Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5656897/

Topic: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: olddominion727
Posted 2013-01-10 13:55:05 and read 23191 times.

With all of the hype around the new HA purchase of the A321NEO equipment to use as far as KOA-DEN... Is this a viable and quality replacement that everyone has been looking for against the 757? It's got a few dozen more seats than the 738/739's, and can possibly make it to Western EU from Canada and US. Is this going to be a new (quality) replacement for US, UA, DL, AA, or even AS, AC & BA? I know UA (former CO, AA & DL) had all but a blood oath with Boeing, but let's face it, if the A321NEO has the range and fuel savings it claims, I think loyalties will could change. We saw that to be proven when AA bought from Airbus and HA switched to almost an exclusive Airbus fleet (after eventually axing the 763)...and possible replacement for the 717's. I know we've tossed around the the A321NEO being a viable and valuable option against the 757 but we've never had any takers. Now we have one of the largest carriers in Polynesia ordering it and making a lot of nay sayers eat a lot of crow!! I think a lot of eyes are going to be watching HA's performance levels against their own.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: clickhappy
Posted 2013-01-10 14:01:24 and read 23186 times.

It is awesome that Airbus has created an alternative to the Boeing 757, with a first flight in (I'm guessing 2016?) it will surpass the B757, which made it's first flight in 1982.

Good on ya, Airbus   

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-01-10 14:04:02 and read 23128 times.

AA and HA seem to think so. Which also goes to the point that Boeing dropped the ball.

There is a market for that type of plane, but the legacy is now 707->757->A321NEO

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: bluewave 707
Posted 2013-01-10 14:22:40 and read 22963 times.

The 737-900ER and the 737MAX-9 are supposed to fill the 757 too ...

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: olddominion727
Posted 2013-01-10 14:25:21 and read 22937 times.

@IK... with all do respect, I don't think Boeing did drop the ball. I think they tried by creating the 757-300. But the 300 doesn't seem to be utilized the way the way Boeing was hoping. it's not used to the EU and barely used to HI. Boeing should go back to the drawing board and create a Boeing 757-X (crossover between the 200 & 300) with the technology of the 738/9 MAX or rename it 737-1000MAX... but to do SOMETHING. There's a need for these thinner routes (non hub to hub routes) with more density/seating...

The only thing I don't know is if the A321NEO has the legs for an all coach 6hr flight holding 225 pax...Maybe for tour companies like Apple Vacations, Britania, Thompson, Condor... etc. using them from Western EU to the Middle East or the resort cities in Southern Spain, Azores, etc.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: olddominion727
Posted 2013-01-10 14:29:23 and read 22881 times.

@blue... with all do respect if the 739MAX was supposed to be the equivalent it would've been ordered to behave that way, on the same routes that will need to the equipment in the next 10 years. But the carriers are not buying it like that. So I wonder if they're playing a waiting game on those numbers too... Is the 739-MAX supposed to be able to make it from EWR-BER the way CO/UA has them now, or ORD-BHX the way AA did for a short time? Not sure. I hope the 739-MAX lives up to the expectations Boeing has. if not, Boeing will have really missed the boat in this market.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: 817Dreamliiner
Posted 2013-01-10 14:34:13 and read 22807 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
Which also goes to the point that Boeing dropped the ball.

Not Necessarily:

Quoting bluewave 707 (Reply 3):
The 737-900ER and the 737MAX-9 are supposed to fill the 757 too ...

  

If your basing your opinion of "Boeing dropping the ball" of the lack of replacement for the transatlantic routes then your missing the point. When the range figures for the MAX came out it was mentioned by a Boeing representative that the MAX will NOT replace the 757 transatlantic routes, which is only served by around 50 or so 757s, while the other routes can be covered. The A320NEO series will be more or less the same. The longest range 757 has a range of roughly 4100nm, the A321NEO from what I remember is no where near that.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: olddominion727
Posted 2013-01-10 14:44:42 and read 22707 times.

@817drealiner... I remember on a UA KOA-DEN flight... about 7 years ago, DEN, SLC & COS was closed due to snow and they diverted us to LNK. We obviously had the legs for it. We were flying on that thing for almost 9 hrs. I thought for sure their math was wrong for the amount of fuel we had. But we made it, and nobody seemed to bat an eye. Obviously that's not typical, but does that just show the 752 was severely under-used and how the 753 should've even been more advanced to handle HNL-ORD, HNL-DFW for instance? I am not a pilot or an aviation flight engineer and not claiming to be. I am just curious if the distance could have been increased on the 753 to do longer/thinner routes more profitably than being forced to use a 767?

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: mffoda
Posted 2013-01-10 15:04:22 and read 22533 times.

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 6):
If your basing your opinion of "Boeing dropping the ball" of the lack of replacement for the transatlantic routes then your missing the point. When the range figures for the MAX came out it was mentioned by a Boeing representative that the MAX will NOT replace the 757 transatlantic routes, which is only served by around 50 or so 757s, while the other routes can be covered. The A320NEO series will be more or less the same. The longest range 757 has a range of roughly 4100nm, the A321NEO from what I remember is no where near that.

Airbus's latest range figures on the A321neo is 3650nm and the 739Max is 3595. So the most recent company specs put them at 55nm apart in favor of the A321neo. Still very short of the 757.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: 777STL
Posted 2013-01-10 15:18:17 and read 22418 times.

The 321 NEO has no chance in heck of making KOA-DEN and it doesn't have near the range that the 757 does. While it may be able to perform some typical 757 missions such as Hawaii - west coast, it's by no means a catch-all replacement for the 757.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: neutronstar73
Posted 2013-01-10 15:18:37 and read 22417 times.

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 1):
It is awesome that Airbus has created an alternative to the Boeing 757, with a first flight in (I'm guessing 2016?) it will surpass the B757, which made it's first flight in 1982.

Surpass the 757?!? That's a laugh! I needed one today, so thank you for that!  

Can't carry the payload of a 757, can't carry anything as far as the 757, and even with the NEO, can't even reach the range of a basic 757. So please tell me how it will surpass the 757?

Long live the 757!

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: 817Dreamliiner
Posted 2013-01-10 15:28:08 and read 22315 times.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 8):
Airbus's latest range figures on the A321neo is 3650nm and the 739Max is 3595. So the most recent company specs put them at 55nm apart in favor of the A321neo. Still very short of the 757.

Thanks, Just looked up the range figure for the A321NEO to confirm. 55nm is not that much of a difference, but still significant in any case.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-01-10 15:36:00 and read 22260 times.

The 73?MAX has the range to cover 757 routes but I highly doubt they can serve hot and high routes such as PHX-HNL

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2013-01-10 15:51:36 and read 22135 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
There is a market for that type of plane, but the legacy is now 707->757->A321NEO
Quoting bluewave 707 (Reply 3):
The 737-900ER and the 737MAX-9 are supposed to fill the 757 too ...

The A-321NEO and B-737-9MAX are far short of the B-757 capability, and not even on the same contenent for the capability of the B-707 or DC-8.

Quoting olddominion727 (Reply 4):
The only thing I don't know is if the A321NEO has the legs for an all coach 6hr flight holding 225 pax...

It doesn't. The distance between DEN and KOA is 2900 nm, about 6.5 hours at 450 KTAS. That is no winds, so the A-321NEO cannot make this distance west bound, esspecially in the winter months. The HA A-321NEOs will be doing HNL/KOA to LAX (2225 nm, 5 flying hours), and maybe to SFO (2080 nm, 4.5 hours).

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
With all of the hype around the new HA purchase of the A321NEO equipment to use as far as KOA-DEN... Is this a viable and quality replacement that everyone has been looking for against the 757? It's got a few dozen more seats than the 738/739's, and can possibly make it to Western EU from Canada and US.

All of Hawaii is an "island destination" and hold fuel requirements are for 2 hours of fuel at holding airspeeds. Yes, there are several airports in Hawaii, but that is how the FAA defines it for passenger carrier airplanes.

I also don't see the A-321NEO (or B-737-9MAX) having TATL range with full payloads. The B-737-8MAX will, and the A-320NEO might have it too, but not the bigger airplanes in those families.

