Cargojon

As long as I could get an aisle seat in E+, I think I'd give it a whirl.

But the LH free booze would be missed

BearX220

Either I've gotten older and crankier or EWR has gotten worse, but ten years ago I was still willing to risk connections through there to overseas longhaul flights. Now, no way.

In The 216

I've also intentionally avoided the 757 on TATL's even though I've been in BF. I am beginning to think that a sCO 757 BF seat is better than a sUA 767 or 777 BF seat.

StingWest

Just curious - how are they different - I thought they were similar? thanks

EWR764

Ten years ago there was probably more mainline as a % of overall CO operations, so in that respect I would agree. I used to fly CO Mad Dogs and 737s to BUF, PVD, MHT, RDU etc. As we know, RJ-heaven these days. The airport has not gotten much better at handling foul weather and the people certainly haven't gotten nicer, though!

t18c97

The EWR-BCN route has usually be the 757-200 but I've noticed that the past few days, and all of July is showing 764's been used on this route. I happen to be on this route on 8/27 and noticed that BF is completly booked, can't even buy a seat up front. I wonder if demand on this route is picking up and have decided to change it to a 764?

In The 216

The sCO 757's (and 767-400 and 777) all have the "Continental-style" BF seats and have a more spacious cabin configuration than the sUA BF seats. For example, the sCO 767-400's are 2-1-2 and the sUA 767-300's are 2-2-2 in an alternating front-facing, backwards facing layout. The sCO BF seats seem to be wider and more spacious coupled with the cabin layout just a more private feeling. Just my opinion.

goldelite8

Some of my best experiences traveling internationally in Y have been in this airplane. There's AVOD and 7ABC has SO much legroom. The cabin is much more intimate -- and, in my experience, the service is better because of it. Far superior to the likes of the UA 747 experience in Y...

mduell

Few and far in between? AA/US only have 7% fewer TATL own metal flights, and they operate more seats on more routes TATL on their own metal than UA does.

Using Monday's schedule for US-EU, since this week may be weird due to the holiday:

zkzkz

The real question is why airlines insist on flying 767s and 747s TATL. These planes are gass guzzlers that needed to be replaced with 787s and 777s ages ago.

The 757 still has a niche that nobody has quite figured out how to replace. Even the 787 has substantially more seats than a 757 though perhaps the fuel savings are enough that it doesn't matter. I wonder if Boeing will think about making a shortened 787 after the 787-9.

The main disadvantage of the 757 aside from age is the long turnaround time to board and deboard everyone through a single aisle. Boeing was even considering a widebody 737 replacement arguing that the shortened turnaround times would outweigh the fuel costs for shorthaul airlines like Ryanair or Southwest. That didn't go anywhere but you can imagine how the even larger 757 is affected by it.

The best thing pmCO did was have a consistent product with the full BF seat and service on the 757s. It can be a bit claustrophobic in the smaller cabin but the convenience of a direct flight and the comfortable seat quickly erases that feeling and you can sit back and forget it's any different than a 767 or 330 which are hardly any bigger physically. I'm always a bit surprised at first when I get on a 777 or 747 with how high the ceiling is but that impression only lasts a minute.

tornado163

Having flown TATL in coach on both the 767-300 and 757-200, I prefer the 757. The 767 does have a 2-3-2 seat arrangement in coach, which is nice since it avoids a middle seat. But the lack of overhead storage space and decent entertainment on the 767 make it a less comfortable flight overall.

And having family in NJ while I studied in Cardiff, UK, I really appreciated pmCO (and to a less extent current UA) nonstop flights between EWR and British cities that aren't London.

kevanyalowitz

They also offer 6 inches of foot room that makes it impossible to sleep on your side, what feels like less room between the seat and the screen - making it tough to get out from the window, and a grainy screen with VHS quality movies and selection that is about 50% less than sUA planes! Its Business"First" all the way!

BearX220

The real, obvious answer is that new fleets cost billions the airlines don't have. It's the same reason unemployed people keep driving ten-year-old cars that get 20 mpg although a new $40,000 car gets 35 mpg.

In addition, 747s and (to a greater extent) 767s remain size-appropriate for many TATL routes, especially hub-to-hub ones.

DeterminedToUpgrade

Count me in as another passenger very satisfied with E+ flights on these birds: ARN-EWR was particularly pleasant recently. Boarding was inefficient, but presumably UA is pleased with the economics of these aircraft overall.

Row3Acer

It's still hell. As a 1K, last month I flew EWR-MAD and BCN-EWR with M fare and GPU, neither got upgraded. Flight EWR-MAD was delayed for 6 hours. Flight BCN-EWR stuck in Exit row and the seat was no-reclined. Food was terrible for both directions. Planes are full and the 757 must be very profitable.