Talk:Boeing 757/Archive 1

Accident summary
Figures are identical to those for the 767... that seems highly unlikely. Pretzelpaws 17:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is that? Both have lost 9 airframes:
 * http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_manu_details.cgi?aircraft=757
 * http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_manu_details.cgi?aircraft=767
 * Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:41:20, 2005-07-29 (UTC)

Winglets
Could someone merge the most recent entries regarding winglets? One was mine and another was added more recently. Perhaps someone could reconcile them? I don't want to revert as that would just be snippy :) Dowlingm 15:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Josh59x 20:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Range
Continental offers 757 flights form Newark to Hamburg, a distance of 5,239 miles. I cannot believe it, but it is true:. So the 757 is a long-haul jet--Arado 21:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC) •The 737-900ER seats 15% less passengers, •does not fully reach the 757-200's range, •doesn't provide the 757-200's lift capacity (757 has a 35% or 30t higher MTOW), •and in general lacks the 757-200's hot-and-high-capability. -- C. Deelmann 09:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The 737-700ER has a similar range, too, so it can perform some of the same missions. Mind you, it can't haul as many pax. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that 5239 miles is correct - maybe that's the miles you get for your OnePass account, depending on your booking class. The actual distance is about 3300nm/3800mi/6150km. Anyway, the Continental 757-200 for intercontinental services are not standard 757-200 as they came from the production line - they had some modifications done, including the winglets and a range increase. Also, the 757 lacks the comfort that real long haul jets provide. Concerning the differences between 757-200 and the 737-900ER:

Airlines consider it too big for domestic ops
What a load of garbage, maybe in the US but Qantas frequently used it for operations (along side larger planes including 767 and a330) between melbourne and sydney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.14.194 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Qantas does not operate, nor has it ever operated, the 757. Ansett looked into it during the 1980s, but ended up ordering a smaller aircraft, the A320, instead. I do agree with you however that the phrase is in need of some explanation or reference. --Nick Moss 03:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So? They use 747s for very short island hops in Japan, but that does not mean that the 757 cannot be seen as too large for airlines that wanted to replace the 727. Jason404 (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I was refering to size not the actual plane --60.224.14.194 03:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to anyone intending on splitting off a section
This page has been processed by N-Bot, which, for browsing convenience, changes links to redirects to lists to links to the relevant list sections: e.g. Boeing 757-300 is changed to Boeing 757-300.

As a result, anyone who intends to split a section out of this page should be aware that, as of 14 August 2006, the following sections were linked to from the following pages:

N-Bot (t/c) 14:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 757-300 : Avianca, ATA Airlines, Thomas Cook Airlines
 * 757-200 : Mohamed Atta al-Sayed, America West Airlines, Avianca, El Al, PLUNA, Saudi Arabian Airlines, North American Airlines, ATA Airlines, Stavanger Airport, Sola, Monarch Airlines, US Airways, Thomas Cook Airlines, LAPA, Orient Thai Airlines, Transaero, Turkmenistan Airlines, Jet2.com, Uzbekistan Airways, Thomsonfly, PrivatAir, Britannia Airways, Israir, Air Scotland, Royal Nepal Airlines, One-Two-GO, Angel Airlines (Thailand), Xiamen Airlines, Harmony Airways, Sun D'Or, TACV, Excel Airways, Astraeus (airline), Axis Airways, Atlasjet, Azerbaijan Airlines, Shanghai Airlines, Blue Dart Aviation, China Southwest Airlines, Phuket Air, ThaiJet, Ryan International Airlines, Blue Panorama Airlines, China Xinjiang Airlines, VIM Airlines, Ghana International Airlines, Titan Airways, US Airways Group, Santa Barbara Airlines, AV8 Air, Audeli Air, Air Italy, Tarom Cargo, Crystal Airways, Air transports of Heads of State, Operation Astute, Piedmont Virtual Airlines

Winglets, Pt. 2
I have removed TWO separate winglet sections from the article that have lots of facts and figures, but no sources. This is beginning to seem like apromotion for Aviation Partners, the company the additions claim is adding the winglets. We must have independent, verifiable sources for any perfomance figures in the text. Simple physical descriptions from a company are OK, as they are most likely to know how long or high their products are. I will try to find some verifiable sourses this week, and put some of the info back in, in ONE place only. And we certainly don't need a second-level heading on Winglets! - BillCJ 07:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I combined the -200WL and Winglets sections since they were fairly redundant. I'm looking for references too.  Having trouble finding something that state 5% fuel burn and 200 nm range improvements. -Fnlayson 20:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What you've done so far looks great! As long as we've got sources on the rest of the info, we can remove the section tag, and place a fact on the performance figures for a few weeks. I'd be OK with a company press release stating the figures, as long as we state it as such. - BillCJ 20:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this help http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com/news/benefit_of_winglets.pdf Oh nevermind. Guess I should read the part first. ~David