The A-321NEO and B-737-9MAX will be 3500 nm airplanes, but not with full payloads. The A-321 is a 200 seat airplane, the proposed longer version will be heavier, and carry some 230 pax, but will have less range as it is heavier. The B-737-900ER 185-190 seat airplane, so I don't see where you can say it has "a few dozen more seats". In contrast, the B-752 is a 220-230 seat airplane with a range of more than 4000 nm, the bigger B-753 seats 250 and a range of 3600 nm. the -200 has a MTOW about 255,000 lbs and the -300 has a MTOW around 270,000 lbs.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: dtw9
Posted 2013-01-10 15:54:58 and read 22099 times.

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
With all of the hype around the new HA purchase of the A321NEO equipment

What new purchase. They have a MOU with Airbus. If the A321NEO lives up to range promises they'll buy it,if not, they won't.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-01-10 16:06:52 and read 22001 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
The A-321NEO and B-737-9MAX are far short of the B-757 capability, and not even on the same contenent for the capability of the B-707 or DC-8.

That's only true for the very longest-range 707 and DC-8 versions. The bulk of production was shorter-range versions which the current A321 and 737-900ER already outperform.

The A321neo will be able to do every 757 mission except TATL and long missions from short fields.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2013-01-10 16:07:02 and read 21997 times.

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
Is this a viable and quality replacement that everyone has been looking for against the 757?

Not the one that everyone has been looking for. You mean the one people on this site have been looking for. The importance of a "real 757 replacement" is vastly inflated on this forum compared to reality, where it is really just a blip. You need to remember that Boeing didn't end production because they got bored. Of all the people in the world jumping up and down wishing for something to replace the 757, most of them are on this site and very few are actually in charge of an airline.

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
I know UA (former CO, AA & DL) had all but a blood oath with Boeing,

Hasn't been true since 1997.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
Which also goes to the point that Boeing dropped the ball.

It wasn't Boeing that stopped ordering 757s.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: ADent
Posted 2013-01-10 16:21:02 and read 21910 times.

The A321NEO may be able to do KOA-DEN, but I doubt it could do DEN-KOA - due to winds, ETOPS fuel requirements, and island holding fuel requirements.

AS uses their 737-800s from SEA, PDX, LAX, etc to Hawaii and a couple times of year the SEA and PDX flights have to stop in OAK for fuel before heading out to HNL. The range of a 737-800 is listed at 3,115 nautical miles on Boeing's website.

PDX-HNL is only 2262 nm, leaving the 737-800 with a 853 mile reserve or 72% of the stated range.

SEA-HNL is 74.7% of stated range and OAK-HNL is 67.2%.

So just based on ratios the A321NEO should be able to fly 2450 nm year round, and 2725 nm reliably, but with occasional fuel stops.


Anybody have a real simulation of reliable range for an A321NEO?

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Aesma
Posted 2013-01-10 16:37:28 and read 21814 times.

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 1):
It is awesome that Airbus has created an alternative to the Boeing 757, with a first flight in (I'm guessing 2016?) it will surpass the B757, which made it's first flight in 1982.

Good on ya, Airbus

The A321 wasn't designed to have more range than the 757 in the 90s, and the neo isn't designed to have more range either.

The A321 surpasses the 757 in CASM and the neo will surpass it even more.

In the 80s Airbus had no need for a 757 equivalent, it had the A300 for that. Boeing then responded with the 757/767 program.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-01-10 16:42:07 and read 21768 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 19):
In the 80s Airbus had no need for a 757 equivalent, it had the A300 for that. Boeing then responded with the 757/767 program.

Both the A320 and the 757 were intended as 727 replacements. They just took different paths, chasing different priorities.

The A320 was intended to replicate the capability of a 727 almost exactly, just with more efficiency (although its range eventually got significantly longer). The 757 was intended to significantly grow the capability you could extract from a 727-like trip cost.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Asiaflyer
Posted 2013-01-10 18:00:21 and read 21494 times.

Quoting dtw9 (Reply 14):
They have a MOU with Airbus. If the A321NEO lives up to range promises they'll buy it,if not, they won't.


The MoU will be firmed up long before the A321neo flies, but contractual clauses takes care of such things. As the A321 has been existing for many years, the error margin for the A321neo performance should be very small.

Still surprises me to see people using 757 as reference considering airlines was not even so interested in the plane that Boeing could keep the production going. Current offerings with MAX and Neo are far superior 757 for most missions.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: dtw9
Posted 2013-01-10 18:06:24 and read 21455 times.

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 20):
. As the A321 has been existing for many years, the error margin for the A321neo performance should be very small.

Tell that to McDonnell-Douglas when the MD-11's SFC came in 7-8 percent higher than predicted for both P/W and GE engines.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Max Q
Posted 2013-01-10 19:06:03 and read 21028 times.

West coast to the islands is a piece of cake, except with strong headwinds where even this NEO will have problems.


As for the North Atlantic, forget it.


Boeing should never have stopped the 757 production.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: timpdx
Posted 2013-01-10 19:48:44 and read 20591 times.

Agree with MaxQ. If B is prepared for many years at low level 748 production, then they should have done the same for the 757. The program properly managed, heck, even moved to a Wichita or something, could have gotten several hundred more orders, not just TATL, but thin Latin America routes, hot and high destinations. A specialty airframe, but certainly one that would be selling even today at low to modest volumes.

Not that I have a love fest for the type, I would never want to do TATL on a NB, but I think there was a lost opportunity for Boeing.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: mingocr83
Posted 2013-01-10 20:50:57 and read 19978 times.

Well Boeing can do the harm still. If they offer a 787-4...260-290 pax on a 4000nm range...15% less fuel consumption I bet that the A321 NEO case would be closed in a heartbeat...

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-01-10 20:53:07 and read 20726 times.

Yes. Almost there on payload and 90% of the missions for payload at range.

I worked on a proposal in 2001 for a 35k engine for the A321, so I doubt Airbus has forgotten that it is possible...

Here is a circa 2010 noting the sharklets on the A321 were intended to make it a much more competitive 757 replacement:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-at-757-replacement-market-341981/
The airframer's chief operating officer for customers, John Leahy, believes that the new 'sharklet' winglets, which will provide a 3.7% reduction in fuel burn and around 220km (120nm) more range on the A321 from 2012, means there are "great opportunities to replace the 757-200".

Every bit of range helps. The 3650nm of the A321NEO is enough for all TCON missions and near Hawaii missions.

For HA, with the *current engines*:
He adds that the sharklet-outfitted A321 will be able to operate between Boston and San Francisco or San Francisco and Maui, Hawaii, with maximum passengers - similar to routes flown by the US 757 operators - but with a 17% per seat fuel burn advantage, based on a 185-seat A321 and 192-seat 757-200.

And the NEO has quite a fuel burn advantage allowing the opening up of LAS, PHX, and later versions of the NEO will open up SLC to Hawaii (but not DEN, the 752 has far better hot/high field performance). With a 535 nautical mile range advantage over the 738, the A321NEO will make PDX and SEA far more reliable routes. Yes, PHX and SLC would seasonally need to take on more fuel closer to Hawaii. But the A321NEO is going to allow the A321 to perform as needed to replace *most* 752s.

Quoting bluewave 707 (Reply 3):
The 737-900ER and the 737MAX-9 are supposed to fill the 757 too ...

  

Quoting olddominion727 (Reply 5):
Is the 739-MAX supposed to be able to make it from EWR-BER the way CO/UA has them now

Wait for a later high MTOW -8MAX. I doubt we'll see a -9MAX ever go TATL.

Here are the MAX specs:
Boeing 737 MAX Specs Released (by 817Dreamliiner Jul 11 2012 in Civil Aviation)

The MAX-9 is close, but the A321NEO should have the short field advantage. Although nothing matches the 752 (unless it is *much* smaller or larger).

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 6):
The longest range 757 has a range of roughly 4100nm, the A321NEO from what I remember is no where near that.

4100nm would be nice, but 3900nm is the start for TATL.   

Quoting mffoda (Reply 8):
Airbus's latest range figures on the A321neo is 3650nm and the 739Max is 3595. So the most recent company specs put them at 55nm apart in favor of the A321neo. Still very short of the 757.

Those are the EIS values. What if Pratt does indeed deliver 4% better fuel burn than promise?    That already has the A321NEO at 3800nm. Only a little more space for fuel (and the take of capability) needs to be found to make it to 3900nm. So not very short of the 757...

