Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

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

  1. #1
    Member rohank4284's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    789

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

    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

  2. #2
    JPElite Member! Dmmoore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Prescott, AZ, USA, Earth, Sol Solar System, Milky way Galaxy
    Posts
    1,336

    Default

    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.
    Don
    Standard practice for managers around the world:
    Ready - Fire - Aim! DAMN! Missed again!

  3. #3
    Banned Spad13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    673

    Default

    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.

  4. #4
    Member rohank4284's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dmmoore View Post
    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

  5. #5
    Banned Spad13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rohank4284 View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Member rohank4284's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spad13 View Post
    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

  7. #7
    Senior Member ASpilot2be's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    3,356

    Default

    I dont see Seattle to Vancouver on a 757 being a bad thing
    You've got to try to find what's right before your eyes-Finger Eleven



  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oil patch aka Ft McMurray, AB
    Posts
    1,201

    Default

    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

  9. #9
    JPElite Member! mfz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Munich (MUC / EDDM)
    Posts
    34

    Default

    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...
    Last edited by mfz; 05-12-2009 at 01:26 PM.



  10. #10
    Junior Member singaporeboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    6

    Default

    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.
    Singapore Boy - You're a great way to fly

    Airports used
    SIN, SYD, BNE, DPS, AKL, CHC, HKG, SFO, OAK, LAX, ROK, DXB, LHR, FRA, LGW, BCN, CDG, LTN, VST, DOH, STN, FDH, IST, ZRH, AGP, ORK, MSP, SVQ, ATH, BVA, MAD, ATL, FLL, LGB, EWR
    Airlines flown
    QF, NZ, UA, CX, WN, SQ, EK, LH, IB, BA, FR, QR, LX, NW, U2, UX, DL, B6, AF, VS, CO
    Aircraft f
    lown
    B744, AB4, B743, B763, B732, B733, A343, B77E, B773, A332, AB6, A320, B734, B73H, A333, A346, A321, A319, B752, B77W
    Next flights
    LHR-EWR-LHR on VS

  11. #11
    Senior Member Foxtrot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    3,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfz View Post
    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?

  12. #12
    Member rohank4284's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by singaporeboy View Post
    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

  13. #13
    Senior Member AA 1818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    On the beach, under the sun, smiling...
    Posts
    4,831

    Default

    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.
    Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    European Union
    Posts
    1,090

    Default

    I always think bigger plane is more comfortable, so if had to choose between a B747 and B757 on similar routes, the B757 loses.
    "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

  15. #15
    JPElite Member! Dmmoore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Prescott, AZ, USA, Earth, Sol Solar System, Milky way Galaxy
    Posts
    1,336

    Default

    Have you ever seen a 747 and a 757 regularly operated on the same internatiional route?
    Don
    Standard practice for managers around the world:
    Ready - Fire - Aim! DAMN! Missed again!

  16. #16
    Senior Member AA 1818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    On the beach, under the sun, smiling...
    Posts
    4,831

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro View Post
    I always think bigger plane is more comfortable, so if had to choose between a B747 and B757 on similar routes, the B757 loses.
    But, Alessandro - think of it from another point of view - a comfortably furnished 757 versus a European-charter-decked 747. I would prefer to fly on almost any 757 versus a Corsair 747! The thought pattern (that bigger is better) is slowly wittling away as outdated. Like your mama always told you - "it's what's on the inside that counts".
    Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

  17. #17
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    12

    Default

    hiya, some really good points as to why it is good and bad. I have flown a few routes on the 757. Firstly, i am cabin crew and have opperated the 757 on long haul routes in the past. It was not a regular thing they did as an airline but you were able to spot the difference in passenger behavior. People did comment that the narrow fuselage, did make them feel really enclosed. The aircraft, like many airlines were not geared up for long flights as they had drop down TV's and small TV's on bulkheads. As people felt a bit cramped, they would try and congregate in the aisle and at the bulkhead by the toilets at the "3" doors just behind the wing. This then obstructed peoples views of the screens. On the other hand, there were 7 cabin crew on it as apposed to the A300 which had about 10 crew but had another aisle. So passengers felt they got more attention from the crew. I recently flew on a 757 from AMS-MSP with Northwest. I dont know about them as a rule but this aircraft was the same, with overhead TV's. I was also able to understand about the enclosed feeling. Its fine for about 4 hours but i did feel the seats were slightly narrower than on a wide body A/C. Maybe this is just perception from being in a narrow cabin for extended periods. People also dont have many places to manouver around to stretch your legs. if you do get up your in the main aisle and feel as though your in everyones way. But on an 8 houur flight you need to move. Those are just some observations i have noticed. I like the 757 but would feel the need to check about the airlines amenities and their cabin configs before i made a reservation for a long haul. A friend of mine recently flew from Verona to Forteleza on air Italy via the cape Verde islands. 757 and took 11.5 hours. That to me is just too long to be on a 757 no matter how good the airline is.
    thanks, take care

  18. #18
    Junior Member LondonJoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    61

    Default

    I have been on an AA 757 from Madrid to New York.
    It was pretty cramped but it was OK.
    We retured on a Triple 7 which was better but i dont think the use of 757 is a good idea.

  19. #19
    Member BoeingKing77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who cares.It's a boring town.
    Posts
    775

    Default

    US Airways is giving almost all their 757's winglets to go trans-atlantic,i flew on one PHL-LAS and then i think it was gonnin to Hawaii,and my flight was AMAZING!!!!!!Great food,great seats!
    August 29th will be the worst day of the year.

  20. #20
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Anybody ever used this? http://www.seatguru.com/charts/domestic_first_class.php

    Interesting when you look at the comparisons. 757 normally seem to have 32 inch seat pitch, but a "version 2" adds 2 inches to that. I recently upgrade to first class for a flight and wow! does that change things! For a long flight, it might really be worth it.
    Last edited by AJ; 07-17-2009 at 09:23 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •