Made by Carlsberg, presumably ...

;););)

nice one dave!!

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!

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

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

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:

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:

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

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.

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

No. That award goes to the 727.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

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

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!

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.