Trivia
I have removed the trivia section as most of it was not notable and trivial. Can I suggest that we create a new heading of Other facts if anybody wants to restore encyclopedic and relevant citable content. MilborneOne 18:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I preferred cutting the section down, but that's alright with me too. -Fnlayson 19:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I honestly did not see anything worth keeping in what was left in the section. There were only 4 items left: 3 were definitely non-notable, and wing area should be included in the specs. (WIng area is a field in the standard specs, but not the table the article uses instead.) - BillCJ 19:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Seating configuration?
For those sorry souls among us who are just mere passengers, it'd be pretty acool to include a schematic of typical seating configurations. Does anyone have that kind of graphic? How about interior photos? Thanks-- Jeremy Tobacman 22:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A basic layout can be found in Section 2 of 757-200/300 Airplane Characteristics. If you want more look at major airline pages.  They usually have layout figures, maybe some pics too.  I doubt if you'll find free public domain images.  -Fnlayson 22:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Safest commercial passenger jet?
Given that no lives have been lost as a result of structural failure, decompression, engine failure etc, is this the safest jet?


 * Probably the Boeing 777. Not in service as long as the 757, but still only a couple incidents over some 10 yrs.  But drawing this conclusion in an article would original research. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a long haul plane
This plane is a long haul thin route flights. it should have long haul in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrchadsexington (talk • contribs) 22:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think a range of ~4,000 nmi would be considered long range today. That's not transcontinental.  In any event, I reworded the lead to state the capacity and range limits of the 757 variants instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Article improvements
Currently ongoing, the section tagged as original research has been blocked out for now, pending verification. Some images have been removed for redundancy/crowding, including:

The design section will probably gain an interior image. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The basic overhaul is now complete, lead, development, variants sections expanded and organized. SynergyStar (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The operators section with the national flags, and the orders/deliveries chart are nice, but differ from other aircraft articles (in terms of taking up more space). Perhaps they could be condensed. SynergyStar (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hi, I'm the moderator of the Boeing 757 Website; I added my website because I thought it would add some value to this. However every time the words amateur and/or unofficial are being added. Because I don;t think this should be added, I decided to remove my website from the links. People are putting it back again and again. Please do not put my website back in the links section. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvannoordenne (talk • contribs) 07:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Linking the b757.info is OK. But labeling it "The Boeing 757 website" makes it look official, which it is not. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is gonna become an endless discussion .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.56.252 (talk • contribs)


 * People shouldn't have to visit a web site to figure out it is unofficial. Using a capital "The" implies it is the best or the only one.  A simple, honest link label like "Boeing 757 website" or "b757.info web site" would surely be OK with most folks.  -Fnlayson (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

incident importance
Perhaps this edit is unnecessary because of this report from NTSB? Griffinofwales (talk) Simple English Wikipedia - Come and join! 14:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the incident can be removed not really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

727 replacement for U.S. carriers?
I recently added a clarify tag to a statement that says U.S. airlines replaced their 727s with 757s. While Boeing did officially design the 757 to replace the 727, it seems that very few U.S. airlines (except cargo airlines) actually replaced their 727s with 757s. In United's and US Airways' case, the Airbus A320 replaced their 727 fleets. For American and Continental, the 727s were replaced by Boeing 737-800s. Delta originally intended the McDonnell Douglas MD-90 to replace their 727s, but switched to the 737-800 due to initial reliability problems with the MD-90. In truth, it seems that the 757 mostly replaced the 707 and DC-8 at least on domestic service.

