The Future of Airline Seating?

[railiner]

I wasn't even aware of that small difference....I had thought that all Boeing 'narrow-bodies' from the 707 thru the 757 basically had the same width. The 757 does have a distinctive appearance on the outside however.....it seems 'flat' under the cockpit compared to the others. And I notice that the 757 is selected to go in and out of mountain airfields like in the Colorado Rockies. I suppose it is the 'hot-rod' of the narrow-bodies'?

 

[xyzzy]

The 757 was designed to fly 3000+ miles, and like every twin-engine aircraft there is a lot of power available (needed to maintain flight under a one-engine-out scenario). If you put just enough fuel in a 757 for a 1000 mile flight and don't load the belly with heavy cargo, it will take off like a scalded dog at full power. Likewise a 767. When these aircraft became operational, there was a rumor that if lightly loaded they could out-climb an F-4 Phantom II to FL 200 so long as the F-4 did not go to afterburners.

In the beginning the 757s in the U.S. were used mainly on domestic runs of 2000 miles or less, but gradually they went transcon and then transatlantic from the northeast to western Europe.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

The 757 was designed to fly 3000+ miles, and like every twin-engine aircraft there is a lot of power available (needed to maintain flight under a one-engine-out scenario). If you put just enough fuel in a 757 for a 1000 mile flight and don't load the belly with heavy cargo, it will take off like a scalded dog at full power. Likewise a 767. When these aircraft became operational, there was a rumor that if lightly loaded they could out-climb an F-4 Phantom II to FL 200 so long as the F-4 did not go to afterburners.
In the beginning the 757s in the U.S. were used mainly on domestic runs of 2000 miles or less, but gradually they went transcon and then transatlantic from the northeast to western Europe.

That's why a 757 is better than other narrowbodies: it has a long range and powerful engines. Most modern planes don't have much power in order to save fuel.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

Except for a very few domestic routes like JFK-LAX, domestic first class is basically a larger seat, meal service (sometimes but not always), preboard privileges, and improved attention from the flight attendants. Many or most people sitting in domestic first class don't actually pay extra for it; they are the elite frequent flyers of each airline. (I am one on American.) It is not what domestic first class was like 25 years ago, but it's a lot better than cattle class. American is still flying three-class 767 with true first class on some transcontinental routes and will replace those with three-class Airbus 321. American still offers international first class on 777 aircraft but not the international 767 fleet (which is separate from the domestic 767 fleet). Most other U.S. airlines have dropped international first class entirely and offer only business class.

These 767's have some domestic uses. I was on a 3-class 767 sitting in first with meal service and truly lie-flat seats on all four legs of a LAX-Nicaragua via Miami. Even though none of the legs were longer than 5 hours, it was still a nice service.

Indeed, they still do--but the F-J-Y configuration is on its way out on US airlines. Other airlines (SQ, EK, BA, et al) still operate three-class aircraft on certain routes because they make sense.

In domestic flights, even UA is dropping F from their p.s. product and moving to a two class product.

Also... just noticed your 'interests'. Fellow debater?

It would appear so!

 

[Braniff747SP]

The 757 was designed to fly 3000+ miles, and like every twin-engine aircraft there is a lot of power available (needed to maintain flight under a one-engine-out scenario). If you put just enough fuel in a 757 for a 1000 mile flight and don't load the belly with heavy cargo, it will take off like a scalded dog at full power. Likewise a 767. When these aircraft became operational, there was a rumor that if lightly loaded they could out-climb an F-4 Phantom II to FL 200 so long as the F-4 did not go to afterburners.
In the beginning the 757s in the U.S. were used mainly on domestic runs of 2000 miles or less, but gradually they went transcon and then transatlantic from the northeast to western Europe.

That's why a 757 is better than other narrowbodies: it has a long range and powerful engines. Most modern planes don't have much power in order to save fuel.

This is true. And this is (partially) why the 739ER and 321 can't replace the 75 effectively.

It would appear so!

Not to derail this thread too much... LD or CX?

 

[jis]

The 757 was designed to fly 3000+ miles, and like every twin-engine aircraft there is a lot of power available (needed to maintain flight under a one-engine-out scenario). If you put just enough fuel in a 757 for a 1000 mile flight and don't load the belly with heavy cargo, it will take off like a scalded dog at full power. Likewise a 767. When these aircraft became operational, there was a rumor that if lightly loaded they could out-climb an F-4 Phantom II to FL 200 so long as the F-4 did not go to afterburners.

In the beginning the 757s in the U.S. were used mainly on domestic runs of 2000 miles or less, but gradually they went transcon and then transatlantic from the northeast to western Europe.

That's why a 757 is better than other narrowbodies: it has a long range and powerful engines. Most modern planes don't have much power in order to save fuel.

This is true. And this is (partially) why the 739ER and 321 can't replace the 75 effectively.

The unique characterstic of the 757 that makes it special is that it is one of the few commercial aircrafts that can take of with full fuel load and payload and yet remain within its MTOW (Maximum Take Off Weight). So to travel its full design range it does not have to take a payload hit. All current twins that are targeted as substitutes for 757 do not have that capability. If they have to fly full range, they have to take a payload hit and conversely, if they don't take any payload hit they cannot carry full load of fuel and hence cannot fly full range.
This is not to say of course that there are no 757 flights that take a payload hit. 757s are scheduled very near the edge of their capability on flights from say Newark to Berlin, and in the westbund direction in the winter often they have to take payload hit and also occasionally land at Gander to top up. But then that is an operation risk decision taken by the airline and not an inherent problem with the 757.

