Boeing 757s used on international flights: a good or bad thing for passengers

[rohank4284]

Hello,

I don't know if this the correct place for this thread.

I came across this article on the Dallas Morning News about American Airlines revamping their international Boeing 757s, to have a more spacious business class and the addition of new flat-screen overhead monitors in Economy class. I really think that these are superficial changes and aren't really going to enhance the comfort of passengers.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.3cbe9d3.html

Some US carriers have used Boeing 757s on flights to lesser-traffic markets in Europe and claim that flying a smaller jet makes those flights possible to operate, otherwise those markets wouldn't have the service in the first place. Several passengers have whinned that the Boeing 757 is extremely uncomfortable and isn't an aircraft that should be used for international flights. I believe that Continental and Delta both have PTVs on their international Boeing 757s, even in Economy.

I'm curious has anyone here flown on one of these flights, I would like to know what you though of them. So far, I have always avoided these flights because I thought they would be uncomfortable and believed that connecting would be less of a hassle.

Regards,

Rohan

[Dmmoore]

Point to point service demands an aircraft sized for the market.

The airline passengers will supply the answer to your question. Look at the traffic figures for the routes in question.

[Spad13]

Well, I've flown as a passenger on 75s on fairly long routes quite a few times, such as PHX-OGG-PHX on ATA, SFO-OGG on UAL. Most recently DFW to JFK on AA. Didn't seem any more uncomfortable than anything else.

[rohank4284]

Point to point service demands an aircraft sized for the market.

The airline passengers will supply the answer to your question. Look at the traffic figures for the routes in question.

Thank you for your response. As for traffic figures they are usually pretty high on those routes because of their convenience. Direct international flights are great for most passengers. However, I have heard several people who flew one of those routes because of their convenience say that they would never fly them again. Although I have heard the most complaints about Continental, the main reason too small seat pitch, the plane bouncing around a lot during turbulence, and hard seats and the awkward one about having too few flight attendants. These are coming from people who have flown internationally many times. Having flown COs Boeing 757 on domestic routes, they do make good points.

I agree with Spad13, I have flown Boeing 757s on a 4 hour route and they were ok for a domestic flight on UA, but I still wonder about how they would be on a long-haul international flight. Does the airline you choose make more of a difference or does the Boeing 757s notorously narrow cabin play a role?

I truly would like to hear from someone who has flown one of these routes. Until then, I have no problems flying a big jet to major European destination and then taking a European domestic connection to my final destination.

Regards,

Rohan

[Spad13]

I agree with Spad13, I have flown Boeing 757s on a 4 hour route and they were ok for a domestic flight on UA, but I still wonder about how they would be on a long-haul international flight.

I guess what I don't get is how 5 hrs on an international flight differ from 5 domestic hours.

[rohank4284]

I guess what I don't get is how 5 hrs on an international flight differ from 5 domestic hours.

It doesn't.

I meant flights that are over 7 hours in length, take Continental flight 102, for instance, from EWR to AMS on a Boeing 757 its flight duration is over 7.5 hrs. I was wondering if international Boeing 757s have more amenities or different seat configs than domestic ones. Sitting on a four-hour domestic flight vs. a seven to eight hour international flight can make quite a difference.

I have flown DEN-IAD on a UA Boeing 757 and it was ok for the 4 hour duration of that flight, but I don't think that I would want to be stuck on such an aircraft for 7-8 hours, their Boeing 777s were far more comfortable. From the research I did, most Boeing 757s were configured the same way for long-haul international/domestic flights. Since that's the case, I think that I will stick to flying the big heavys across the Atlantic.

Regards,

Rohan

[ASpilot2be]

I dont see Seattle to Vancouver on a 757 being a bad thing

[a78jumper]

Worst flight I ever took was from LHA to YOW on a Nationair 752 nonstop, 3266 nautical miles, 3758 miles about the same distance as AMS-EWR listed above. I also have flown a 752 from MSP to ANC about the same distance as a east/west coast transcon, also a NW 753 from LAX to HNL. I have nothing against 3-3 seating but the pitch has to be at least 32 inches for longer flights ( and I am not a tall person at 5'6"). Sitting in First on the rtn leg ANC-MSP made for a lot more comfortable flight.

If it means the difference between a non stop in a 752 or having to change planes somewhere enroute, I would rather have the former

[mfz]

In Europe some Chartercarriers (Condor, Thomas Cook, Britannia...) used to fly or still do fly the B757 on longhaul-routes like Northern Europe to Canary Islands or the U.A.E. (5-6 hours) or even from Germany into the Caribbean (with a refueling-stop in Gandar or the Acores). Not that it is fun to spend 10 to 12 hours in a cramped holiday-bomber, but this doesn't make a difference wheter you're sitting in a B757, B767 or an A330. Also, BA used to fly MAN-YYZ on B757 a couple of years ago. RA used to fly KTM-FRA on B752, too...

So there are routes far "worse" than SFO-JFK to fly on a single-aisle aircraft.

