United 757 and BHX

[mattjwood]

Evening all

Very excited about this - I am doing my first transatlantic flight for some 25 years in March (i can't remember the last time I did one, I was only a little'n).

I am flying from BHX with United to Newark. I note the aircraft is a 757 which I am a bit apprehensive about as I don't like the idea of a narrow bodied two engined aircraft crossing the atlantic!

Has anyone flew with this airline and also this route? What are the aircraft like? I am hoping its a bit better than the TCX 757's that a based at BHX and a better service within the cabin?

Any reviews and comments appreciated :8

[davidjpowell]

I've only ever flown across the pond on a 4 engined aircraft once. Still here....

No idea on United 757, but I would be fearing the worst....

[PAXboy]

The 757 is one of my favourite aircraft. Fabulous reliabilty. It was first produced in 1983 and is powerful and great! Delta have over 130 of them so they know it very well. It has been crossing the Pond for many years.

It was built in 'old school' style but the flight deck was upgraded to 'glass'.

[Jarvy]

Crossed the pond a couple of times with United in a 757 no problem. Its just a longer 737. Can't remember when I last crossed with a 4 engine jet.

[mattjwood]

Cheers all!

Looking forward to a long flight across the pond. I don't suppose there is much to look at out the window though :*

[Andy_S]

I'm sure plenty of people will pop up to give you some reassurance. For what it's worth, firstly it won't just be any old 757; it will be a 757 with ETOPS (Extended-Range Twin-Engine Operations) certification. To obtain this, it has to meet particular standards of engine reliability. Secondly, even though you're crossing the Atlantic, you might be quite surprised how close you remain to diversion airports. Most of the journey you will be within 90 minutes of a suitable airfield should you need to divert, and depending on the track you take I reckon at least half your journey will be within 60 minutes of an alternate.

[Hotel Tango]

I would suggest a window seat on the starboard side, so that if you are looking out you're not blinded by the Sun. Depending on your track (and the weather) you might get to see Iceland and Greenland. The bad news is that generally speaking cabin service on American companies is average to poor.

[mattjwood]

Thanks so much. I have just changed my seats to the starboard side of the aircraft! Hopefully we'll get a nice view of Iceland/Greenland!

[PAXboy]

Depending on the load and other factors - 75s are know to take off 'very smartly' which is to say they rotate and go UP. I recall enjoyable departures feeling like I was in a fast lift.

Andy_S gives good reassurance.

[Donkey497]

United (& previously Continental) 75's have been doing the run from Edinburgh to Newark pretty much since Edinburgh got a regular transatlantic service. I've lost count of the number of flights I've taken on them across the Pond.


As has been mentioned on many other threads, the 757 was built with power to spare and is very robust, the only real reason that there hasn't been a "new" 757 is that the design was very good to begin with and many have stated that the only possible replacement for a 757 is a new one, giving rise to speculation over when Boeing might reconsider opening the production line once again.
The only reservation I would have about wholeheartedly recommending the flight to you is that United use their planes very intensively, so, the interior of the plane may not be the freshest, but it is very well maintained and safe. The service on United, isn't quite what it used to be on Continental, but it is pretty average for a US carrier. i.e. it's OK, but, just don't expect a lot for free or to be looked after like you're in first class on a gulf carrier.......

[Hartington]

I did my first transatlantics on DC8s and 707s. The first trips had no inflight entertainment. A year or two later there was one film shown on a series of screens pulled down from the roof over the aisle. Comfort? Probably better than today - the seat pitch in economy was generally better than today.

Then the 747 and DC10 arrived and the comfort began to go downhill (slowly to start with) but, if you want IFE it began to improve - you got multiple films!

The arrival of the 767 on long haul was something I took a while to get used to. I was offered the opportunity to fly London/St Louis/Kansas City and chose to go via Chicago (747) instead. Once I understood how the enhanced maintenance and flight planning worked I overcame my reluctance and flew 767s and later 777s. What I find interesting is that some of the enhancements introduced for long haul twins found their way on to some quads.

The 757 is one of my favouite aircraft. Given half a chance they take off like a homesick Angel. They are stable and comfortable (well, comfort is also about the airline fit so that's definitely not as good as when I started).