 

[xyzzy]

On the other hand, if you're simply flying JFK-LAX, either the 737 MAX 9 (replacement for the 739ER) or the A321neo will have a much lower cost per seat-mile than the 757 and nearly the same pax capacity. And I believe that over time, you will see the 737 MAX 9 and A321neo in transatlantic service too. They will have the range because of lower fuel consumption per hour at cruise.

 

[jis]

On the other hand, if you're simply flying JFK-LAX, either the 737 MAX 9 (replacement for the 739ER) or the A321neo will have a much lower cost per seat-mile than the 757 and nearly the same pax capacity. And I believe that over time, you will see the 737 MAX 9 and A321neo in transatlantic service too. They will have the range because of lower fuel consumption per hour at cruise.

Yes they will. But they won't have the lift to carry the amount of cargo that a 75 can carry in its belly. It all depends on what the plane is used for. They are just not designed to have bothr ange and lift at the same time.

 

[railiner]

The 757 was designed to fly 3000+ miles, and like every twin-engine aircraft there is a lot of power available (needed to maintain flight under a one-engine-out scenario). If you put just enough fuel in a 757 for a 1000 mile flight and don't load the belly with heavy cargo, it will take off like a scalded dog at full power. Likewise a 767. When these aircraft became operational, there was a rumor that if lightly loaded they could out-climb an F-4 Phantom II to FL 200 so long as the F-4 did not go to afterburners.
In the beginning the 757s in the U.S. were used mainly on domestic runs of 2000 miles or less, but gradually they went transcon and then transatlantic from the northeast to western Europe.

I have flown on 757's in and out of Jackson, Wy., Steamboat Springs (Hayden), Gunnison, and Montrose, Co. I can attest to their climb abilites....

 

[jis]

I have flown on 757's in and out of Jackson, Wy., Steamboat Springs (Hayden), Gunnison, and Montrose, Co. I can attest to their climb abilites....

Heh! And I have done so out of Lhasa Gongar Airport at almost 12,000' AFAIR. Their climbing ability is not diminished much up there either. It is disconcerting though when the mountain peaks on both sides are higher than you, way higher for quite a while. It is also crazy that after they shut the door they pressurize the plane on the ground to 7000'!
Incidentally the flight from Lhasa to Kathmandu flies almost directly over Mt. Everest. So they do have to get high enough before they get to the Great Himalayan Range from Lhasa to skip over it and then rapidly descend into Kathmandu.

 

[xyzzy]

For a while, American operated a 757 nonstop from Orange County, Calif (SNA) to the east coast. Not many large aircraft can get off the ground in 5700 feet with enough fuel for 2500 miles, even with tailwind.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Maybe they should built a 737LR or some type of super-A321 for transatlantic or even transpacific flights. The airlines really do want to save money, though I would prefer a very small widebody like a mini 787/A350 with very long range. The 783 would have been small but with short range. That got cancelled.

 

[railiner]

I have flown on 757's in and out of Jackson, Wy., Steamboat Springs (Hayden), Gunnison, and Montrose, Co. I can attest to their climb abilites....

Heh! And I have done so out of Lhasa Gongar Airport at almost 12,000' AFAIR. Their climbing ability is not diminished much up there either. It is disconcerting though when the mountain peaks on both sides are higher than you, way higher for quite a while. It is also crazy that after they shut the door they pressurize the plane on the ground to 7000'!
Incidentally the flight from Lhasa to Kathmandu flies almost directly over Mt. Everest. So they do have to get high enough before they get to the Great Himalayan Range from Lhasa to skip over it and then rapidly descend into Kathmandu.

IIRC, on some of those flights from the Rockies, even with the climb ability, we had to 'spiral' around a bit while climbing out of the valley before having enough altitude to cross the mountain range in the intended direction....

One time I took short hop on a Rocky Mountain Airways DHC Dash 7, an awesome four engined turbo prop STOL aricraft. We boarded at Peterson Field in Colorado Springs destined to Denver Stapleton International. COS altitude is around 6000 feet, and DEN around a mile. As soon as the cabin door closed, I watched my handheld altimeter drop to Denver's altitude, before we even left the gate. Cool...

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Too bad Rocky Mountain Airways dosen't exist anymore, and it's very hard to fly on a Dash 7 these days. Most turboprops are Dash 8s.

 

[railiner]

Another one I never got a chance to fly on was the four jet engined BAe 146, or known later as an RJ-85, IIRC. Awesone power for such a relatively small aircraft.

It kind of reminded me of the old USAF B-58 "Hustler".......

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Another one I never got a chance to fly on was the four jet engined BAe 146, or known later as an RJ-85, IIRC. Awesone power for such a relatively small aircraft.It kind of reminded me of the old USAF B-58 "Hustler".......

They still fly in Europe. I'll try to get a flight if I travel to Germany again.

 

[Trogdor]

Another one I never got a chance to fly on was the four jet engined BAe 146, or known later as an RJ-85, IIRC. Awesone power for such a relatively small aircraft.It kind of reminded me of the old USAF B-58 "Hustler".......

I was ticketed to fly one back when Mesaba dba Northwest Airlink flew them. It was the last day before the schedule change which permanently pulled them from the DTW-MDW route (I was flying back from the east coast, having just ridden the last-ever Metroliner). So, naturally, my inbound flight was late and I misconnected.

Never got another chance to fly one.

 

[railiner]

After 'Googling' around, I found that CityJet in Ireland still flies 23 of them....there doesn't seem to be any active in North America, unless I missed something....

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Dosen't Swiss International and/or Lufthansa still fly them? They're actually the same airline now because Lufty fully owns Swiss and Austrian.