And the sharlets supposedly beat promise by 0.5%. That takes us to 3840nm... One engine PIP from TATL... If Airbus doesn't also keep improving the A321NEO's weight, I'd be shocked.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 22):
As for the North Atlantic, forget it.

It is a question of when, not if. Not at entry into service, but there is significant money being spent to make the A321NEO TATL capable as in 3900nm range. It is already at 3,650.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: WingedMigrator
Posted 2013-01-10 21:34:18 and read 20618 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
The A-321NEO and B-737-9MAX are far short of the B-757 capability

Define "far short"... the 752 and the A321 were about 750 nm apart at identical payload. The A321neo is supposed to cut that gap roughly in half, if not a little better. The sweetener is lower fuel burn.

When we talk about aircraft out-ranging each other, we are probably no longer operating at max payload, so the payload advantage of the 752 is moot. That is, unless you pick some very specific operating points on the payload-range curve, which is the game usually played here on a.net to keep arguments going around in circles for dozens of replies.

Here are the payload-range curves of interest, overlaid:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
The A-321 is a 200 seat airplane, the proposed longer version will be heavier, and carry some 230 pax, but will have less range as it is heavier.

The longer version? None is planned as far as I know. The only change being contemplated is to certify the same fuselage for 235 passengers (up from 220) by adding exits.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2013-01-10 21:39:18 and read 20850 times.

Where is this "aww not this sh*t again" mem when you need it?

People just keep forgetting that using 757-200 on the transatlantic routes was NOT what Boeing intended to do initially with the airplane. That came as by-product of its excellent capability, however it represented very, VERY minimal percentage of the 757 operations.

Transatlantic replacement for the 757 already exist, entered service in late 2011 with ANA and is called - you guessed it: 787-8.

For every other operation, which represents 95% of what operators did with the 757-200, there are 737-900ERs, 737-9, A321-200 and A321neo.

As many other before me said: Boeing wanted to keep the 757 alive. The lack of orders killed it.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-01-10 21:49:15 and read 20762 times.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 26):
Here are the payload-range curves of interest, overlaid:

Thank you. That helps the discussion. Basically, the 752 has 800nm more 'economic range' than the current (non-sharkleted) A321 while it will have a 350nm version over the current promise NEO. That gap will close...

The 752 is a great plane. But it has been out of production a while due to the cost per flight.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 26):
The only change being contemplated is to certify the same fuselage for 235 passengers (up from 220) by adding exits.

And small changes to interior configuration to free up space for seats... But nothing longer. The A321 needs more wing area for a stretch and a couple thousand more pounds of thrust. The later might happen, I'm hearing nothing about more wing area...

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 27):
For every other operation, which represents 95% of what operators did with the 757-200, there are 737-900ERs, 737-9, A321-200 and A321neo.

   But the -9MAX and A321NEO really make TCON and Hawaii to the West coast much better sells. The 752 has really been 'bullet proof' on TCON missions. With the -9MAX and A321NEO, it has found its replacement. The added payload of the 752 will not pay its added costs. Its a great plane destined to serve out its final days on a few long routes, a few short-field routes, and many freighter conversions.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: CARST
Posted 2013-01-10 22:57:20 and read 20139 times.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 26):

Sorry, but that payload chart is totally misleading on the first look. I know all the charts look like this, but it would not be right to use it as an argument that the A321NEO and the 737-9MAX now are close to the 757s TATL or Westcoast/Hawaii missions. And that is what this thread is about.

When talking about these TATL missions you have to include all the reserve fuel in your planning taking away quite a bit of the theoretical maximum range. So the TATL 757s all operate on the far right site of this chart. Where a 757 still could fly its TATL mission with a 18000kg payload, a A321NEO would be at 12000-13000kg. No comparison at all, not economical viable. Not a chance we will see 737s and 321s being used on the routes served by 757s today. These routes will either be 767, 787 or A332 routes when the 757s get retired. (Perhaps excluding Eastcoast/Ireland.)

As I assume Boeing and Airbus will leave the 120 seat segment to the manufactures of regional jets and focus on the market of 738s/A320s upwards. So that could result in a proper 757 replacement when both companies present the successor to the 737/A320 family. Let's talk again in 15 years...

[Edited 2013-01-10 22:58:01]

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: gigneil
Posted 2013-01-10 23:05:12 and read 20117 times.

There are like, 50 total 757s flying Transatlantic.

50. That is ZERO market.

None. Not at all.

NS

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-01-10 23:13:39 and read 20057 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 22):
Boeing should never have stopped the 757 production.
Quoting timpdx (Reply 23):
Agree with MaxQ. If B is prepared for many years at low level 748 production, then they should have done the same for the 757.

  

Boeing tried for two years to sell more 757s. They didn't sell a single one.

If they had kept producing airplanes, they would have been white tails piling up at Renton or Boeing Field.

The reason why is straightforward. The 738 had just become readily available and was doing the same job as early 757s. Operators had already acquired all the later 757s they needed for things like TATL, South America, and hot/high/short airports. No one needed any more.

Even today, the 757 secondary market is only strong because of FedEx. Birds FedEx rejects are getting scrapped.

[Edited 2013-01-10 23:15:02]

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: gigneil
Posted 2013-01-10 23:15:41 and read 19987 times.

I will say, I do think if the 757-300 had come earlier in the lifecycle, they might still be delivering them today.

NS

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: WingedMigrator
Posted 2013-01-10 23:17:29 and read 19964 times.

Quoting CARST (Reply 29):
Sorry, but that payload chart is totally misleading on the first look.

It's only as misleading as Boeing and Airbus's own figures, which I used to create this chart.

Quoting CARST (Reply 29):
it would not be right to use it as an argument that the A321NEO and the 737-9MAX now are close to the 757s TATL

I made no such argument.

Quoting CARST (Reply 29):
When talking about these TATL missions you have to include all the reserve fuel in your planning taking away quite a bit of the theoretical maximum range.

That goes for both aircraft, equally. The Boeing and Airbus payload range curves make similar assumptions on fuel reserves.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 25):
It is a question of when, not if.

   the 757 isn't improving. The A321 is, and will continue over the next decade.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-01-10 23:42:34 and read 19658 times.

Quoting olddominion727 (Reply 4):
The only thing I don't know is if the A321NEO has the legs for an all coach 6hr flight holding 225 pax

Yes

Quoting 777STL (Reply 9):
The 321 NEO has no chance in heck of making KOA-DEN

I suspect it does. It might be about 150Nm shy of making the return journey year-round though

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 10):
Can't carry the payload of a 757, can't carry anything as far as the 757, and even with the NEO, can't even reach the range of a basic 757. So please tell me how it will surpass the 757?

doing 95% of its missions at 75% of the cost?   

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
I also don't see the A-321NEO (or B-737-9MAX) having TATL range with full payloads. The B-737-8MAX will, and the A-320NEO might have it too, but not the bigger airplanes in those families.

The -8MAX and A320NEO only have 150Nm more range than the A321NEO.
They will be very little more capable than the A321NEO

Quoting dtw9 (Reply 21):
Tell that to McDonnell-Douglas when the MD-11's SFC came in 7-8 percent higher than predicted for both P/W and GE engines.

Don't know about the Leap-X, but the smart money on the Pratt GTF is for the fuel burn to be going the other direction.
The first engine has just been assembled, and should run any time now, so we shouldn't have long to wait

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 28):
Thank you. That helps the discussion. Basically, the 752 has 800nm more 'economic range' than the current (non-sharkleted) A321 while it will have a 350nm version over the current promise NEO. That gap will close...

Good summary   

Quoting CARST (Reply 29):
Sorry, but that payload chart is totally misleading on the first look

Only if you read something into it which you're not intended to.

It says what it says, and pretty much backs up Lightsaber's summary.   

If either Lightsaber or Wingedmigrator had then used the chart to say "see the A321NEO IS a TATL 757-200 replacement, then THAT would have been misleading. But they didn't   

Rgds

[Edited 2013-01-10 23:43:27]

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-01-10 23:54:57 and read 19457 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 32):
I will say, I do think if the 757-300 had come earlier in the lifecycle, they might still be delivering them today.

My feeling is Boeing would have sold a *lot* more of them, and they might have lasted a couple of years longer, but I don't think they'd still be around today. The technology is old and they don't have the freight/military business to keep the older airframe going like the 767 does.

