Original 757 Missions

mjoelnir · Sat May 14, 2016 10:35 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 49):
Yes, with ETOPS 120 and fuel stops on many occasions. Condor flew 753s to DXB on charter missions with a fuel stop on Cyprus or in Greece. Today some airlines do such things with A320s or 737s.

You are keeping at it. ETOPS for the use over the North Atlantic came 1986 for RR birds. Some airport in Germany to DXB has been in the range of the 757 anyway, even if some 737 or A320 would need a pit stop on the way.
Give it up, some, not most, 757 have been bought for range and capabilities.
When your argument would be that most 757 were bought for rather short range, I could agree.

seahawk · Sat May 14, 2016 1:09 pm

I hope all 757s were bought for their capabilities, otherwise why should airlines buy them? But it was said that the 757 were bought to open new TATL routes and I think none were bought for that.

mjoelnir · Sat May 14, 2016 1:56 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 51):
I hope all 757s were bought for their capabilities, otherwise why should airlines buy them? But it was said that the 757 were bought to open new TATL routes and I think none were bought for that

And that is exactly were your statement is wrong. You put up an absolut you can not show. You have been told that quite a few 757 were bought to replace DC8 for example. You try again with no early 757. Why ETOPS for the Atlantic in 1986 when no 757 was bought to fly longer distances over water or uninhabited territory. Icelandair bought its first new 757 in 1990, for use on routes the DC8 used to do and those routes lead over the Atlantic.
Yes today 737 and A320 have longer range than 25 years ago. But than a 737-400 could not manage her payload on a bad day flying west CPH-KEF and had to discard freight or even passengers.

Your absolut statement is wrong, simple as that.

seahawk · Sat May 14, 2016 3:13 pm

Icelandair does not fly over the Atlantic, they stop in the middle of it.

mjoelnir · Sat May 14, 2016 3:46 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 53):
Icelandair does not fly over the Atlantic, they stop in the middle of it.

Is than a flight Ireland North America also not TATL? A direct flight KEF - MCO - KEF or KEF - FLL - KEF less TATL than DUB - BOS -DUB?
You are starting to split hairs trying to safe your argument. Anyway, just a few post up you have your "real TATL" with flights from North America to main land Europe, I do not want to repeat what others already told.

And this is just the start of : 757 Transatlantic History (by anyong Jul 20 2011 in Civil Aviation)

AA first operated the 757 transatlantic back in 1993 on JFK-MAN.
1990 on Air Europa, JFK-MAD
CO launched EWR-MAN in 1995
BA operated the 757 BHX-JFK-YYZ
TWA launched JFK-LIS/BCN around '98/'99
and so on

Again very simple, you are wrong.

AirbusA6 · Sat May 14, 2016 3:57 pm

At the time BA ordered their 757s, airlines in Europe were ordering larger aircraft for their shorter routes, indeed the A310 was probably the nearest rival.

Of course, the market then changed so that frequency became more important, and the 757's role changed as it became uneconomic against the A320 and 737NG on shorter runs.

OzarkD9S · Sat May 14, 2016 4:28 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 10):

TWA and Icelandair got their 757 in the late in the production run. But I have doubts they got 27 for one route.

I remember reading an article at the time of the TWA 757 order that the intention was for the 757 to replace the L-1011. The 757 did just that for TWA, including the TATL which the 1011 also operated on. But TW also used the unique abilities of 757 to increase capacity at operationally restricted airports such as DCA and SNA. It was the aircraft used on TWA's LAX-DCA nonstop.

My one and only TW 757 flight was DCA-STL. That flight continued on to LAX and KOA. I recall the take off out of DCA was most impressive. To the north and we were off the runway before we reached the center concourse of the new terminal.

seahawk · Sat May 14, 2016 4:33 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 54):
AA first operated the 757 transatlantic back in 1993 on JFK-MAN.
1990 on Air Europa, JFK-MAD
CO launched EWR-MAN in 1995
BA operated the 757 BHX-JFK-JFK-LIS/BCN around '98/'99
and so on

Again very simple, you are wrong.

And you would be so kind to point out how the 757s used on this routes differed from the other 757s in the fleet.

Because the 757 fleets of all those airlines are a bit huge for operating so few routes with them... Saying they bought the 757 for those routes is like saying an airline brought a widebody fleet for short haul, when they use a tiny part of the widebody fleet on a few short haul routes, while the rest flies long haul. Imho it just shows what I am saying, airline used the 757 on TATL because they already had them available and it was an option to find work for them.

