency studies out there on how the L1011 line couldn't re-achieve its previous production efficiency after it had slowed for a long time.
| Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 16): .the airlines truly thought that there was no place for a small capacity long range airplane; boy, have times changed. |
Wow... it has changed. But so have the Bilaterals (Open skies). Without the partial deregulation of international air travel, the desire for small trans-Ocean airframes only came after more slots were allocated.
But notice how MAN, DEN, DFW, IAD, ICN, and most other non-slot restricted airports are looking at 787's for growth? | Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 21): Hindsight is 20/20. |
Not to mention engine technology...