[Edited 2013-01-10 23:55:42]

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: gigneil
Posted 2013-01-11 00:13:10 and read 19262 times.

Perhaps, it has been a number of years. But I bet both DL and UA at this moment wish they could grab a few more.

NS

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: packsonflight
Posted 2013-01-11 00:54:45 and read 18831 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 35):
My feeling is Boeing would have sold a *lot* more of them, and they might have lasted a couple of years longer, but I don't think they'd still be around today. The technology is old and they don't have the freight/military business to keep the older airframe going like the 767 doe

The 753 was hit by a abudance of cheap second hand 752 after 9/11 It really made no sense to buy brand new 753 when you could pick up a few year old 752 for half price.

The 753 and the 764 did not get any improvement engine wise, only a little throttle push which did not make them verry future proof, and thus shared the same faith. To summarize: To late to little.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: EagleBoy
Posted 2013-01-11 01:25:55 and read 18490 times.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 27):
People just keep forgetting that using 757-200 on the transatlantic routes was NOT what Boeing intended to do initially with the airplane. That came as by-product of its excellent capability, however it represented very, VERY minimal percentage of the 757 operations.....

...For every other operation, which represents 95% of what operators did with the 757-200, there are 737-900ERs, 737-9, A321-200 and A321neo.

This is the salient point in all of this. Why add complexity to the A321NEO/B739MAX for such a niche market? Neither program needs that capability to sell well.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 36):
But I bet both DL and UA at this moment wish they could grab a few more.

I know of an Euro airline who were in the market for 3-4 last year, but no-one is selling their B752's atm.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: okapi
Posted 2013-01-11 03:19:54 and read 17595 times.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 26):

plus

Quoting astuteman (Reply 34):

make for a very interesting conclusion to that thread, if ever needed. Fact is aircraft manufacturer's logics are close to airline management's economic requirements. Most aircraft today are not flown at maximum range. The hope for airline managers is to fly them at their maximum payload. Many of the A32x series operators that also have the A321 will use them combined with smaller models on routes that are usually within the 120 minutes timeframe. Hence BA removing the 757s from their fleet in favour of the Airbuses narrowbodies. We need to compare what is comparable and in Europe, for example, most missions are less than 2 hours so airlines will pick up what costs less to operate and ensure maximum profit. A321 (NEO) is the answer (as could any B737NG by the way.)

My two cents...

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: HAL
Posted 2013-01-11 03:40:47 and read 17346 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
All of Hawaii is an "island destination" and hold fuel requirements are for 2 hours of fuel at holding airspeeds. Yes, there are several airports in Hawaii, but that is how the FAA defines it for passenger carrier airplanes.

Those holding rules only apply if there is no other suitable alternate airport. With the number of airports available in Hawaii, that 'two hour' rule is never used. The ETOPS fuel requirements almost always leave enough fuel in the tanks to cover the usual alternate and holding contingencies in a west coast - Hawaii flight plan. Heck, if the weather is nice and it's under six hours, the flight doesn't even need to list a single alternate.

HAL

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: art
Posted 2013-01-11 03:54:04 and read 17194 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 28):
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 26):
Here are the payload-range curves of interest, overlaid:

Thank you. That helps the discussion. Basically, the 752 has 800nm more 'economic range' than the current (non-sharkleted) A321 while it will have a 350nm version over the current promise NEO. That gap will close...
Quoting astuteman (Reply 34):
Don't know about the Leap-X, but the smart money on the Pratt GTF is for the fuel burn to be going the other direction.
The first engine has just been assembled, and should run any time now, so we shouldn't have long to wait

Given that the GTF is "new" technology, can one expect incremental improvements exceeding those of the Leap-X (assuming Pratt chooses to make the investments necessary to pull ahead of Leap-X)? Since we will not be seeing any GTF's slung under 737MAX wings it might make commercial sense to tap the potential of the GTF to give the A32XNEO as much advantage as possible in selling against the 737MAX. But then Pratt may be busy, busy, busy on their various iterations of GTF for years and would not welcome more R&D costs/engineering resource demands on one engine that is selling well as is...

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: CARST
Posted 2013-01-11 05:58:44 and read 15969 times.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 33):

It's only as misleading as Boeing and Airbus's own figures, which I used to create this chart.

I know, that is why I wrote:

Quoting CARST (Reply 29):
I know all the charts look like this, but it would not be right to use it as an argument that the A321NEO and the 737-9MAX now are close to the 757s TATL or Westcoast/Hawaii missions.
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 33):
I made no such argument.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 34):
It says what it says, and pretty much backs up Lightsaber's summary.

I took this part of WingedMigrators' post as an argument to say the 739MAX/321NEO are on par with the 757, as you are basically saying it is on par, just not in that "unimportant" specific operating points to the right of the curve:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 26):
When we talk about aircraft out-ranging each other, we are probably no longer operating at max payload, so the payload advantage of the 752 is moot. That is, unless you pick some very specific operating points on the payload-range curve, which is the game usually played here on a.net to keep arguments going around in circles for dozens of replies.

Perhaps I read something into it, what wasn't there. But the OP didn't just started a thread about the 95% of the missions, where the 739 and 321 are perfect alternatives to the 757. He started a thread specifically asking about the routes to Hawaii and the TATL routes. So we should only look at the far right part of the payload-range curve, the 5% where only the 757 can do the missions physically and performs economical viable compared to the newer generation single-aisle twins.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 33):
That goes for both aircraft, equally. The Boeing and Airbus payload range curves make similar assumptions on fuel reserves.

I know, my comment wasn't geared against Airbus' curve. I was just pointing out that we won't see the 757 fly 4000nm and the 321NEO/739MAX 3500nm. And that these two aircraft still are 700nm behind the 757, more than 90 minutes of time in the air, making them not useful for TATL crossings or flights to Hawaii from airports located outside of California.


I agree that it is not worthwhile discussing the whole point over and over again, regarding the current aircraft and aircraft in development right now (NEO/MAX). Boeing or Airbus won't build an aircraft for a market of 50-100 aircraft. But it makes sense to discus the point regarding the complete new replacement aircraft which will follow on the NEO and MAX.
That is why I pointed out, that I expect Boeing and Airbus to surrender the 120 seat market to the likes of Bombardier, Embraer etc. and focus on the 140-220 seat market with a new family of aircraft, perhaps in 3-4 models. And this new aircraft, paired with the engine technology available in 15 years, will be aircraft able to fly all routes the 757 is serving today, including TATL and Hawaii to inner mainland US.
I could be proven wrong, but seeing that the 319NEO and 737-7MAX don't gain traction show me that these aircraft are already to heavy for this size-class of aircraft, because of all the structure in place to support the larger models of both aircraft families. And we could expect an aircraft family designed for 140-220 seats to be even heavier.
Continuing speculating, it could be that A goes for the 120-190 seat market, with a lightweight A320 family replacement and Boeing goes for the 150-220 seat market with the 737 family replacement, so both don't have to go head-on-head while selling their aircraft. Or one or both of the companies could come up with two aircraft families as replacement. Many options, interesting times ahead. After the NEO and MAX are rolling out the factories and the development starts, we will know more when the first ideas will be presented to the airlines and start floating around the Internet...

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-01-11 06:33:17 and read 15593 times.

Quoting mingocr83 (Reply 24):
Well Boeing can do the harm still. If they offer a 787-4...260-290 pax on a 4000nm range...15% less fuel consumption

But it wouldn't be 15% less fuel consumption than the 788, it would be more like 2% less. In other words, NOT WORTH IT! The 789 will be the dominant 787 as it costs little more per flight than the 788 and has more revenue. The A321 comfortably has an empty weight advantage.

788: 109.8t
A321 (not NEO): 48.5t


So unless the 787 can drop HALF ITS WEIGHT, the A321NEO will have a lower CASM within its range as well as a substantially lower cost per flight. That is the cost of an airframe built to fly 8,000 nm. There is weight and thus cost not needed for shorter flights. But that is ok, they compete in very different markets. BOS-NRT is not on the radar for any NEO.  