Do not get me wrong I am a big fan of the 757, but one should not overdo the legend building. For customers in North America the 757 was a good for longer missions that required a single aisle type. It worked well for Transcon, it worked well to Hawaii, it worked well to South America or on longer flights to the Caribbean.
In Europe it worked very well on the flights to the Canary Islands or North Africa / Turkey form the UK or Northern Europe.
In Asia it worked well on regional routes.

The 757 opened many routes, but TATL was really just a by product.

[Edited 2016-05-14 09:38:06]

mjoelnir · Sat May 14, 2016 5:14 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 57):
And you would be so kind to point out how the 757s used on this routes differed from the other 757s in the fleet.

You said that no 757 was bought to be used on TATL. I showed you that the 757 has been used on TATL for a long time now, more that 25 years, now you prove that non of this birds was bought with the idea to use them on those routes they are used for.

It is one of this A.net myth, stated every time somebody talks about the 757 needs a real replacement. If you look, you will be astonished how many 757 have been used on longer routes, you just have to start looking further than your usual suspects. Perhaps start with Canada 3000 and look on what routes they used their 757 before 2001.
In the USA the 757 has been used mainly for transcontinental and not for the short hop to the next airport.

It has nothing to do with being a fan or not a fan, just simple facts.

In regards to wide body fleets for short haul. The A300 was developed for short haul and was used for that and later moved to longer distances. In Japan special designed 747 were used for short haul. Emirates only uses wide body for short haul as they do not have anything else and we will see very soon A330-300 delivered prepared for short and medium haul.
If you want to come with a few more unsupportable statements keep on.

seahawk · Sat May 14, 2016 5:38 pm

Being used for a mission does not mean the plane was bought for that mission. If you can show me that those 757 differed from the rest of the fleet, I am convinced. (means different seat layout, maybe offering a different business class product more typical for long haul)

Nobody disputes that there is a market for a single aisle plane with more range than the 737classic or early A320s could offer, but I am not convinced that full TATL range is important, maybe less enough, maybe more is needed, but I see no reason why the 757 range is seen as the definite wisdom.

mjoelnir · Sat May 14, 2016 6:00 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 59):

How about having some ETOPS capable birds in an other wise non ETOPS fleet?

You put up the statement, you prove it, instead of talking around.

My points:
ETOPS for specially mentioned Atlantic in 1986, I do not imagine anybody would have bother if nobody wanted to use it.
Several airlines in the late 80s early 90s did fly TATL and some are still doing it.

Now prove your point that no new 757 has been bought with the idea of flying TATL.

seahawk · Sat May 14, 2016 6:13 pm

Okay maybe 10-15 were brought for that mission. I would not call this developing a new market niche.

[Edited 2016-05-14 11:16:14]

sv11 · Sat May 14, 2016 6:24 pm

I wonder what was the thought on giving 757 a 3900 nautical miles range. The 727-200adv can do up to 2600 nautical miles as per wiki.

sv11

mjoelnir · Sat May 14, 2016 6:33 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 61):
Okay maybe 10-15 were brought for that mission. I would not call this developing a new market niche.

That would make about one for every airline having flown TATL on it.

seahawk · Sat May 14, 2016 6:38 pm

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=3900nm%...%0A3400nm%40SEA%0D%0A&MS=wls&DU=mi

Being able to serve SEA-MIA with full one class payload and head wind.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 63):
That would make about one for every airline having flown TATL on it.

Correct as by this stage length one frame can do the rotation.

[Edited 2016-05-14 11:40:32]

nikeherc · Sat May 14, 2016 6:41 pm

I think it would be reasonable to say that the 757 was intended to replace the 727-200 in the Boeing product line, not necessarily to replace 727-200s in service. It would also replace DC-8s and 707s and 720s in domestic and some TATL routes, since it had the same capacity if not the same capability as far as range.

mjoelnir · Sat May 14, 2016 7:08 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 64):

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=3900nm%...%0A3400nm%40SEA%0D%0A&MS=wls&DU=mi

Being able to serve SEA-MIA with full one class payload and head wind.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 63):
That would make about one for every airline having flown TATL on it.

Correct as by this stage length one frame can do the rotation.

So once again. Every airline having used the 757 on TATL flights has only bought one single 757-200 for this use, never having more of a fleet than one?