United? I am not a fan of any US carriers. They are safe, but bland would be kind. Have you seen the Emirates advert with Jennifer Anniston? I'm afraid the fun they poke at an airline (assumed to be a US airline) during her dream is not that far from the truth in my experience.

United have regular economy and economy plus. Plus is either chargeable or offered to their frequent flyers or used to fill up with you and me if they need to. It's only a seat with more legroom but if you can score plus then do so.

[crewmeal]

Don't forget AA also fly to JFK using a 757 as well from Brum.

[Mr Angry from Purley]

MattS
If you go on airliners.net / forums / trip reports you might find a trip report on the UA 757.
At the end of the day the flight is only 7 hours, the B757 is a great aircraft - enjoy!

[jackieofalltrades]

I've gone transatlantic many times, but only once on a 757. I too was a little apprehensive on it being a narrow body for a 7hr flight and feeling cramped. (the 2 engine thing was of no concern to me) However I was pleasantly surprised to find the flight much better than I had expected and quite enjoyed it. It actually felt more spacious than I had expected.

[obgraham]

With United it's better to pay for the "Economy Plus" or whatever they name it this month. Well, unless you're going Business!

And if you are transiting Newark, three hours is not too much time. Last time through that armpit I barely made my flight at 2 1/4 hours.

[Phileas Fogg]

Never less than three and on the one occasion four engines:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/6/2/6/1350626.jpg

[mattjwood]

Thanks a lot guys. Your advice is really appreciated.

We are not transiting through Newark, we are staying in New York for a few days.

I did look at booking with American Airlines but I read their 757's from BHX didn't have any seat back IFE, so i thought this could make a 7-8 hours flight slightly boring!

I shall see if I can dig out any UA 757 flight reviews.

[SpringHeeledJack]

The 757 is, as said, a wonderful aircraft with 2 powerful engines, so all things being good, were an engine to be shut down, the other is more than capable of keeping you on a safe path. 20yrs ago i flew from LAX to KOA in said aircraft, which entailed 5hrs over the Pacific, no diversions once past the point of no return, at night etc etc. The flight was a little choppy, so my levels of nervousness were high, yet the flight was fine and the other passengers didn't seem to be either bothered or aware that there were only two engines on our aircraft.

Be glad you're not on this flight ;)

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/571413-anz-gets-approved-330-minute-etops.html



SHJ

[malcolm380]

I'm a regular user of United across the pond, initially from BRS-EWR, but now EWR-LHR since I moved here. 757 is my aircraft of choice, the AVOD is very good, seats and service are generally pretty good. If you do get into an Economy Plus seat you will be off the aircraft pretty quickly, as Business First is only 16 seats.

[theredbarron]

No worries about the 757 being a twin - most passenger flights across the pond these days are operated by twin engined aircraft (767,777,787,A330) and the 757 is probably the safest of them all.

[DaveReidUK]

the 757 is probably the safest of them all

Made by Carlsberg, presumably ...

[Heathrow Harry]

;););)

nice one dave!!

[Phileas Fogg]

most passenger flights across the pond these days are operated by twin engined aircraft (767,777,787,A330) and the 757 is probably the safest of them all.

Based on the logic of the fewer punters to get out of an exit per emergency I'll wager the A318 being the safest transatlantic twin of them all ... which just happens to be absent from the list!

[Heathrow Harry]

It looks horribly small when parked up at T3 next to all the other long-haul stuff..............................

[Mr Mac]

HH
You should try it in a corporate jet, it is a little unnerving, even though it was a Gulfstream, so not one of the smaller ones either that cross the pond !


Cheers
Mr Mac

[mattjwood]

Thanks all, your responses and greatly appreciated.

