Originally Posted by CAirBear (Post 3299989)

It is beyond pathetic and pitiful this BS is now carrying more/same amount of pax as the 757 with 1000000% less performance. Fml.

I was in a UA jumpseat on a fully loaded -800
maybe -900 DEN-LAX a 3-4 years ago. Early October day mid 70s no wind. 100% full as I was in the JS. Calm winds. This F’n thing used at least 10k of runway to get airborne. FO even looked a bit concerned. He and the CA talked about it a bit at cruise. FO (his leg) thinks it may have switched to a few kt tailwind during TO hence the even $hittier perf than he’s used to (assuming).

I could absolutely care less whatever Aerodata or Boeing says. I witnessed how atrocious climb perf was that day with 2 engines. Without any doubt we would
have been a smoking hole in the ground had we blown one at V1.

If Boeing had re-engined (NEO) and update glass/avionics of the 75, they would have killed it. As god awful as Boeing is with the 73, they have, in fact made some of the most badass high performing airplanes in history. Just embarrassing and pathetic they sucked so much WN and legacy delta icks instead of manning up for a clean sheet design/replacement.

Originally Posted by ElCaribe (Post 3299992)

What is United and Southwest Airlines thinking! I can’t believe they fly all the 737 variants out of DEN 365 days/year. The humanity!

Originally Posted by CRJJ (Post 3300067)

exactly! :D so many aerospace engineers and test pilots on APC.

Originally Posted by CAirBear (Post 3299989)

It is beyond pathetic and pitiful this BS is now carrying more/same amount of pax as the 757 with 1000000% less performance. Fml.

I was in a UA jumpseat on a fully loaded -800
maybe -900 DEN-LAX a 3-4 years ago. Early October day mid 70s no wind. 100% full as I was in the JS. Calm winds. This F’n thing used at least 10k of runway to get airborne. FO even looked a bit concerned. He and the CA talked about it a bit at cruise. FO (his leg) thinks it may have switched to a few kt tailwind during TO hence the even $hittier perf than he’s used to (assuming).

I could absolutely care less whatever Aerodata or Boeing says. I witnessed how atrocious climb perf was that day with 2 engines. Without any doubt we would
have been a smoking hole in the ground had we blown one at V1.

If Boeing had re-engined (NEO) and update glass/avionics of the 75, they would have killed it. As god awful as Boeing is with the 73, they have, in fact made some of the most badass high performing airplanes in history. Just embarrassing and pathetic they sucked so much WN and legacy delta icks instead of manning up for a clean sheet design/replacement.

Originally Posted by AllYourBaseAreB (Post 3300189)

Sitting in coach on a 757 is just as bad as a 737. I’d rather be in a CRJ and I hate CRJs in the back

Originally Posted by Texasbound (Post 3300083)

Don't forget part-time economists and airline execs. If the 757 was so great, it would have sold better, and would still be in production.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3300215)

The 757 sold great. It was discontinued because newer airframes had big cost advantages. Delta once put out that the 737-800 operated at 30% less cost per seat. There were also no new generation engines available in that thrust range to re-engine it plus it requires wide body support equipment.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 3300215)

The 757 sold great. It was discontinued because newer airframes had big cost advantages. Delta once put out that the 737-800 operated at 30% less cost per seat. There were also no new generation engines available in that thrust range to re-engine it plus it requires wide body support equipment.