Originally Posted by
jlemon
I do not believe the 757 was originally conceived to fly long overwater routes such as TATL and also between the U.S. West Coast and Hawaii. The same goes for later models of the 737 specifically with regard to the aforementioned Hawaii routes but also on some TATL routes as well such as IAH-AMS with the aircraft operating in an all business class configuration.
For many years, 757s did not fly such routes. They were, by and large, an aircraft that U.S. air carriers primarily used for domestic services. ETOPS changed all that, of course, and twin engine operations on the long, overwater routes became the norm. And with that change, CO saw an opportunity to serve long, thin routes that otherwise might not be profitably served by a larger aircraft such as the 764.
Back to the West Coast-Hawaii routes, air carriers such as UA, DL, AA and NW began replacing aging DC-10 (UA, AA & NW) and L-1011 (DL) aircraft with the 757 as these wide bodies were retired. I'm not aware of any problems concerning fuel (or lack of) specifically with regard to such 757 and 737 operations over the Pacific; however, the fact remains there are no alternate airfields whatsoever on the way to Hawaii. On the other hand, most of the TATL routes have viable alternate airports which can be used for unscheduled fuel stops should the need arise. These have obviously come in handy this winter.
A good historical perspective. But keep in mind that to a large extent the 757 service to Hawaii originated or terminated on the West Coast, leaving a rather large margin for headwinds etc. as the flight duration is 5 hours. By contrast many of the TATL flights require 7+ hours of flight time, which simply does not leave sufficient margin for error.
It seems pretty clear from the track record that distance is the key factor contributing to diversion. Boston to Europe, no problemo. EWR is more of a stretch, but still doable for UK. IAD is simply too far for 757 to go the distance when there are headwinds or other issues.
If I lived at one of these east coast hubs I suppose I would have to look at the time saved with the nonstop v. the potential cost of diversion and general distaste for 757 (particularly on such a long trip where I like to walk the aisles). From the West Coast (and indeed the midwest), it has zero appeal - I'll most likely catch a 747 nonstop to Europe or connect elsewhere. It is already a very long trip, makes no sense to risk diversion simply because the airline made a bad decision on equipment. Penny wise, pound foolish.