Alpha India Group

General Discussions => General Discussion => Topic started by: james solomon on April 03, 2008, 10:37:36 AM

Title: 757 Thomas Cook
Post by: james solomon on April 03, 2008, 10:37:36 AM
i had tis question posed by my dad a few weeks ago about thomas cook are thinking of changing thier 757 to somthing similar with similar seating and range but its got to the point where its become frustraiting and i wonder if any of you could help me figure out this problem
Title: Re: 757 Thomas Cook
Post by: vc-10 on April 03, 2008, 10:47:55 AM
What could they replace the 757s with? A321s don't have the range/payload, neither does the 737-900ER, and the 787 is far too big. More frequency with A320s?
Title: Re: 757 Thomas Cook
Post by: james solomon on April 03, 2008, 10:51:03 AM
range on a320 i think is a problem when i asked my dad yet the 320 does have almost the same seating capacity but not the range i think
Title: Re: 757 Thomas Cook
Post by: M-Sauce on April 03, 2008, 11:30:45 AM
The only single isle airbus that could match the range would be the A319CJ. The min-buses are not known for their range, that is why none of them cross the small pond, yet the 75 does that regularly. The 321 would match the seating capacity, but couldn't come close on the range.

Unfortunately, the 757 is way more expensive to operate than the 737-900, and it competes in seat size, so boing said good-bye 75, hello 73-900ER. I still don't know if the 900ER matches the range, but it certainly matches the seating cap.

From a pilot's standpoint, I think the 900 packs about 27 to 29K of thrust, as opposed to the 75's nearly 40.

You can see why it is cheaper to operate a 737-900  :(

Mariano


Title: Re: 757 Thomas Cook
Post by: snauffal on April 03, 2008, 01:06:29 PM
The only single isle airbus that could match the range would be the A319CJ. The min-buses are not known for their range, that is why none of them cross the small pond, yet the 75 does that regularly. The 321 would match the seating capacity, but couldn't come close on the range.

Unfortunately, the 757 is way more expensive to operate than the 737-900, and it competes in seat size, so boing said good-bye 75, hello 73-900ER. I still don't know if the 900ER matches the range, but it certainly matches the seating cap.

From a pilot's standpoint, I think the 900 packs about 27 to 29K of thrust, as opposed to the 75's nearly 40.

You can see why it is cheaper to operate a 737-900  :(

Mariano




Air Canada did use A319 across the pond and so did Eurofly..
Title: Re: 757 Thomas Cook
Post by: Mosha on April 03, 2008, 01:24:57 PM
Well what I do is set my fuel setting to unlimitted.  :D Sorry James I could not resist that one
Title: Re: 757 Thomas Cook
Post by: M-Sauce on April 04, 2008, 12:13:00 AM
Yeah, I think Eurofly's are the CJ version, which comes with longer range tanks. I don't know what ACA used.

And what segment did ACA use...Gander to Rejkiavic??

Mariano
Title: Re: 757 Thomas Cook
Post by: md11forever on April 04, 2008, 01:22:42 AM
Just to add- Privatair also flies the A319CJ across the pond to an assortment of US destinations. I used to see them all the time at ORD.
Title: Re: 757 Thomas Cook
Post by: snauffal on April 04, 2008, 01:56:20 AM
Air Canada flew (or flies) from a certain city in Canada that I just don't remember to LHR.
Title: Re: 757 Thomas Cook
Post by: atco on April 04, 2008, 03:04:22 AM
Air Canada flew (or flies) from a certain city in Canada that I just don't remember to LHR.

St Johns (Newfoundland) to LHR

Its only 5.5/6 hours
and actually a shorter flight than YUL-YVR or BOS-LAX I believe.
Title: Re: 757 Thomas Cook
Post by: vc-10 on April 13, 2008, 12:29:21 AM
The busses could cross the pond, but they'd leave the baggage behind...but they weren't designed for it. I think that the charter carriers and the trans-Atlantic operators are going to have a hard time replacing the 757. The A320 can do most of the flights the charter airlines want (I believe) but with a much lower capacity. Perhaps more frequency?
Title: Re: 757 Thomas Cook
Post by: Capa on April 13, 2008, 12:55:58 AM
Just thinking out loud here, but wouldn't it make sense for airbus to make some sort of ER version of the a321? Add some extra fuel tanks (like in the acj/lr a319), and look into those new fancy GTF engines similar to those that bombardier intends to hang under the cseries?

