757-200 range


The range on these 757s on transatlantic routes really impresses me. Like Delta 196, from LFPG to KPHL flew a good long way today:

Direct: 3,722 sm Planned: 3,896 sm Flown: 4,225 sm

(date 8-4-12)

Wikipedia gives max range (loaded) at 4100 nm with winglets:


I watch this flight come in sometimes, often they take a route more inland over North America, flying down past Albany, Scranton into KPHL. They take those single aisle airliners a long way. Sorry if this thread is completely mundane to everyone one here, i’m easily impressed. Thanks.


The 757 is impressive but the 737 is even more impressive. It started out as a short range (< 2000 miles) aircraft. It now can fly over 5,000 miles.

It went from seating around 120 passengers to over 200!

It is even possible to fly around the world using nothing but 737’s!


Yeah that is a really interesting point. We were talking on here a few months back about these 757 TATL routes, and the issue came up- what will replace the 757 (which are sadly aging, not that people love flying them TATL lol) on these thinner routes. And people rightly pointed out that the 737 is a solid candidate. Which surprised me (i’m not a pilot or anything, just love flying) but they are right on about it.

A wonderful plane indeed, the 737. I just booked around trip on United from PHL-SFO. On the way out i’m on an A320, which i expected. But i was so thrilled to see i’ll be on a 739 on the way back. I have nothing against flying on Airbuses, but i gotta admit it is somehow more fun to fly on a Boeing.


Wow, I will gladly ride on the Airbus over a Boeing narrowbody anyday. The Airbus is about 8 inches wider, meaning each seat is one inch wider, and the aisle is a bit wider. boeing designed the narrowbody fuselage in 1957 for the Boeing 707, and has stuck with the same dimensions for all of their narrowbody airplanes. It is just too narrow for today’s passengers! Try putting three normal size men in a three across row, and their shoulders are touching, and the guy on the aisle is really out in the aisle. In my opinion, Boeing needs to get with the real world, and widen their narrowbody airplanes to a tolerable size.
And, if you are in the last row on a 737-900, it will take you about 11 or 12 minutes to deplane at the end of the flight!


Boeing must be doing something right.

It takes so long to get off the 737-900 because everyone thinks they have to get up at the same time and reach into the overhead bins at the same time. What I’d like to see is a disembarking procedure similar to the embarking procedure. Let the flight attendants call out which rows are ready to go.

Another problem with getting on and off the plane is that very few airports have the capability of boarding through more than one door at a time.


Without a doubt Airbus makes a great plane, i fly them often and have few complaints. Thanks for the interesting stats, they really do help explain the success of the Airbus narrowbody.

Regarding the Boeing narrowbody, i’ve heard that flying transatlantic on a 757 is nightmarish in terms of passenger comfort. I’ve never had the (mis)fortune of flying a 757 to Europe, but it would be something i’d want to avoid if possible. Still, the range of the plane is quite impressive to me!

I fly the PHL-SFO route fairly often, and i’m almost always flying on an A320 or A321. With my upcoming trip, United had a better deal than US Airways. And even with United i was expecting to get an Airbus. So seeing that i’ll be on a 737 for the return leg was just something of a pleasant surprise. I guess as an American some part of me does wanna root for Boeing. Also, it’s been a little while for me since i’ve been on a Boeing so even if the comfort level isn’t as good as an Airbus it will still be interesting for me.

As i said before, i’m easily impressed! Thanks for the reply.


Tip for comfortable seating on the United 737-900 … try for seat 7A or 7F. Hands down the most comfortable (outside of
first class, of course.) It is a bulkhead seat but they have cut out the bottom portion, you can put your bag under the seat in front of you, and you have scads of leg room. I noticed on some flights there is an extra charge and on others, no upgrade charge. Also rows
7 and 8 are usually the last to be sold on online bookings. I thought it was a fluke or good luck the first time it happened, but this spring and summer I’ve flown several flights using the 739 out of ORD, IAH and SFO and it seems pretty consistent. I even got an upgrade to
7F (from 29C) for only $49 on a SFO-ORD segment! Worth every penny.


Worth it or not, I think it’s a crime that the airlines are nickel-and-diming their customers to death! You should not have to pay additional for a given seat.

If people would STOP buying these so-called upgrades then the airlines would stop it. If no one paid for a given seat then the airline would have to give it out for free.


Thanks for the tip! Quite a few PHL-SFO flights–and a move to San Fran for good in early 2013–are in my future, so this is good to know (the ethics of charging extra for desirable economy seats notwithstanding). On a cross country flight a comfy seat and good legroom is a godsend!


Agreed, 100% wholeheartedly, but it is what it is … I doubt it will change any time soon. : (


UAL is changing from a 764 from DEN-HNL to a 752. That will be a long flight and hopefully you don’t hit any strong headwinds. I’ll be on this flight in October.


No kidding. You always here about “hot and high” takeoffs, i’m not a pilot and have no idea how much of an effect that really has… but it does make me wonder if United has the ability at Denver to switch in a 767 on a full flight and/or hot day or something. Just a thought. Thanks for the interesting info.


Airlines often schedule an aircraft that has sufficient range taking into account the winds for a particular route. They know that on occasion they will need to have the aircraft make an unscheduled refueling stop.


Europe-EWR/IAD has diversion options to Gander, Bangor, etc.

DEN-HNL does not.


It does: LAX, SFO, OAK, RNO, LAS, SAN, MRY, SLC, PSP, etc. On a day with heavy winds the aircraft would be cleared to the west coast, make an unscheduled stop (at least, unscheduled to the pax), and then continue on.

In the days of large piston aircraft and early jets, it was not uncommon for a timetable to show a flight that was nonstop with a footnote that says a technical stop may be made enroute. This is similar to today’s flights, although the airlines don’t advertise that a technical stop may be made.


How bout’ this route. flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL2 … /KJFK/GOOY


Wow, i would think that one takes the cake?

Also they had long flight yesterday on the LAX-JFK leg (diversion into ABE):

flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL2 … /KLAX/KABE