Apart from that, single-aisle aircraft are still being used for shorter longhaul-flights. OS for example operates VIE-DXB both with A320 and B738...

[singaporeboy]

I flew CO's B752 from EWR to LHR [CO18] Easter Sunday this year (my flight to EWR was on a B77E). While I initially had reservations, I was pleasantly surprised by how the trip turned out.

Just a couple of observations:
1) I was seated in an exit row (row 16) so I had plenty of space. The most space I've ever had on Y. So really, I couldn't complain. The other rows seemed to provide pretty decent legroom too.
2) Every seat was equipped with a personal TV (if I remember correctly, it was on AVOD). However, the selection of movies and programs was substantially less than on the B77E. Then again, I was being very picky with what I wanted (or did not want) to watch.
3) Boarding and disembarking were quick and painless. I'm not sure if that had anything to do with the size of the aircraft.
4) Yes, there was substantially less cabin crew members on board, but boy did they deliver. They were friendly, chatty, approachable and did their job well. Frequent water rounds and everything. I was very impressed by how casual but professional they were.
5) Turbulence? Nothing out of the ordinary.

Would I fly a B752 transatlantic again? Well that depends. On CO? Yes. On DL? Not so sure (didn't have the best experience with DL Christmas 2008 ). I would still prefer a larger plane, but that's only because I'm a size queen. But I definitely don't have the same inhibitions about flying a narrowbody transatlantic as before.

[Foxtrot]

Apart from that, single-aisle aircraft are still being used for shorter longhaul-flights. OS for example operates VIE-DXB both with A320 and B738...

Just wondering aren't those operated by Privatair with its ACJs and BBJs?

[rohank4284]

I flew CO's B752 from EWR to LHR [CO18] Easter Sunday this year (my flight to EWR was on a B77E). While I initially had reservations, I was pleasantly surprised by how the trip turned out.

Just a couple of observations:
1) I was seated in an exit row (row 16) so I had plenty of space. The most space I've ever had on Y. So really, I couldn't complain. The other rows seemed to provide pretty decent legroom too.
2) Every seat was equipped with a personal TV (if I remember correctly, it was on AVOD). However, the selection of movies and programs was substantially less than on the B77E. Then again, I was being very picky with what I wanted (or did not want) to watch.
3) Boarding and disembarking were quick and painless. I'm not sure if that had anything to do with the size of the aircraft.
4) Yes, there was substantially less cabin crew members on board, but boy did they deliver. They were friendly, chatty, approachable and did their job well. Frequent water rounds and everything. I was very impressed by how casual but professional they were.
5) Turbulence? Nothing out of the ordinary.

Would I fly a B752 transatlantic again? Well that depends. On CO? Yes. On DL? Not so sure (didn't have the best experience with DL Christmas 2008 ). I would still prefer a larger plane, but that's only because I'm a size queen. But I definitely don't have the same inhibitions about flying a narrowbody transatlantic as before.

Thank you very much for that reply, it really helped. I guess that a trans-continental flight on a Boeing 757 really isn't that bad. As for Foxtrot's comments, I agree, are you sure those aren't Privatair jets.

Regards,

Rohan

[AA 1818]

Ok, just my two-cents...


1) I could care less about equipment type, if I were properly satisfied with the seats/amenities offered.
The changes being made to AA on their International fleet of 757s are great, but simply not enough. CO offers PTVs and in time, so will DL. Why does AA assume that TVs spread through out the cabin will be a just substitute? As for the re-vamping of the 757's business class cabins - this was well needed. The cabins have yet to receive an update in more than 15 years. With the improvements being made to the 767/777 business class fleet - perhaps the same should be done with the 757s (with a new solution necessary to more accurately accommodate for space constraints). As for me, I would prefer (any day) to fly on an AA 757 full of screaming babies on a Trans-Atlantic flight than fly on a Corsair 747 on a LHR-CDG route.

2). "Non-stop" sells tickets...
Most passengers would rather fly PHL-OSL non-stop rather than PHL-LHR-OSL. Most are not savvy enough to recognize aircraft type, and surely most are not (like we, in this community) are concerned with spotting, logging aircraft types, or being guests of foreign airports. Simple put - the market effected these moves.

3). The market can also effect a change...
Most of the times, the 757s are there only as a starter to the route. They are great aircraft with which to test markets and routes. In reality, if the route were to become popular enough to outsell a 757, by all means we are likely to see the airline change aircraft equipment to a larger type.

4). Whether or not we see the use of 757s as a good or bad thing - it is a reality...
The routes (and lower capacities) dictate when and how an airline can service the route economically. While I understand the frustrations of those having to suffer through a 7 hour flight on a narrow body, that's perhaps the only way that the route would be feasible.

[Alessandro]

I always think bigger plane is more comfortable, so if had to choose between a B747 and B757 on similar routes, the B757 loses.

[Dmmoore]

Have you ever seen a 747 and a 757 regularly operated on the same internatiional route?