AA 121
- Thread starter tom barry
- Start date
Happens all the time in Winter when the loads are heavy and head winds are strong. We stopped in Goose Bay a week and a half ago for fuel while I was working CDG JFK.... Needles to say.... The pax were not thrilled! Don't even get me started why we should not be using the 757 on these flights across the pond...
Maybe they'd like the (fuel stop) scenery in Gander Nfld. Better !
Brother, are you correct about using narrow bodies "over the pond" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 7,319
- Reaction score
- 1,555
When I was in the service and the DC-10 went down in ORD, we took a DC-8 over with an Iceland stop. Do not know the particulars, so I guess it can be done.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Before the widebodies entered service, guess what plied the skies over the N Atlantic every day...nothing but narrowbodies. The 757 is a good plane, just stretched to the limit by those who pick routes for it to fly. But US had 2 A330-300's make fuel stops FCO-CLT so even having widebodies doesn't guarantee anything.
Jim
Jim
It is still a good plane. I actually like working it to the Caribbean. But, it's 2012 not 1950.... It's a miserable plane to work and ride on over the Atlantic. Too cramped, etc.......... Bad enough you could be in a middle seat on it for 9 hours. Add another hour and a half for a fuel stop and you want to kill yourself! I am sure the same situation would be more pleasant on a widebody with more room to walk around, stretch, etc....
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
And more people wanting to use that room...
Seriously, though, my only point was how perceptions change. What was once greeted with cheers - DC8's and 707's across the pond replacing DC6/7's or several days on an ocean liner - are now insufferable conditions that no one should be exposed to. The problem the 757 has, aside from the change in perception, is that it wasn't designed to be an "across the pond" airliner but has been pressed into that duty for thinner markets.
Jim
I think they serve a niche and rather well. Can someone tell me what percentage of flights are diverted for a fuel stop over the course of a year? I'm willing to bet it's less than 5%...probably even less than 3%. Hardly a reason to "not be using the 757 on these flights across the pond".
As BoeingBoy said, people back in the day seemed to have no problem flying the 707 and DC8. I'm too young to have flown on those, but I have a suspicion that the 757 is a more appealing aircraft to fly from both a crew and passenger point of view.
Have you worked a full "coach" transatlantic flight on a 757 or been a pax on one across the Atlantic? If not, may you reserve your observations till then. AA has lost a lot of premium customers because of this aircraft being flown to Europe. I saw it out of BOS and now I am seeing it out of JFK.. Whether it stops for fuel or not, it's not a comfortable experience for anyone...
kirkpatrick
Veteran
I don't recall seat pitch specs, but I'd be willing to bet the legroom was a bit more back in the old days. I know the seats were more comfortable before weight and fuel economy became such an issue.
As for cabin crew, I did a couple of hundred crossings on the 707 and there was much more space devoted to galleys and crew areas. Bigger, more comfortable jumpseats as well. I did quite a few crossings on the 757 in the end of the TWA days and I have to say the galley packing was a nightmare and a much worse experience than on the 707, which was designed from the beginning with twelve hour legs in mind.
MK
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,374
If AA is losing premium customers, it is probably more due to its crappy onboard service & seat the ability to fly on BA or IB for the same price and still get their AAdvantage miles.
The airplane isn't the problem -- it's the load factors. At 65%, nobody complained. At 85% and higher, all airplanes suck.
The airplane isn't the problem -- it's the load factors. At 65%, nobody complained. At 85% and higher, all airplanes suck.
WRONG!! I have had managers at several stations tell me the 757 was a mistake and we have lost a lot of business customers to other airlines because they do not like to fly the 757 transatlantic.. Most of our premium customers out of BOS now FLY BA to LHR because of the 757. There really is not another way to spin it!
CAL, now UA has a large portion of their EWR-Europe services scheduled on 757's.... do they have the same problems AA has with fuel stops and passenger discontent?
I was told by the station staff at CDG that "CO" had put larger fuel tanks on their 757's and do not have to stop like we do. No idea about the "UA" 757's.... I do however have friends that work for both. They all hate it and their pax do not enjoy it either....