Flaps · Sat May 14, 2016 7:19 pm

No need for all of the bickering. Truth is both sides are right. The 757 was originally intended as a 727 replacement for short/medium haul with true transcon capability. As things played out the 757 proved to be much more than just an improved and more capable 727 replacement. It also turned out to be an ideal 707/DC8 replacement and then when ETOPS proved to be wildly successful the 757 (along with its big brother the 767) proved to be just as capable a 707//DC8 replacement on overwater routes as it was on 707/DC8 overland routes.

Only on A-net could two people who are both basically correct incessantly bang each other over the head trying to prove the other wrong. The 757 proved to be very versatile and market developments such as ETOPS came in at just the right time to fully maximize its utility and versatility. Though not originally designed for transatlantic or Hawaii it turned out to be the right aircraft at the right time for those developing/transitioning markets. Had it been able to hang on a few more years it would likely be enjoying a second life production boom in newer improved versions.

Fate works both ways however. The 757 was hurt by traffic downturns late in its career just like it benefited from good timing in its early career. A unique aircraft that will continue to remain in demand until it cycles out. Much like the Electra, DC9 and 727.

Bongodog1964 · Sat May 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Quoting by757a (Reply 48):
I didn't know British charters used the 757 early for transatlantic,

It enabled UK tour operators to open up routes to the Carribbean that were previously uneconomic. They weren't however very customer friendly. A work mate booked a cheap holiday in the Dominican Republic, the routing was scheduled as:

Luton - Bangor - Dominican Republic - Bangor - Manchester - Luton. Unfortunately due to a strong headwind they couldn't make Bangor so they had to fit in an additional stop at Gander.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 51):
I hope all 757s were bought for their capabilities, otherwise why should airlines buy them?

I'm sure they were bought for their capabilities, however at the time these extended beyond range and seating capacity.
As mentioned earlier, if in 1980 you wanted a narrowbody with high bypass engines there was no alternative to the 757.

N1120A · Sat May 14, 2016 9:46 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 29):
That is not TATL.

It is actually more demanding.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 31):

Quoting seahawk (Reply 29):
I am just disputing the theory, that the performance of the 757 spawned a new market of single aisle TATL flights

Respectfully, I wildly disagree. Look at any of the long, very thin CO routes across the pond out of EWR and tell me how they would still have begun as a nonstop market with something other than a 757 at that point.

Yup.

Quoting xdlx (Reply 33):
It was much bigger than 72 and would have operated alongside them for many more years, had 9/11 not taken them to the boneyards in an accelerated fashion.

The 752 was a step bigger than the 722, which was basically between the size of a 738 and an A320. While they operated side by side, that was more a function of airlines still having a use for the capacity.

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 42):
They got ETOPS 120 min in 1986. It took several more years to get the newer 180 approval for better overeater routes. Those charter carriers flew long routing via Iceland & greenway with random stops for fuel due to the longer 120 min routing.
Non-stops started more in the 2000's.

Remember that the 757's ability to do certain routes with ETOPS 138 exceptions is an advantage.

Viscount724 · Sun May 15, 2016 12:06 am

Quoting viscount630 (Reply 47):
I flew BHX-JFK-BHX on BAs G-BPEC in February 1995.

The BA 757 service BHX-JFK continued to YYZ. Didn't last very long. The only BA 757 photos at YYZ are both dated 1997.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Kelley

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Kelley

Max Q · Sun May 15, 2016 4:36 am

Quoting alyusuph (Reply 37):
In 2000, spurred by interest from Air 2000 and Continental Airlines, Boeing re-examined the possibility of building a longer-range 757-200X. The proposed derivative would have featured auxiliary fuel tanks, plus wing and landing gear upgrades from the 757-300, resulting in a higher MTOW and a potential range increase to over 5,000 nautical miles (9,260 km). However, the proposal failed to garner any orders.

It would have been a very capable aircraft, and 'auxiliary tanks' is not an accurate description.

The planned design integrated a 2000USG Horizontal stabilizer fuel tank, which gives you considerably more capacity and range without sacrificing hold space for auxiliary tanks.

It would also have had engine efficiency improvements, the 767-400 cockpit (this was tested in a 757) and numerous other improvements.

This was the 757 that Boeing could still be building today if they had kept their nerve and not shut down the production line during a temporary slump.

And they wouldn't have to spend billions to fight the A321N, it wouldn't come close to a 757NG !