I'm a HUGE fan of the 787, but on short routes, the MAX and NEO will eat its lunch unless there are significant slot constraints. Here are examples of narrow body 500nm CASM. A market the 787 will never be really competitive.

http://airinsight.com/2010/12/06/cse...a320-737-on-casm-plane-mile-costs/

Quoting art (Reply 41):
Given that the GTF is "new" technology, can one expect incremental improvements exceeding those of the Leap-X (assuming Pratt chooses to make the investments necessary to pull ahead of Leap-X)?

Maybe... The LEAP-X also has some "new" technology, in particular on the low spool as well as the new higher temperature turbine blades. So which has more room for growth would be a matter of opinion.

Quoting art (Reply 41):
But then Pratt may be busy, busy, busy on their various iterations of GTF for years and would not welcome more R&D costs/engineering resource demands on one engine that is selling well as is...

That is a valid point... Pratt is going to be stretched thin for years.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: airbazar
Posted 2013-01-11 06:38:50 and read 15512 times.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 10):
Surpass the 757?!? That's a laugh! I needed one today, so thank you for that!

What's so funny about it? The A321 will outsell the 757 by a loooong shot. Is that not the primary goal of producing an airplane? In addition it makes the airlines more money, and in a not too distant future it will just about have the same range and be able to fly the same missions. But none of this should be a surprise to anyone. The 757 was designed in the 70's.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 25):
And the sharlets supposedly beat promise by 0.5%. That takes us to 3840nm... One engine PIP from TATL... If Airbus doesn't also keep improving the A321NEO's weight, I'd be shocked.

I think at the end of the day that's what it boils down to. I don't hear Boeing selling their 739MAX on its future improvements while all we hear from Airbus is how much better this A321NEO will become with time. It sounds to me like the A321NEO's ceiling is a lot higher than it's competitor.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 36):
Perhaps, it has been a number of years. But I bet both DL and UA at this moment wish they could grab a few more.

I doubt it. As it is I'm of the opinion that they are still operating the 757's because they need to squeeze as much of the ROI as they can. That's really why we have TATL 757's. It's because there's no place else to put them to make them earn their worth after their routes were replaces by more efficient 737NG and A320/1 aircraft.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-01-11 07:17:05 and read 15077 times.

What an odd thread and even stranger arguments?

HA isn't buying the 321NEO to replace any 757s. They are buying the airplane to beef up West Coast service. And for that, the plane is perfect.

It doesn't need to make KOA-DEN. And whether it can or not, is irrelevant. That's what the widebody fleet is there for.

HA will be a feather in Airbus' cap. They'll be flying the 321NEO to the limit and doing it with a substantially lower capital outlay and lower operating costs than their competitors who deploy 787s or A330s for HNL-West Coast.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: aerobalance
Posted 2013-01-11 07:22:47 and read 14999 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 45):

HA will be a feather in Airbus' cap. They'll be flying the 321NEO to the limit and doing it with a substantially lower capital outlay and lower operating costs than their competitors who deploy 787s or A330s for HNL-West Coast.

Those competitors would be whom?

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-01-11 08:26:25 and read 14284 times.

Hello

Quoting astuteman (Reply 34):
The -8MAX and A320NEO only have 150Nm more range than the A321NEO.
They will be very little more capable than the A321NEO

For what I remember, A320NEO and A321NEO will have the same range. That is, i think, quite impressive, and shows the the A321 design is not so constrained as we might think (big engines, double slot slats, small wing area increase, not so bad rotation on take off and so on).
And for the A320NEO to match the A321NEO airbus has raised the A320NEO MTOw by 1 t.



Lightsaber,
In 09/2012 in the Morgan Stanley commercial update, for a 3000 Nm (2class layout marketing standard) Airbus says the A321NEO is 20% less COC per seat than the 787-8 (and -40% per trip). It should be a little Airbus biased, but i shows some trends (and on a 3000 Nm trip !),
Off course this comparison doesn't include the big load of cargo the 787-8 can move for a marginal cost increase at this range...

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-01-11 08:31:04 and read 14205 times.

Quoting aerobalance (Reply 46):
Those competitors would be whom?

Conventional competition from the majors.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-01-11 09:26:40 and read 13603 times.

With the engine gen of the neo/max what would a theoretical payload range be of the 752? Close to 4500nm?

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: PC12Fan
Posted 2013-01-11 09:28:32 and read 13573 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 16):
It wasn't Boeing that stopped ordering 757s.

True, but they weren't going out of thier way to promote an NG either.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 44):
But none of this should be a surprise to anyone. The 757 was designed in the 70's.

And yet it's still a top performer.

[Edited 2013-01-11 09:31:38]

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: 817Dreamliiner
Posted 2013-01-11 09:41:33 and read 13450 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 49):
With the engine gen of the neo/max what would a theoretical payload range be of the 752? Close to 4500nm?

If it gets the same 500nm increase like the 737MAX and A320 NEO it could possibly be somewhere in the region of 4600nm.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 50):

True, but they weren't going out of thier way to promote an NG either.

How are you so sure about that? They could have proposed a NG concept to the current operators and gained no interest...

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 47):
For what I remember, A320NEO and A321NEO will have the same range.

Says who?

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: TC957
Posted 2013-01-11 10:04:47 and read 12955 times.

With hindsight, it's a great shame that Fed Ex didn't want their rumoured 90-odd new 757F's two or three years earlier than they asked for them, once production closed and tooling destroyed. Then I'm sure we wouldn't keep having the " bring back the 757 " threads on here every now and then.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Aviaponcho
Posted 2013-01-11 10:05:49 and read 12939 times.

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 51):

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 47):
For what I remember, A320NEO and A321NEO will have the same range.

Says who?

Airbus
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...0_Family_market_leader-leaflet.pdf
Page 7

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-01-11 10:12:34 and read 12845 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 19):
Both the A320 and the 757 were intended as 727 replacements. They just took different paths, chasing different priorities.

Nope. The 757 and 767 as a team were 707/DC8 replacements and alternatives to the DC10 and L1011 and A300/310. While the 722A was discontinued at the same time and the 757 model replaced it in Boeings offerings, the 757 did NOT replace the 722A in fleets. The 722A was too new, and the 757 was too big.

Boeing attempted to temp carriers with the 734 as their 722A fleets approached replacement age later in the 80s, and had moderate success except that the A320 proved better, but the TRUE 722A replacement was the 738. It matched capacity, range, etc and was taken up en masse by carriers as they retired their 722As, outperforming the 734 and A320 in size and capability.

I don't know of any major carrier that replaced 722s with 757s, instead flying them concurrently for 10-20 years until the 722A fleet reached 20-25 years old.

Strike that. FX replaced 722s with 757s, but even then, that wasn't in the 80s, but the 2000s, and they are also replacing A300/A310s with them.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 16):
It wasn't Boeing that stopped ordering 757s.

No, it was boeing who continued to offer a 20 year old aircraft instead of a viable new model or NG model to replace it. When oil got expensive, the 757 became impractical. They dropped the ball, because they failed to have a viable 757 alternative available to offer as the early 757s approached 20 years old.
739 is smaller and compares poorly. 739ER was a "whoops, we dropped the ball" offering created after the 757 was dead, but again, is too short and limited to actually be a 757 "killer."

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: gigneil
Posted 2013-01-11 10:25:53 and read 12691 times.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 44):
I doubt it. As it is I'm of the opinion that they are still operating the 757's because they need to squeeze as much of the ROI as they can.

I was referring directly to the post above mine and my previous one that were discussing the 757-300.

NS

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: 817Dreamliiner
Posted 2013-01-11 10:33:11 and read 12604 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 53):

Thanks for the link, im pretty sure the range figure for the A320neo was supposed to be 3800nm. Its interesting that according to that link the A319 and A321 gets range increases of 500nm and the A320 got 400nm. Can anyone confirm those figures are correct?

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-01-11 10:39:32 and read 12572 times.

Quoting 777STL (Reply 9):
The 321 NEO has no chance in heck of making KOA-DEN and it doesn't have near the range that the 757 does. While it may be able to perform some typical 757 missions such as Hawaii - west coast, it's by no means a catch-all replacement for the 757.

Nor is it meant to be. 90+% of all 757 missions do not require a 757's performance. For example, UA flies them on SAN-SFO and LAX-SFO. It's way too much airframe for such a mission, but they have the aircraft and need to use them.