I wouldnt mind doing it in a business jet - wouldnt have to sit with all the people coughing and spluttering into the air conditioning system then :yuk:

[AeroSpark]

The 757 is a fantastic aircraft to fly on. I've never flown one long haul but on the shorter flights I've been on the take off performance is impressive to say the least!:ok:

[Mr Mac]

Mattjwood
Have only done it once, and it was 10 years ago, but I did have the A/C to myself, apart from crew obviously. She was coming to Europe anyway, and my then CEO had retained me in the US resulting in me missing my flight, and kindly offered me the option which I have to say I jumped at. Interestingly you do seem to fly higher than commercial A/C as I think we crossed at 40,000ft + where normally you are anywhere between 34- 39 in my experience, perhaps some Biz Jet drivers could comment on that.


Regards
Mr Mac

[scotbill]

Interestingly you do seem to fly higher than commercial A/C as I think we crossed at 40,000ft + where normally you are anywhere between 34- 39 in my experience, perhaps some Biz Jet drivers could comment on that.41,000 across the pond was feasible for a 757 - if empty as you describe. With a normal load it would be in the 31-39 bracket - gradually increasing (if ATC allowed) as the fuel burnt off.

[Mr Mac]

Scotbill
I think you may have got a thread crossed, I was referring to crossing West to East in a Gulfstream not a 757, but I take your point that an empty 757 could cross at the 40k ft + that I crossed at. However in my experience in commercial A/C it seems quite rare to be over the 40k ft. My last flight at that height was over 2 years ago on an EK 340 from Phuket back to DXB, where we had a good tailwind (80knots +) and were under a full Moon at 42k ft, quite spectacular views of the Anderman Sea as I re call.


Cheers
Mr Mac

[wanabee777]

...the 757 is probably the safest of them all.

No. That award goes to the 727.

It climbs like a safe, descends like a safe, and lands like a safe...:O

[fdcg27]

Think of the 757 as a 707 with two big engines versus four little ones.
The 757 was originally intended as a direct replacement for the 727, but Boeing grew the concept to meet the demands of airlines that wanted more seats, more range and better takeoff performance.
The MD80, 737 and A320 became the true 727 replacements and the 757 was developed into a unique niche.
After some years of life, a few airlines figured out that the 757 would be fine to connect thinner city pairs across the Atlantic and since they already had the aircraft, then why not?
The day of the 757 flying across the pond had begun and will end only as available frames run out of hours and cycles.
The soft product on this UA flight will be as good as what they offer on any long flight. The hard product will be okay, although one difference between now and the 707 days is that you'll have much less seat pitch.
You won't necessarily have more room in the back of a widebody either.

[Phileas Fogg]

The MD80, 737 and A320 became the true 727 replacements

The MD80/MD90/B717 was, and is, a DC9 ... Nothing to do with a B727.

The B727, B737, perhaps even B757, are B707 fuselage with bits added and/or taken away.

[Rwy in Sight]

The hard product will be okay, although one difference between now and the 707 days is that you'll have much less seat pitch.
You won't necessarily have more room in the back of a widebody either.


Don't forget the noise level as well - the first time I flew on a 757 and I had a fairly recent memory of the 727/732 and I was surprised to see how noisy the flap moving mechanism - because in hindsight the engines were so quiet compared to the older jets.

[Phileas Fogg]

Never mind the B727 for a tri, try flying on a Yak-42 over Christmas in the ice and snow Kiev to Dnepropetrovsk ... Getting sh1tfaced before departure helps :)

[Hotel Tango]

try flying on a Yak-42 over Christmas in the ice and snow Kiev to Dnepropetrovsk

:} No thanks! I'll leave that to you Mr. Fogg ;)

[mattjwood]

Thanks for all the recent replies! I must admit, I do enjoy flying on the 757 but its been a fair few years since I went on one, and that was a TCX from BHX - TFS.
Most of the Airlines from BHX use the A321 / 737 now to TFS which is a shame!

[East11]

Not been on a 757 for years but expecting one for my LAX to HNL leg ( and return ) this July with Delta; now that is proper over-water, but in a proper plane.

Maybe it is down to me being a bit older but the length of time over water has crossed my mind a few times.

Did nrt to Hnl in United 747s and sfo to Hnl on United dc10s in the 1980s; not a worry. Did United sfo to Hnl in 1998 on my honeymoon but can't remember the metal.

Didn't even think about over-water on LCY-JFK BA but I'm a bit worried about the Hnl leg.