I can see that the statement is cited, however, it seems to contradict other sources that say otherwise. ANDROS1337 TALK 00:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The context of the statement is the 1980's "Through the 1980s, the 757-200 became commonly used in America and Europe, with mainline U.S. carriers purchasing the aircraft to replace their 727 fleets" is true because there was no other alternative to replace the 727 with during the 80's. The A320 (A320-100) was not launched until 1988 and even then, US based airlines did not seriously look at it until the 90's. The MD90 did not launch until 1995 and Delta had only placed an order for it in 1989...and had already started taking 757s. The 737NG was launched in 1998 and was not even a consideration in 80's. So yes,in the 80's, the 757 was a replacement for the 727 until better options came along. Spikydan1 (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * However, many U.S. airlines continued to operate 727s well into the 1990s and even into the early 2000s. In truth, 757s were mostly ordered to replace aging 707s and DC-8s that still remained on domestic routes, not to replace 727s.  The 757 had a similar capacity to the 707 and DC-8 and had about twice the range of a 727, thus was considered "too much plane" by airlines for the role of a 727 replacement despite Boeing's marketing of it as such.  The 757-100 was actually supposed to be a direct 727-200 replacement in terms of capacity, however, it was cancelled due to insufficient demand.   ANDROS1337  TALK 05:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Would adding "some" to "US carriers" be satisfactory, as "some" did use the 757 to replace their 727s, as ZDan pointed out. - BilCat (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's fine.  ANDROS1337  TALK 14:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that sounds like the best option to go with. Spikydan1 (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Boeing 757 main image
Please do not change the image of the Boeing 757. I changed it because it was a British Airways 757, and the 747 article already has British Airways as its picture. We need to let other airlines have a picture on an aircraft infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggy123 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Update for largest operators?
With AA pulling back on 757s in service and the UA-CO merger, isn't UA's combined 165 larger than AA's fleet, making them the second largest operator? comment added by godospoons (talk)


 * Yes it would seem that UA is the 2nd largest now, however, for the sake of consistency, the comparison uses numbers that are all taken at the same point--July 2011 from Flight International. Otherwise, one would have to get comparative refs for each airline represented, and depending on how updated that is, it will be inconsistent. Around July 2012, if pattern holds, there will be a new census which shows the United-Continental numbers, and the update can then follow.


 * Now, speaking of which, the following statements have been moved out of the model sections, and their references consolidated to the "Operators" section:


 * 757-200: "operators Delta Air Lines (180), American Airlines (124), United Airlines (96), Continental Airlines (41), US Airways (24), Thomson Airways (27), China Southern Airlines (17), and other airlines with fewer aircraft."
 * 757-200PF: "UPS Airlines (75) the largest operator of the type. Other customers for the 757-200PF include Blue Dart Aviation (2), Arrow Cargo (1), Ethiopian Airlines (1), and European Air Transport Leipzig (1)."
 * 757-200SF: "DHL Aviation (22), FedEx Express (20), European Air Transport Leipzig (10), Icelandair (5), Blue Dart Aviation (2), and Shanghai Airlines (1)."
 * 757-300: "Continental Airlines (20), Delta Air Lines (16), Condor Airlines (13), and other airlines with fewer aircraft."


 * This saves the need to have to individually update each section; the above numbers are mainly from July 2010, and were outdated anyway. Also, other airliner articles do not parse out numbers individually this way, instead consolidating it in the Operators section for a more summary style format. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

A-class review
Hi all, I am planning to nominate this article for A-class review shortly. After successfully passing GA review, it has been brought up to standards approximating the other FA-class airliner articles. Hopefully a similar level of input as the 767 article A-class review will be possible, including copy-editing. That FA-class article serves as a template for this one, and suggestions there have been incorporated here. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A-class review now open: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Boeing 757. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all for the help in successfully passing A-class review! SynergyStar (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

With or without Winglets?
Weird thing I noticed just now: B757 and Boeing 757 show the same article and the same picture of an American Airlines Boeing 757-200 on final approach on the right with one exception: the B757 page shows the aircraft with blended winglets, which seems to have been removed for the Boeing 757 page. Both images are 'spot-on' the same... so it looks to me like someone intentionally photoshopped the image. Anyone willing to investigate or shall we change the picture? EthemD (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that B757 is a redirect to Boeing 757, my guess is that the wingletted pic is cached, and refreshing will show the non-wingletted version. I switched the photo to the non-wingletted one because it shows the aircraft in a "stock" or original factory delivered specification.  Previously there was a British Airways 757 lead photo which was replaced after a drive-by editor argued to replace it with a (low quality) American Airlines one.  That pic was replaced with another, better American Airlines pic which has winglets.  I thought that putting up the non-wingletted pic was a way to compromise between showing the 757 as it was designed, while still using the best quality American Airlines 757 pic available to wiki.  It can be switched back to the wingletted original if preferred.  Alternaively, another 757 pic can be proposed. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It seemed kind of wrong to have two contradicting images around the Internet coming from wikipedia, but now I see that it has been stated in the image details (I made some edits to make it a little clearer). If the winglets are the only difference between the factory version and the new one, I guess there is no need to change the image. But I can't say I understand why the British Airways picture needed to be replaced... the quality is good enough, is it also an altered image or not the factory delivered one? Cheers, EthemD (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The AA pic was kept due to the message above at Talk:Boeing_757 (747 articles use BA pictures already). Anyhow, I've thought of using different pics such as this Delta image instead (but 767 is also a DL pic)...and am open to other suggestions. It seems either a factory livery, or a launch/major customer, is preferred.


