John Bernardini

Ive seen flights out of Chicago Ohare to either Los Angelas and San Francisco they use 767s, and 777s for only a four hour haul flights and they are not always full fights like the Boston ones.

It doesn’t seem to make sence to use smaller planes to fit more people on with a six or seven hour flights where as they use larger aircrafts from Chicago to California with almost half empty 767s, 777s and sometimes 747s (rarely) only in the four hour flights.

I guess someday soon, from BOS to Calif the 757s when they become obsolete, you may think they’ll use boing 747s, 767s and/or 777s for 6 hour flights but think again, they’ll only go to Boeing 737s and/or Airbus 319s with over booked planes.

Its one thing about the fuel issues to operate larger planes but I feel paying more money for the air fare and obligated to pay extra now for suit case handling and food for purchase.

Back in the good old days they used to fly larger aircrafts from Boston and many other places with much cheaper air fare, with hot meals, snacks, drinks (except alcoholic drinks and headphones) and luggage handling were included.
Also have a much better service then, more stewardesses were nicer to us passengers. the atmosphere of those olden days flights were more comfortable than they are now. I think most of the airlines have changed so much not for the better.

John Bernardini

However, (more bad news) the coming trend is the longer range 737s! Aloha runs them out from secondary markets in California (SNA, OAK, SMF etc.) and Alaska is using these from Seattle.

I have heard that the Aloha planes are very comfortable and that the flight is very nice, but just wait until Southwest decides to get into that business…not going to be pretty.

Since I’d prefer to be at a window with a 2-seat climb over being in any middle seat, a 757 represents better odds than a 747.

The other thing is — you have the choice not to take those 757 flights. And it also offers a choice to those who would rather not connect at a major hub like LHR after flying in on a giant 747 and instead can go to straight to their actual destination.

And finally, it might offer you service to destinations that simply wouldn’t be economically viable otherwise (similar to RJs or other smaller aircraft to smaller regional airports in the US). E.g., EWK-TXL on Continental. You could fly on CO to Frankfurt on a larger aircraft, but then CO probably wouldn’t have an alliance connection to TXL (since LH is Star Alliance). Or you could fly via alliance partner NW to Amsterdam and then onwards to TXL on a Fokker 70.

Let’s face it, we all want low prices, choice of airlines (competition) and large comfortable planes with a direct flight. But it seems like you can only have two of the three. Merge CO and DL and their EWK/JFK-TXL 757 flights into a larger aircraft and you have less choice (and probably higher fares).

But hey, here’s a solution for you: move to the west coast

757s are the worst way; I know, I’ve done it. The last time was with FlyGlobespan from Doncaster in the UK to Hamilton in Ontario (an obscure trans-Atlantic trip if ever there was one). Tiny seats, double climb over, long toilet queues, dreadful

A little later in the year we went BA from LGW to DFW in a 777, which was 3-3-3 and that was a little better. I had the centre seat in the centre section and it was OK. On the way back it was a 747 from SFO to LHR and that was better still.

Still, my favourites have been A330s: 2-4-2. When my wife and I travel together a 2 by the window is by far the best way to fly.