Oh well..

N1120A · Sun May 15, 2016 12:08 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 71):

I think the biggest mistake Boeing, and the big US airlines, made in that time was really not taking a harder look at the 753 for premium transcontinental missions. United had already started their p.s. service with the 752s, and AA's 762ERs were already very old and replacement was going to eventually happen. Neither the 752, nor especially the A321, has been the perfect solution for those routes. The 753 would have. Even with the big premium cabins, it would have had plenty of economy capacity and the costs per seat would be outrageously low. As you said, if Boeing had kept their nerve, that line would probably be pumping out a good sized tranche of 753s for just US domestic use.

ua900 · Mon May 16, 2016 6:19 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 72):
As you said, if Boeing had kept their nerve, that line would probably be pumping out a good sized tranche of 753s for just US domestic use.

Wide bodies are making a comeback on SFO / LAX - NYC. UA is running 777/787s this summer and DL has their 767s. Betcha some of UAs summer birds will stick around, there's still a domestic market for better service / wide body space / flat bed hard product / no neighbors. LAX / SFO - IAD has 1x daily 777s as well. Doubt the 753 could compete even to IAD in it's current config even if UA ends up keeping them around longer than the non-ps sUA 752s.

For whatever reason UA chose to not dive deeper into 757s, opting for a small army of 739s (and later more 738/73Gs) instead. And they'll have a hell of a time putting flatbeds on these, assuring that both 752s and wide bodies have a continued role in domestic premium operations in the foreseeable future.

GG22 · Tue May 17, 2016 12:23 pm

Where is UA using their 752s besides PS flights, some TATL flights and the Hawai services ?

AA777223 · Wed May 18, 2016 5:31 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 29):
I am just disputing the theory, that the performance of the 757 spawned a new market of single aisle TATL flights.

Technically, that's not true. The very first TATL jet flights were on narrowbodies. Hello 707 and DC-8!

ua900 · Wed May 18, 2016 7:55 pm

Quoting GG22 (Reply 74):
Where is UA using their 752s besides PS flights, some TATL flights and the Hawai services ?

The sUA 752s are p.s. and whatever odd route the other 2-3 sUA non-p.s. birds (if they aren't gone yet) can handle. The sCO 752s do some p.s., TATL and routes like IAH-BOG still see them. If KOA, LIH, HNL, OGG see UA 757s these days, it tends to be the sCO 753s, not 752s. Outside of 752 TATL flying, the 752s have been replaced mostly by 739s.

DocLightning · Thu May 19, 2016 4:23 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 11):

There is still no new narrow body replacing the 757-200 in range and capabilities

The A321LR has a frighteningly similar payload-range curve. It has the same (or slightly better) thrust-to-MTOW ratio.

I will miss the roar of the RB211s, although most my 757 flights have been on PW-powered aircraft belonging to NW, DL, UA, and TW. But I've also been aboard RR-powered aircraft with EA, AA, CO, and BA.

UA444 · Thu May 19, 2016 4:41 am

Quoting ua900 (Reply 76):
The sUA 752s are p.s. and whatever odd route the other 2-3 sUA non-p.s. birds (if they aren't gone yet) can handle. The sCO 752s do some p.s., TATL and routes like IAH-BOG still see them. If KOA, LIH, HNL, OGG see UA 757s these days, it tends to be the sCO 753s, not 752s. Outside of 752 TATL flying, the 752s have been replaced mostly by 739s.

All the non-ps 757-222s are all gone now unfortunately. Last one sent to the desert at the beginning of April.

GG22 · Thu May 19, 2016 9:50 am

So the only chance to catch a UA 752 is on one of their TATL flights plus EWR-LAX/SFO ?

I'm just wondering because accoring to wiki (probably not the best source) they have 56 757-200. 15 of them are ps so that there are still 41 non-ps ?
Are these 41 752s all used on TATL flights ?

STT757 · Thu May 19, 2016 11:49 am

Quoting GG22 (Reply 79):
Are these 41 752s all used on TATL flights ?

No, you can find them throughout the UA domestic system. For instance there are 5 daily 752 flying EWR-MCO, EWR-LIM 1x daily, IAH-BOG 1x daily etc..

mjoelnir · Thu May 19, 2016 12:39 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 77):
The A321LR has a frighteningly similar payload-range curve. It has the same (or slightly better) thrust-to-MTOW ratio.