If that were possible (I'm sure the toulouse boys must've looked into something like that) they would have a great replacement for the 75 in their catalogue. If you look at the order book for the a332 (their next model sizewize) it might make some sense, especially now that the seattle gang has nothing to really fill that gap. And with more and more single aisle planes doing transat flights..

I know there's a lot more to it than what I just described, but still, couldn't/shouldn't that be a path for airbus worth looking into? Unless they are holding all that stuff for the NSR off course. Just being an armchair plane builder :D
Title: Re: 757 Thomas Cook
Post by: M-Sauce on April 13, 2008, 03:48:20 AM
Just thinking out loud here, but wouldn't it make sense for airbus to make some sort of ER version of the a321? Add some extra fuel tanks (like in the acj/lr a319), and look into those new fancy GTF engines similar to those that bombardier intends to hang under the cseries?

Tere is a main difference between how Airbus and how Boeing builds aircraft. At least before Boeing's 787, and Airbus' 380, Airbus was always know for building an aircraft to set parameters, and then just barely reaching it or falling slightly short. Boeing was known for meeting and exceeding, the paramenters, therefore leaving room for "growth" models.

The A321 can't just add tanks because it is all about weight. Adding fuel would add weight that they would need to take out somewhere else, ie payload (not good). If Airbus wants to up the range of the 321 it would mean re-enforcing wings and gear, maybe even a new powerplant all together (unless they can hang the good ol' RB 211 on there). I just don't think that the A321 has the growth potential in it to become a 757 type replacement.

I think the only aircraft out there that can potentially replace it is the 737-900ER, hence Boeing discontinuing the 757 line. Don't want to compete with one-self I guess.  :)

Mariano
Title: Re: 757 Thomas Cook
Post by: Mosha on April 13, 2008, 08:39:17 AM
I remember the 2 times I  flew on an Airbus heavy. Lufthansa FRA-BKK-FRA. It felt ok one in the air, but the take off run felt to take forever compared with a 747. I am not a nervous flier, I love it, howver I found myself pulling on the arm rests. Almost like I was trying to pull the AC into the air.  ;D
Title: Re: 757 Thomas Cook
Post by: Andy on April 13, 2008, 10:31:13 AM
When I first saw the A319 at LHR I wondered how on earth that was possible  :o :o

I'm not sure if they dropped some seat capacity for that route. Either way, I wouldn't like to sit in a cram-packed '19 for 5 plus hours. Ouch!  ::evilgrin::
Title: Re: 757 Thomas Cook
Post by: atco on April 13, 2008, 03:29:55 PM
Hi Andy,

Nope the 319 can make it full load with no restrictions.

Its actually a shorter flight than most US trans-con flights which are often operated by A319/320 types.
Look at Jetblue Boston-Long Beach for example, much longer than LHR-YYT.

Air Canada operate the 319 on some pretty long routes, YYZ-Caracas is a pretty long one, as well as YHZ-YYC and YUL-YVR.

The golden days of widebodies on 5+ hour flights are long gone, I often see Alaska Airlines 737s over head YYZ doing ANC-JFK or SEA-BOS.
Heck in North America we have RJ's doing 4 hour flights !
Air Canada uses the E190 on YYZ-SEA and Continental uses the E145 on IAH-YYC.

Oh and Thomas Cook's 757s are not going anywhere - back to the original post !!
Title: Re: 757 Thomas Cook
Post by: vc-10 on April 13, 2008, 06:29:56 PM
Ouch..
Also, BA are buying 2 A318s for London City-New York flights, though the westbound leg has a stop in Shannon.
Title: Re: 757 Thomas Cook
Post by: Andy on April 19, 2008, 11:32:22 AM
Which will be useful for me as Shannon is closer to where I go to visit family. (About half an hour shaved off the trip).

All depends if I can jump on to those flights purely as an LCY- Shannon passenger. Will be my first flight on an A318 too. I miss the days where you could rocket out of London on a 737-200 and get to where you were going in style.  :(
Title: Re: 757 Thomas Cook
Post by: vc-10 on April 20, 2008, 08:41:13 AM
It's all business, and the Shannon stop is purely technical: refueling and getting the PAX through US Immigration.

I could have sworn that BA Cityflyer flew from City to Shannon... ::confused::