There is a market for maybe 50-100 aircraft that can fly over 3700NM with a full 757-sized load. Even if the A321 were to be upgraded to some "A325" with bigger wing, engines, and gear, it would still be a $2-3Bn program all for 50-100 frames. If A (or B) think it's worth it, then they will build it.

I will point out that looking forward, there is a size gap between the A321NEO and 739MAX and the smallest widebodies.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: bmacleod
Posted 2013-01-11 10:41:16 and read 12535 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 22):
Boeing should never have stopped the 757 production.


Isn't the 737MAX with all-new engines supposed to be equivalent or better than the 757 both in range and passengers?

As far as cargo needs yes, there is a heavy demand for 757s for cargo conversion but there must be tons of 767-200s baking at VCV and MHV waiting for conversion....

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Planemaker
Posted 2013-01-11 10:50:49 and read 12401 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 16):
Not the one that everyone has been looking for. You mean the one people on this site have been looking for. The importance of a "real 757 replacement" is vastly inflated on this forum compared to reality, where it is really just a blip. You need to remember that Boeing didn't end production because they got bored. Of all the people in the world jumping up and down wishing for something to replace the 757, most of them are on this site and very few are actually in charge of an airline.
Quoting Aesma (Reply 18):
The A321 surpasses the 757 in CASM and the neo will surpass it even more.
Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 20):
Still surprises me to see people using 757 as reference considering airlines was not even so interested in the plane that Boeing could keep the production going. Current offerings with MAX and Neo are far superior 757 for most missions.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 28):
The 752 is a great plane. But it has been out of production a while due to the cost per flight.

All the above points have been repeated... repeatedly, on these "757 replacement" type threads and yet the 757 "fan boys" still can't seem to understand the most basic of facts: ECONOMICS... not nostalgia nor "fandom", is the only criteria in aircraft viability.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: airbazar
Posted 2013-01-11 11:02:30 and read 12213 times.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 50):
And yet it's still a top performer.

In what way? It has been replaced the world over by more efficient narrowbody planes, except by airlines who couldn't afford to do so and need to squeeze as much as they can for the ROI. I can't find a better definition of it it NOT being a top performer than the manufacturer having to close the production line for lack of sales.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Max Q
Posted 2013-01-11 11:05:14 and read 12213 times.

There simply is no replacement for the 757.


Nothing comes close to it's performance, today or what is planned in the future.



If Boeing had persevered they could still be building a NG version today and what an aircraft that would have been.


Nice to dream:


New 764 based cockpit


Stabilizer fuel tank (as was planned) with another 2000US gallons of fuel, gives you another hour and a half of range.


New cabin.


Updated engines with full time FADEC gives you say another 2-3 % less fuel burn.



Aerodynamic improvements and more composite use for a lighter airframe.




All these improvements would have given you an Aircraft with with close to 5000Nm of range in a very appealing and flexible aircraft.



The perfect, long, thin route machine.



They are still making the constantly improved 737 which is a lot older than the 757.



It would have been a big hit !

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2013-01-11 11:15:02 and read 12099 times.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 50):
True, but they weren't going out of thier way to promote an NG either.
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 54):
No, it was boeing who continued to offer a 20 year old aircraft instead of a viable new model or NG model to replace it.

Let's examine what Boeing was doing instead, shall we?

During that period, the 2000-2003 or so range, Boeing was developing the later 777 variants which have so far sold 856 copies. And Boeing was also developing the 7E7 concept, which received its first order about six months before the last 757 rolled off the line. The 787 order book currently stands at well over 800 planes. That's a pretty good performance considering that the 757 over its entire lifetime sold 1,050 copies. Boeing got that decision right, and if people had wanted a 757, Boeing could have given it to them, but nobody asked.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: mingocr83
Posted 2013-01-11 11:20:01 and read 12025 times.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 44):
Quoting airbazar (Reply 44):
But it wouldn't be 15% less fuel consumption than the 788, it would be more like 2% less. In other words, NOT WORTH IT! The 789 will be the dominant 787 as it costs little more per flight than the 788 and has more revenue. The A321 comfortably has an empty weight advantage.

788: 109.8t
A321 (not NEO): 48.5t


So unless the 787 can drop HALF ITS WEIGHT, the A321NEO will have a lower CASM within its range as well as a substantially lower cost per flight. That is the cost of an airframe built to fly 8,000 nm. There is weight and thus cost not needed for shorter flights. But that is ok, they compete in very different markets. BOS-NRT is not on the radar for any NEO.

I'm a HUGE fan of the 787, but on short routes, the MAX and NEO will eat its lunch unless there are significant slot constraints. Here are examples of narrow body 500nm CASM. A market the 787 will never be really competitive.

Hey man, thanks for the clarification. I was comparing it to the 753 thus why you see 15% less. The rest you mentioned is correct, is heavier so the cost per trip is a lot higher. Obviously Boeing won't put the 787 on a big diet, it would harm itself doing it.

I believe that if Airbus gets at least a few hundred pounds out of weight, GTF's with more thrust would be tatl...

[Edited 2013-01-11 11:21:06]

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: ukoverlander
Posted 2013-01-11 11:27:51 and read 11946 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 22):
Boeing should never have stopped the 757 production.

Those Boeing people are so stupid. They should just recruit all their management from A-netters who clearly understand their business, economics and priorities far better than their own employees and management........         

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-01-11 11:28:29 and read 11924 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 62):
During that period, the 2000-2003 or so range, Boeing was developing the later 777 variants which have so far sold 856 copies. And Boeing was also developing the 7E7 concept, which received its first order about six months before the last 757 rolled off the line. The 787 order book currently stands at well over 800 planes. That's a pretty good performance considering that the 757 over its entire lifetime sold 1,050 copies. Boeing got that decision right, and if people had wanted a 757, Boeing could have given it to them, but nobody asked.

Boeing was busy. So? How does that negate the reality that they didn't replace the 757?

Oh, and they found the time for the niche 73GER and the half-assed 739ER.

And considering the failure of the 783, and success of the A321 and A321NEO, maybe Boeing had it wrong? Making a 757NG in -8 and -9 lengths, with TATL range on both models, may have sold quite well inter-Asia and the US. But it would have required a new engine, as would have a raised and more stretched 739ER.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-01-11 11:40:02 and read 11781 times.

@ikramerica

But why would they spend billions on NG'ing the 757 when they can now get most of the 757 replacement sales using 739s and now 7M9s?

That would be bad ROI.

In any event, by the end of this decade Boeing will have started on its NSA and that is quite likely to span at least the 752 capacity/range, making the 757 discussions moot.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Planemaker
Posted 2013-01-11 11:52:48 and read 11652 times.

Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 64):
Those Boeing people are so stupid. They should just recruit all their management from A-netters who clearly understand their business, economics and priorities far better than their own employees and management........

  

I have come to understand that on these 757 type threads that there are many people that don't understand basic economics... let alone aircraft/airline economics.  

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-01-11 12:02:17 and read 11574 times.

Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 64):
Those Boeing people are so stupid. They should just recruit all their management from A-netters who clearly understand their business, economics and priorities far better than their own employees and management....

Ah yes, the standard internet insult. "You aren't on the inside so you must be an idiot." Brilliant!

You are aware of how badly run Boeing has been over the last decade, right? How Boeing has missed targets, deadlines, fired management over and over, shuffled project managers, outsourced only to have to buy the suppliers, spun off companies they should have kept. Yes, they are BEYOND reproach...

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: packsonflight
Posted 2013-01-11 12:12:47 and read 11451 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 66):
In any event, by the end of this decade Boeing will have started on its NSA and that is quite likely to span at least the 752 capacity/range, making the 757 discussions moot.

I doubt it will ever be built.
6 months after Airbus launched the NEO Boeing said that the 737 NG 2% better than the NEO so no upgrade was needed, in stead the way forward was the NSA. I don't remember any airline publicly indicating interest in the program, in fact the infamous Sonic Cruiser gathered more interest among the airlines. The rest is history...

Possibly it will be built after Boeing finishes several programs. MAX 8 & 9, 787-9 & 10 and the 777-8X & 9X total of 6 programs. That is a long time to wait for 757 replacement.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2013-01-11 12:18:15 and read 11381 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 65):
Boeing was busy. So? How does that negate the reality that they didn't replace the 757?