Range yes, payload no. If one takes the original numbers from Airbus, the A321LR lifts a smaler number of PAX over a slightly longer distance.
Auxiliary fuel tanks limit belly space.

STT757 · Thu May 19, 2016 12:42 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 81):
Range yes, payload no. If one takes the original numbers from Airbus, the A321LR lifts a smaler number of PAX over a slightly longer distance.

But what about performance, for instance AA operates 757s nonstop from Bolivia to Miami.

stratacruiser · Thu May 19, 2016 12:44 pm

Quoting GG22 (Reply 79):
So the only chance to catch a UA 752 is on one of their TATL flights plus EWR-LAX/SFO ?

They turn up on BOS - SFO flights occasionally.

xdlx · Thu May 19, 2016 2:25 pm

Airplane is absolutetly amazing, can easily do MIA-MCO, or MIA-LAX, or MIA-VVI

vv701 · Thu May 19, 2016 6:14 pm

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 3):
The OP can look to Eastern as the launch customer.

In March 1979 Boeing launched the 757 announcing an EA order for 21 and a BA order for 19 frames. BA had provisionally selected the 752 to replace its inefficient HS 121 Trident 2s and 3s in 1978. With the worldwide economic slowdown at that time Boeing received no further orders for the 752 for some time.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 5):
But 757 on TATLs routes did not happen until the early 2000s.

BA launched two 752ER trans-Atlantic scheduled flights on 3 January1995. The two aircraft assigned to these missions were especially configured for 161 passengers (J20 / M141). BA205/04 operated GLA-JFK-BOS-JFK-LHR. BA187/86 operated BHX-JFK-YYZ-JFK-BHX..

Quoting stratacruiser (Reply 16):
One of the earlier 757 TATL missions I can remember was BA's short-lived MAN-JFK-BOS rotation about 25 years ago.

BA has never operated a scheduled TATL 752 flight out of MAN, They did operate a 763, primarily G-BNWU, between MAN and JFK from the end of March 1993. This flight was operated for over 15 years. It had no add-on.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 32):
In BA's case the capacity was probably useful due to LHR slot constraints, but in the end they proved too big and unprofitable and were sold and replaced with more economic A320 family aircraft.

BA operated a fleet of 752s from March 1983 until October 2010. Their fourth frame, G-BIKD, had accumulated 32,252 hrs in 32,261 cycles in its 18 years service with BA. This was fairly typical for those 752s that, like 'KD, spent most of their service with BA configured to operate on domestic trunk routes out of LHR.

The two 752s placed in service on TATL flights out of BHX and GLA replaced 763s that had previously operated these flights.

Quoting viscount630 (Reply 47):
Erm........ I flew BHX-JFK-BHX on BAs G-BPEC in February 1995. Monarch, and others, had been flying their 757s trans-Atlantic, on charters long before that.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 70):
The BA 757 service BHX-JFK continued to YYZ. Didn't last very long.

First flight on this route was on 3 January 1995. This service along with the GLA-JFK service was suspended on 25 October 1998. Earlier the flights had been operated by L-1011s and then 763s.

Viscount724 · Fri May 20, 2016 12:23 am

Quoting VV701 (Reply 85):
Quoting viscount630 (Reply 47):
Erm........ I flew BHX-JFK-BHX on BAs G-BPEC in February 1995. Monarch, and others, had been flying their 757s trans-Atlantic, on charters long before that.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 70):
The BA 757 service BHX-JFK continued to YYZ. Didn't last very long.

First flight on this route was on 3 January 1995. This service along with the GLA-JFK service was suspended on 25 October 1998. Earlier the flights had been operated by L-1011s and then 763s.

Not quite clear what route you're referring to when you mention the L-1011 and 763s. I was referring to the BHX-JFK-YYZ route which to my knowledge were never operatedby the L-1011 or 763, only the 752.

Max Q · Fri May 20, 2016 2:38 am

Quoting VV701 (Reply 85):
BA launched two 752ER

There is no such Aircraft as an ER 757.

