Another 8 752s from the East get ETOPS and new winglets!

[Whatnow?]

Galley mods on the existing ETOPS B757's are currently ongoing.
Regards
DC

That's good news....do you have a tail number or modification details yet?

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

Unable to retrofit the entire B757 fleet to ETOPS, because it is not possible structurally.
Regards
DC

Could you elaborate.
Thanks

 

[USstew23]

Could you elaborate.
Thanks

I think I read somewhere (can't remember) that the HP and ex EA 57's cannot structurally be retrofitted. I know at least that they are the oldest 57's in the entire fleet.

 

[700UW]

US wont us a 757 on CLT-LGW, the A330 does very well, plus the loss of cargo would make the flight unprofitable and open the door for BA to return and take the market.

 

[FutureUScapt]

I think I read somewhere (can't remember) that the HP and ex EA 57's cannot structurally be retrofitted. I know at least that they are the oldest 57's in the entire fleet.

Several of the HP birds are ETOPS certified. Perhaps you are referring to adding winglets?


In general, if you replay the crew news, they've said that all remaining 757s (which will only be about 18, I believe) will be ETOPS certified and equipped with winglets. As for the 737s, it is apparently not worth the investment given the fact that they are used on short stage lengths (unlike CO, for the most part) and won't be in the fleet much longer.

 

[USstew23]

Several of the HP birds are ETOPS certified. Perhaps you are referring to adding winglets?


In general, if you replay the crew news, they've said that all remaining 757s (which will only be about 18, I believe) will be ETOPS certified and equipped with winglets. As for the 737s, it is apparently not worth the investment given the fact that they are used on short stage lengths (unlike CO, for the most part) and won't be in the fleet much longer.

Yes I was referring to getting winglets as that is what the topic is about. It's obvious that the majority of the HP birds are ETOPS since they go back and forth to LIH, KOA, OGG, and HNL everyday.

 

[FlyDCJets]

dc ,for some reason people just don't understand this.

Oh sorry about that, when the B757's first came out, the configuration of systems within the aircraft for ETOPS was not taken into consideration. That changed later in production at Boeing, when operators requested it. I don't know when this was, but all the former EAL B757's as an example, both on the East and West, are B757's that cannot be ETOPS, because of the configuration of the aircraft.
I Hole this helps explain a little better for everyone.
Regards
DC

 

[bofie]

Be nice if the modifications included restoring an appropriate number of F seats to the domestic planes.

 

[sharktooth]

Unable to retrofit the entire B757 fleet to ETOPS, because it is not possible structurally.
Regards
DC

Do you mean structurally due to the routes (which implies how incredibly idiotic the managers are), are you making a comment about the structure of the some 757s or are you making some comment about the top-down cretinous management structure US employees "enjoy"?

 

[sharktooth]

Oh sorry about that, when the B757's first came out, the configuration of systems within the aircraft for ETOPS was not taken into consideration. That changed later in production at Boeing, when operators requested it. I don't know when this was, but all the former EAL B757's as an example, both on the East and West, are B757's that cannot be ETOPS, because of the configuration of the aircraft.
I Hole this helps explain a little better for everyone.
Regards
DC

<<<wrong>>>

If all 757s were ETOPS, US would not be canceling TA flights. The management can get away with yet another fleet type because the employees allow it by taking concessions. By giving Mr. Peter Principle the fiscal room to screw up, you end up with more aircraft types which translates to much higher cost. Hey, mgmt is the one who points out how SWA saves significant monies by only having one aircraft type, why would the employees acquiesce to such a logical contradiction?

 

[BoeingBoy]

<<<wrong>>>

Technically true, because any 757 can be ETOPs modified. Of course, a DC-9 can theoretically be approved for ETOPs if someone wanted to spend (or waste) enough money.

The problem with getting the older 757's ETOPs capability is twofold. First is cost as mentioned above - it would cost a fortune to bring them up to ETOPs standards since those early 757's have never been ETOPs. Second is range/payload - those early 757's only have a 130K MTOW which reduces payload/range. Only tail numbers 200-206 have the highest MTOW permitted - 255K lbs. Only 208-210 have MTOW of 250K lbs. The rest are either 240K or 230K lbs. With the 230K MTOW, you're limited to about 20K lbs of payload if you want the max range of about 4000 nm - about 135 passengers with no baggage/cargo - and that's about half the 757 fleet.

Jim

 

[john john]

Technically true, because any 757 can be ETOPs modified. Of course, a DC-9 can theoretically be approved for ETOPs if someone wanted to spend (or waste) enough money.

The problem with getting the older 757's ETOPs capability is twofold. First is cost as mentioned above - it would cost a fortune to bring them up to ETOPs standards since those early 757's have never been ETOPs. Second is range/payload - those early 757's only have a 130K MTOW which reduces payload/range. Only tail numbers 200-206 have the highest MTOW permitted - 255K lbs. Only 208-210 have MTOW of 250K lbs. The rest are either 240K or 230K lbs. With the 230K MTOW, you're limited to about 20K lbs of payload if you want the max range of about 4000 nm - about 135 passengers with no baggage/cargo - and that's about half the 757 fleet.

Jim

SO basally you are saying the B757 was not design to this type of flying

 

[BoeingBoy]

SO basally you are saying the B757 was not design to this type of flying

I guess you could say they weren't because of the range/payload issue with the early deliveries. Sorta like the 737-300 - not originally designed for transcon use although both US and PI used them successfully in that role at one time. The evolution of the 757, and it's use, over time is not uncommon - look at the original version of most airliners vs their newer (or final, if out of production) versions.

Jim

 

[BuffaloJoe]

I guess you could say they weren't because of the range/payload issue with the early deliveries. Sorta like the 737-300 - not originally designed for transcon use although both US and PI used them successfully in that role at one time. The evolution of the 757, and it's use, over time is not uncommon - look at the original version of most airliners vs their newer (or final, if out of production) versions.

Jim

When the 757 first was designed, it was to be the 727 replacement I believe.

 

[BoeingBoy]

When the 757 first was designed, it was to be the 727 replacement I believe.

Not directly since it was bigger with greater range, but you're basically right - it was a new generation airplane designed for "domestic" ops (basically N. America/Caribbean/Latin America/S. America for U.S. carriers). When it and the 767 were being designed, Boeing didn't really have a "smaller" airplane with true trans-con range.

The big airlines connecting major transcon markets (or at least operating from a major hub) used big airplanes (DC10's, L-1011's, even 747's) while smaller airlines connecting smaller hubs to the other coast like PI/US made 727's and 737's work.

Jim