Re: 757-300?

From: (Terrell D. Drinkard)
Organization: Boeing
Date:         31 Mar 93 01:14:47 PST
References:   1 2 3
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1993.270@ohare.Chicago.COM> spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola) writes:
>Karl Swartz writes
>> >a 757 is still a narrow body, and a narrow body configuration for
>> >long haul operations will simply irritate airline passengers!
  Not if they are configured appropriately.  A three-class, international
flag carrier configuration is about 155 seats.  Pretty cush all things

>> The 757 already operates some pretty long routes, including trans-
>> Atlantic charters and U.S. to Hawaii.  In choosing to operate the
>> 757 on the latter routes, United noted that most of the traffic
>> would be vacation travellers who were more interested in low
>> fares than in comfort -- United's DC-8s served well on these
>> routes until quite recently.

   UAL retired their DC-8s December of '91, if memory serves.

>Yes, the 757 has some pretty long routes, and few people are happy  
>about that.  The latest issue of Frequent Flyer (the magazine that  
>comes with the pocket OAG) had a long article complaining about the  
>use of 757s on long routes.
>757s might work on routes like mainland-Hawaii where, as you note,  
>people place price over comfort, but I suspect that on most routes  
>widebodies would have a competitive edge.

Widebodies like the 767 do have a competitive edge in terms of passenger
preference, but not in operating economics.  Twin-engined, single-aisle
aircraft will be seen more and more on these longer routes simply because
they offer less risk to the carrier - in financial terms if nothing else.
And given the current economic conditions, financial considerations
outweigh just about any other consideration.

"Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has
more lawyers than sense."