There are different gross weights available on the 752 and ETOPS equipment is installed depending on the operators
needs but, unlike the 767, officially there's no '752ER'

vv701 · Fri May 20, 2016 12:53 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 87):
There is no such Aircraft as an ER 757.There are different gross weights available on the 752 and ETOPS equipment is installed depending on the operators needs but, unlike the 767, officially there's no '752ER'

The prime characteristic of the 'ER' 757 is its engines. The original 'non-ER' Boeing 757 236s purchased by BA (G-BIKA to 'KD, 'KF to 'KP and 'KR to 'KZ) were, like 27 frames delivered to EA, powered by RR RB-211-535C engines. BA's 'ER' version was still officially described by its manufacturer as the Boeing 757 236. However it had a significant difference in range. It was powered by the RR RB-211-535E4B engine. This engine provided an impressive 10 per cent lower fuel burn than the 535C. The new engine was a key element in the success of the 757 starting in the second half of the 1980s. At that time significant orders placed by DL and NW were quickly followed by those placed by AA and UA and others.

At no little cost DL re-engined its original fleet of 535C powered 752s with the 535E4B. Many of EA's redundant 535C engines were bought by BA to power otherwise new aircraft bought from Boeing. BA apparently saw their low capital cost as at least a balance to the higher fuel costs when operating on their short-haul domestic and European routes. So their next batch of ten 752s, G-BMRA to 'RJ, were also 'non-ER' aircraft powered by the 535C engine.

The remaining BA 752 236s delivered to BA, G-BPEA to 'EF, 'EH to 'EK, G-CPEL to 'EO and 'ER to 'EV were all fitted with the 535-E4B engine. So it was two of these aircraft, G-BPEC and 'EE that were ETOPS certified for TATL flights while seven leased by BA subsidiary Caledonian Airways were put into service on long-haul holiday routes to, for example, Indian Ocean holiday destinations. Note here that one BA operated frame, G-CPEP, was a 757 2Y0 originally delivered to Air Transat.

Max Q · Fri May 20, 2016 4:26 pm

Quoting vv701 (Reply 88):
The prime characteristic of the 'ER' 757 is its engines. The original 'non-ER' Boeing 757 236s purchased by BA (G-BIKA to 'KD, 'KF to 'KP and 'KR to 'KZ) were, like 27 frames delivered to EA, powered by RR RB-211-535C engines. BA's 'ER' version was still officially described by its manufacturer as the Boeing 757 236. However it had a significant difference in range. It was powered by the RR RB-211-535E4B engine. This engine provided an impressive 10 per cent lower fuel burn than the 535C. The new engine was a key element in the success of the 757 starting in the second half of the 1980s. At that time significant orders placed by DL and NW were quickly followed by those placed by AA and UA and others.

At no little cost DL re-engined its original fleet of 535C powered 752s with the 535E4B. Many of EA's redundant 535C engines were bought by BA to power otherwise new aircraft bought from Boeing. BA apparently saw their low capital cost as at least a balance to the higher fuel costs when operating on their short-haul domestic and European routes. So their next batch of ten 752s, G-BMRA to 'RJ, were also 'non-ER' aircraft powered by the 535C engine.

The remaining BA 752 236s delivered to BA, G-BPEA to 'EF, 'EH to 'EK, G-CPEL to 'EO and 'ER to 'EV were all fitted with the 535-E4B engine. So it was two of these aircraft, G-BPEC and 'EE that were ETOPS certified for TATL flights while seven leased by BA subsidiary Caledonian Airways were put into service on long-haul holiday routes to, for example, Indian Ocean holiday destinations. Note here that one BA operated frame, G-CPEP, was a 757 2Y0 originally delivered to Air Transat.

All very interesting but there is no 752ER.

seabosdca · Fri May 20, 2016 4:42 pm

Quoting vv701 (Reply 88):
At no little cost DL re-engined its original fleet of 535C powered 752s with the 535E4B.

Do you mean EA? DL's entire 757 fleet has always been Pratt-powered.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 89):
All very interesting but there is no 752ER.

The confusion arises because a couple of airlines (notably DL) have used "757-200ER" as an internal designation for aircraft that have ETOPS, winglets, and 255500 lb MTOW -- the elements needed to make the 752 viable on 8+-hour missions. But Boeing has never created, and no agency has ever certified, a 757-200ER type. As far as Boeing and the regulators are concerned, they are all 757-200s, except for Nepal's single 757-200M.

B747forever · Fri May 20, 2016 4:52 pm

Quoting BY757A (Thread starter):
Original 757 Missions

I wish Boeing could have given a call to UA when they desperately tried to fly the 757 nonstop from ARN/OSL/TXL/MAD/LIS/BCN to EWR during winter season over many years, just to remind them what the 757 was built for.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net