 * How does this one look? Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just perfect - thank you too, great job! You can even read the inscription next to the tail door "BOEING 757-200". It's the best of all worlds, so to say. :) In other words, I concur that the lead picture should be changed to this. Cheers, EthemD (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I also like this image. &mdash;Comp dude 123 15:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the discussion and comments everyone. I will add the pic, let's try it and see if it works. Also, if anyone is interested, the A-class review of this article could use any interested contributions. Regards SynergyStar (talk)

FA nomination
Greetings all, thanks to everyone's collaborative work, the article has been greatly improved from GA to A-class. Extensive copy-edits occurred during the A-Class review, along with factual checks, which have helped it near FA candidacy. This would be another in a series of airliner FACs, most recently following Boeing 767. Many of the references, formatting techniques, and other elements in this article are shared with the FA-class 767 article, and its completed review provides helpful suggestions. However, each article must stand on its own merits, and is judged against the criteria at WP:WIAFA. With some additional polishing, I believe it is likely that this article will be submitted for review shortly. Any comments on this are welcome. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to everyone who contributed in the lead-up to and during the FA nomination process. The article has attained FA status. Thanks again to everyone who helped, including long-time and occasional editors, peer reviewers, copy-editors, and FA reviewers. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Missing fuselage diameter?
In the articles for the other Boeing and Airbus passenger jets, the fuselage outside diameter is included in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marzolian (talk • contribs) 06:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand (but have no source)that the fuselage cross-section is the same as the 707 and 737. It would be helpful if someone who knows this detail definitively and who is skilled enough to change the table could insert this detail. Many thanks. Quartic (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image
I have changed the infobox image to this: This image originally appeared in the Variants section of the article, where it is now removed and replaced by the original Icelandair 757 image. While it has been previously agreed that the Icelandair 757 image is ideal, I believe that the UPS 757 image is better, as it is of higher resolution.

This is mentioned in the previous discussion: "There are many possible criteria, and they vary from person to person. However, you've figured out the general principles which have been used. From what I recall, the following are generally agreed upon by the Aviation project or common wiki precedent:


 * In-flight images are preferred
 * Aircraft should be facing the text (right to left)
 * Sky or landscape backdrop (unobtrusive background is ideal)
 * Highest resolution as possible (quality)
 * Sharpness of image and details (quality)
 * Color balance (not too dark or too light for subject and background)
 * Avoid repetition of images in rest of article (e.g. not too many pics of the same airline)
 * Identifiable aircraft features (key components not blocked, missing, or overly dark)

In the course of this article's development, the following are possible additional criteria, and have already been mentioned:


 * Variety of airlines between articles (suggested above)
 * Variety of continents represented by airline (additional criteria)
 * Factory specification (earlier suggestion, no winglets in this case)

To make things more complicated, and in answer to above, some further considerations:


 * Similar view as related articles (e.g. Boeing 767, for comparison, with an upward bank angle).
 * Non-distracting liveries (not partial/lease liveries, or designs which overpower discerning details of the aircraft)
 * Historical import (e.g. launch customer, major customer, etc.)"

The majority of features of the Icelandair and UPS airlines are similar: composed properly (correct direction), both are on unobtrusive blue backgrounds, clean, non-distracting liveries, details can be seen, factory specification (no winglets or conversions), important customer, and well-lit. However, the UPS 757 has a much higher resolution and is therefore much sharper. UPS is also a key operator of the 757. This addresses the concern of the sharpness of the image.tr (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the image change. Please wait for a consensus first. - BilCat (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with 's revert. Majority (87%) of this plane are passenger version while cargo version only accounts for 7%. UPS image should be saved for illustrating cargo version because it is not a good representative of the overall article. Furthermore, UPS image failed to illustrate the windows and emergency exit door configurations while Icelandair has that. Moreover, the UPS logo is partly obscured by the wing. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Boeing 757. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121007052436/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/WINGLET020409.xml&headline=Continental%20Receives%20First%20Wingletted%20757-300 to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/WINGLET020409.xml&headline=Continental%20Receives%20First%20Wingletted%20757-300

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Boeing 757. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101008111844/http://www.flightglobal.com:80/articles/2010/10/05/348135/picture-british-airways-unveils-retro-livery-as-757-era-ends.html to http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/10/05/348135/picture-british-airways-unveils-retro-livery-as-757-era-ends.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629023315/http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200tech.html to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200tech.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)