The 75 is hands down better up front. Not so much in the back. Maybe in first. The seats in the back have the same crappy distance between them. I truly think the passengers would rather get on the "smaller" jet that looks shiny and new with cool tv's and the like. They know nothing about performance nor are they smart enough to care. For reference, I'm on the 756 and have never flown the 73.

 

Does the direcTV work to Hawaii?

 

el Jefe knows the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.

 

for the first 30 mins or so, then a selection of movies is available.

 

Right after I caught up on this thread, my next stop on my morning internet tour took me to a car/tech blog I frequent, and this was the topic of their daily question/answer of the day:

The Ten Worst Passenger Planes Still In Service

The list was compiled by a bunch of folks whose only experience with the planes has been as pax. The 757 is #4 on the list. Discuss amongst yourselves.

 

I'll add my worthless opinion to this fray; The 757-200 is without a doubt the most capable jet airliner I have ever flown (35 years at sUAL)! It can go long distances, do it out of very short and high altitude fields, fly over water and all with a large payload. Additionally it is quieter than the B737 of any version (not much of and advantage though still loud when compared to A320).

With that being said here are the flaws:
It uses the same fuselage as the B720, 707, and 737.
In an age of hydraulic controls it feels like an old Ford Pick up.
The cockpit is painted in the UAL 1981 brown (yes it was UAL which started this horrible trend when it was the kick-off customer for the B767-200).
It's getting old and Boeing kept B737 production alive for its best narrow body customer, SWA.

How does the B737-900ER measure up? It pays the same, but there's no room for bags, jump seaters or conversations with the FA's in the cockpit.

Remember amateurs fly planes because they think they are cool while professionals do it to get paid.

 

Not quite, since they are both Boeing and very similair, they are both Honda's. It would be like trading a 25 year old Honda with a V8 for a brand new Honda with a 4 cylinder. Economically, which is the better choice?

I have flown both extensively. I choose the 737 because the pay is the same, but I don't have to fly all night.

 

Nor extensive time-zone transits (circadians, WOCL and all that foo foo). You very smart fella...but you're letting out the secret.

 

The 757-200 doesn't burn all that much more gas and it can actually go somewhere with a full payload. Not to mention operate out of places like Jackson Hole with no issues what so ever.

HOWEVER this is all mute as the death bellow of the 757-200 has begun. It doesn't matter that it's being replaced with an inferior airplane. It is what it is and once again there is nothing we can do about it but carry on.

 

Otto:

"but I don't have to fly all night"

You will!

Boy head in the sand with that one.