Boeing was busy with projects that have been considerably more successful than a revamped 757 would have been.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 65):
Oh, and they found the time for the niche 73GER

That plane was basically already built as the BBJ and wasn't even launched until 2006, two years after the end of 757 production.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 65):
half-assed 739ER.

Five hundred plus orders isn't bad for a half-assed effort.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 65):
But it would have required a new engine

What new engine?

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2013-01-11 12:30:28 and read 11242 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 61):
If Boeing had persevered they could still be building a NG version today and what an aircraft that would have been.

Why do you think Boeing should have wasted a line to build 150 aircraft over a decade instead of using that same line to build 1000+ 737s?

Because 150 aircraft is about the number of 757s out there that ever fly missions a 737 can't do.

Your comments about the 757 have no relationship to business reality.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-01-11 12:35:18 and read 11209 times.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 69):
Possibly it will be built after Boeing finishes several programs. MAX 8 & 9, 787-9 & 10 and the 777-8X & 9X total of 6 programs. That is a long time to wait for 757 replacement.

It's a long time for sure. But till then the Max 9 will suffice.

Eventually though, Boeing will have to build a 752 replacement because global populations are heading that way and larger aircraft will be needed between bigger cities. The range will come just as a result of efficiencies.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-01-11 12:36:06 and read 11207 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 71):
Because 150 aircraft is about the number of 757s out there that ever fly missions a 737 can't do.

The 739 can't be as large as the 752, let alone the 753 no matter how many times someone says the 737 can do most of the things the 757 can do.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-01-11 12:51:04 and read 11061 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 70):
What new engine?

If they were going to do a 757NG, the PW2000 and RB-211 is not exactly a good option given that EIS was in 1978 (or thereabouts). Probably a scaled-up GTF or LEAP design could do the trick. Ideally a re-winged 757NG would require lower thrust to do the same job than the original model.

It's neither here nor there; the 757 line is gone. Some of the tooling would have to be rebuilt. If an aircraft in that size class is required, it would make much more sense to start from scratch.

Bottom line: if enough airlines expressed interest, Boeing would start development of a 757 replacement. Yet the airlines seem quite happy with the -MAX and -NEO and few are clamoring for 757 replacements. No airline is going to go out of business when the 757's are finally retired because they can't operate EWR-LHR 5x/day. They will simply either operate those routes with bigger aircraft and lower frequency or cancel the routes that can't fill a larger plane.

Let's recall: there was never a direct replacement for the 707/DC-8, either.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Planemaker
Posted 2013-01-11 12:54:57 and read 10982 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 73):
The 739 can't be as large as the 752, let alone the 753 no matter how many times someone says the 737 can do most of the things the 757 can do.

It doesn't change the facts that they are niche aircraft that don't have a business case.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: 817Dreamliiner
Posted 2013-01-11 12:58:21 and read 10952 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 73):
The 739 can't be as large as the 752, let alone the 753 no matter how many times someone says the 737 can do most of the things the 757 can do.

Well then answer this, how many 757-200's actually seat over 200 pax? Im sure there arent that many. Most would be in the region of 180-200 seat range, the ones used for transatlantic routes would be slightly less. The 739ER can seat up to 215 pax, but most arent in that configuration but are at around 180 seats just like the 752. the 739ER also has a range of about 3000nm which is more than enough to cover most of the current 757 routes. Just because its not as large doesnt mean it cant perform just as well...

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-01-11 13:12:51 and read 10852 times.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 59):
ECONOMICS... not nostalgia nor "fandom", is the only criteria in aircraft viability.

   I wish everyone would realize that. If it costs money, something must pay for it or a competitor will drive an airline with noncompetitive airframes out of business.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 44):
It sounds to me like the A321NEO's ceiling is a lot higher than it's competitor.

Maybe... I'm biased though. I see more money being spent by Airbus and their vendors. The only area the NEO has a clear lead is due to the benefits of a larger fan diameter. That allows more benefit from each improvement. There is also less nacelle/wing interaction which is a plus.

Quoting ytz (Reply 45):
What an odd thread and even stranger arguments?

HA isn't buying the 321NEO to replace any 757s. They are buying the airplane to beef up West Coast service. And for that, the plane is perfect.

The reason is that was a market where the 757 clearly 'stood out' until the 738 gained winglets and started flying those routes.

The 757 is due for replacement. The A321NEO and -9MAX are great replacements. For short field or hot/high, it will be the shorter A320NEO or -9MAX. Cest la vie. These aren't dueling pistols that need to be an exact copy... Perhaps, thanks to the lower cost per flight, with a frequency increase?

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 47):
In 09/2012 in the Morgan Stanley commercial update, for a 3000 Nm (2class layout marketing standard) Airbus says the A321NEO is 20% less COC per seat than the 787-8 (and -40% per trip). It should be a little Airbus biased, but i shows some trends (and on a 3000 Nm trip !),
Off course this comparison doesn't include the big load of cargo the 787-8 can move for a marginal cost increase at this range...

Those are impressive numbers in an area where the added weight (e.g., wing) of the 788 should be benefiting the larger plane.

I wonder if some of the arguments are due to the NEO/MAX displacing more widebody missions as their capabilities grow.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Planemaker
Posted 2013-01-11 13:26:08 and read 10688 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 77):
The A321NEO and -9MAX are great replacements.

The A321NEO might not have a very long "replacement" production run... I was recently a bit surprised by this article that says, "EADS Innovation Works is reviewing options for the materials Airbus could use on an airplane to replace the A320neo in 2022."

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: AADC10
Posted 2013-01-11 14:30:05 and read 10277 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
AA and HA seem to think so. Which also goes to the point that Boeing dropped the ball.
Quoting olddominion727 (Reply 4):

@IK... with all do respect, I don't think Boeing did drop the ball. I think they tried by creating the 757-300. But the 300 doesn't seem to be utilized the way the way Boeing was hoping.

Boeing did drop the ball. They wanted to wait and create a clean sheet replacement for the 737 but the A320neo proved that there is a market for a re-engined aircraft. There are some limitations on the 737, particularly ground clearance that favored an all new replacement but it was clear that the airlines did not want to wait around for an all new plane.

The AA order was a wake up call, just as the UA A319/320 order was a generation ago. The 757 is an enthusiast favorite but it is obsolete with the exception of a few niche routes. Boeing expected orders for more current 737s and the 757s would last until the 737 replacement arrived. As it turns out, fuel prices are pressing airlines to get more efficient aircraft and the A321neo can perform nearly all of the missions of the 752 with a little less capacity, except for getting off the ground with a full load at SNA or DCA.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: gigneil
Posted 2013-01-11 14:38:12 and read 10261 times.

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 58):
Isn't the 737MAX with all-new engines supposed to be equivalent or better than the 757 both in range and passengers?

Not even close in range. The MAX will have less range than the A321NEO.

NS

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: mffoda
Posted 2013-01-11 15:33:25 and read 10171 times.

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 53):
Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 51):

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 47):
For what I remember, A320NEO and A321NEO will have the same range.

Says who?

Airbus
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...0_Family_market_leader-leaflet.pdf
Page 7

The A321neo will have a range of 3650nm according to the most recent Airbus release...

Quoting gigneil (Reply 80):
Not even close in range. The MAX will have less range than the A321NEO.

"Not even CLOSE"...

The A321neo =3650nm, The 739Max = 3595nm... Difference = 55nm

What is your definition of close?  

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: gigneil
Posted 2013-01-11 15:35:58 and read 10145 times.

To the 757, not the A321NEO.

And 55 miles is almost an entire days flight from Westray to Papa Westray.

NS

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Wingtips56
Posted 2013-01-11 15:36:08 and read 10123 times.

I don't really think the AA order was a wake-up call. They need a major fleet replacement faster than either Boeing or Airbus can deliver alone, so they split it, and they are not the only ones to have split orders. With the split, however, they do get some mission-specific options they might not otherwise have: A319 for thin markets and the A321 for the markets such as the trans-con premium flights (currently the 762), where they can put in a bunch of big seats up front, a little more room for Y+ and still a good load of cheap seats to make the bean-counters happy. The 738/739's are primarily Super 80 replacements, with an increase in capacity, range and cargo capabilities supporting expanded markets at lower CASM. A low CASM doesn't do you any good if you fly a bunch of empty seats around. RPM/Revenue Passenger Miles, not APM/Available Passenger Miles is what goes to the bank.

As to the 757 replacement, I don't see a need for an exact replacement....go with a wide-body where you need more capacity and range than the NB fleet can do. The 787 variants are what Boeing planned for that. If there was such a demand for 757's, they wouldn't be going to the likes of Allegiant or the scrap-heap.

Boeing's plan was for the 737 replacement, which seems to have become side-tracked with their necessary MAX development in response to the Airbus Neo. Arguments about Boeing dropping the ball can be turned around on Airbus too, as they've committed to tweaking the 320 family rather than pursue a new-build as well.

(Side question from a non-expert: How much more weight can be added to the A321 single-bogey landing gear, before they have to go double-bogey with a weight and cargo or fuel capacity penalty?)

If Boeing can get on with the 737 replacement, the new airplane can be taller as necessary to support the broader fan engine, have more options for variable lengths and capacities to replace both 737 and 757 fleets with one common base frame, cockpit and operational characteristic (enhanced over the original 757/767 commonality). I'm surprised Airbus isn't working on a narrow body replacement, since NB orders are on the upsurge versus the WB.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: mffoda
Posted 2013-01-11 15:42:57 and read 10096 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 82):
To the 757, not the A321NEO.

And 55 miles is almost an entire days flight from Westray to Koito fibbed Certs.

NS

No... To the MAX, not the 757... But your Papa Westray point is cute...

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: ukoverlander
Posted 2013-01-11 16:12:57 and read 10004 times.

[quote=ikramerica,reply=68]Ah yes, the standard internet insult. "You aren't on the inside so you must be an idiot." Brilliant!

Now, now Ikramerica.....there's no need to throw your toys out of the pram. You are quite right and it's quite fair to say that Boeing have made their fair share of poor management decisions - this is clearly evidenced by the many production problems, delays, and issues we have seen in the last few years that we are all familiar with. However, when an A-netter makes such a completely rash and unqualified generalization such as to say: "Boeing should never have stopped the 757 production." then I'm sorry, a little substantiation is to be expected (even here on A Net). If the poster thinks he understands the economics of the 757 better than Boeing, the people designed, built, and sold that aircraft for many years, then I'd suggest he expands and shares his wisdom with us so we can all be enlightened.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: JayBird
Posted 2013-01-11 17:43:44 and read 9838 times.

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
and possible replacement for the 717's

There's no talk about the 321neo replacing the 717s .. the 321neo is not a good replacement for interisland routes. The neighbor island service thrives on frequency .. not larger planes. The 321neo is for right-sizing and expanding on the west coast.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-01-11 18:50:22 and read 9743 times.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 78):
"EADS Innovation Works is reviewing options for the materials Airbus could use on an airplane to replace the A320neo in 2022."

development in a decade. OK. When the enough tech will be here to replace the GTF too.

Quoting JayBird (Reply 86):
There's no talk about the 321neo replacing the 717s .. the 321neo is not a good replacement for interisland routes.

Agreed. I think planes will island hop, but only one or two flights before going elsewhere. The A321 is a poor choice for island hopping day in and out. The logical choice is a later CS100 with range to near US.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: mariner
Posted 2013-01-11 19:00:54 and read 9707 times.

I'm scratching my head.

How did this thread turn into a war between an aircraft that Boeing isn't making and an aircraft that Arbus hasn't built yet?

mariner

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: FI642
Posted 2013-01-11 19:21:12 and read 9646 times.

There will never really be a 752 replacement. She was amazing and still is.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-01-11 19:28:51 and read 9627 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 87):
The logical choice is a later CS100 with range to near US.

I would think that the better choice would be a bunch of ATR72s or Q400s.

Any sort of turbofan would be vast overkill for 200nm routes. They could also offer hourly or even semi-hourly frequencies between all the major airports in Hawaii.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: strfyr51
Posted 2013-01-11 19:47:47 and read 9590 times.

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 11):

55NM significant? Are you sure? that's an alternate of LAX to BUR SFO-OAK or SCK, Not Much over the 737-900
I think Boeing is making a case to keep the 767-300 viable in place of the 757. series. The 787 will replace the 767 on International routes eventually making the 767-300 good for T-ATL, Western USA-Hawaii, Hawaii-Japan, Hawaii -AKL Hawaii-SYD, and Inter Asia etc.
The 767 will become the mid range player with the 787 the longer range player. since the 767 line is going to be open for the KC-46 anyway, the 767-400 cockpit is closer to the 777's and the KC-46's will be closer to the 787, making the 767-300 series the Poor man's 787. Eventually the 707 based AWACS will need to be replaced and the 767-300 or -400
airframe will be the one taking it's place since It NOT going to be any Airbus A330 series. at least not if Boeing has any say in it. IMO.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Max Q
Posted 2013-01-11 21:09:55 and read 9522 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 74):
Let's recall: there was never a direct replacement for the 707/DC-8, either.

I think the 767 was pretty close.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2013-01-12 01:19:47 and read 9281 times.

Air Pacific in the early 90s operated 73Gs (I think might have been the -800) NAN-HNL (and then on to YVR). NAN-HNL is 2748 nm, so easily enough range. HNL-YVR is an hour shorter at 2351nm. An neo should be able o match that and then some.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-01-12 01:37:45 and read 9240 times.

Imo it´s not a 757 replacement that will be built but a new class of aircraft, bigger and more capable than A321/739 and still more efficient on long and thin than the 788/A358.

We end up talking about 50 aircraft doing TATL, this is not what I see, I see a slot between the NB and the 788. The 752/762/763/A332 fly a lot of these routes today, not only 50 frames.

This slot model would be between the A321 and 767 in size and capacity, taking the upper range of the NB market were they are less than optimal and the lower end of the 788 market where it is less than optimal.

If the NBs wont have to fill the upper range they can be better suited for their real market, same for the WBs in the future.

This will be decided by the airlines and the cost of energy to transport people a certain range and capacity. Between the A321 and 788 there are many tons of structure, somewhere between these structures lies an optimal sized frame to do the future middle range/capacity routes. And this may be way over 1000 frames such as both A+B going for this slot in the future market.

A smaller frame that can fly 10 hour routes not having to haul 114t structure of the 788 to do it.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Polot
Posted 2013-01-12 06:39:55 and read 8876 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 45):
HA will be a feather in Airbus' cap. They'll be flying the 321NEO to the limit and doing it with a substantially lower capital outlay and lower operating costs than their competitors who deploy 787s or A330s for HNL-West Coast.
Quoting ytz (Reply 48):
Conventional competition from the majors.

Most of their competitors have been dropping widebody flights in favor of narrowbodies between the mainland and Hawaii for years now, and there have been many narrowbody only airlines who have either started flying between the two or have plans too. UA, who has historically been one of the largest players in the Mainland-HNL market does not fly a single widebody between LAX-HNL... HA are not leading the trend, they are following it, and certainly won't be the only airline flying the NEO/MAX to the islands, they might not even be the first.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Planemaker
Posted 2013-01-12 10:04:54 and read 8629 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 94):
Imo it´s not a 757 replacement that will be built but a new class of aircraft, bigger and more capable than A321/739 and still more efficient on long and thin than the 788/A358.

No new NB of any size will be forthcoming for, at the very least, another decade. And there won't be an aircraft built just for the "niche" between A321NEO and A358. Hopefully, well before then, the 757 will have gone the way of the 727 and there won't be anymore 757 replacement "fetishes" on A.net.  

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-01-12 10:11:39 and read 8604 times.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 96):

That is your opinion, keep that in mind, you don´t know more than me. Stop being so stuck up please, we all have different opinions lets just respect that.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: packsonflight
Posted 2013-01-12 10:24:19 and read 8557 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 94):
Imo it´s not a 757 replacement that will be built but a new class of aircraft, bigger and more capable than A321/739 and still more efficient on long and thin than the 788/A358.

I agree with you. If Airbus dicthes the 358 they would leave a big enough gap in the production lineup to warrant a new model. that could be a simple scaled down A350, reclying the production concept and the technology level, but sticking to the fuselage width of the 330.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Planemaker
Posted 2013-01-12 10:45:32 and read 8522 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 97):

That is your opinion, keep that in mind, you don´t know more than me. Stop being so stuck up please, we all have different opinions lets just respect that.

It isn't a matter of opinion... nor "respect". It is a fact that A & B will not be producing an all-new NB for at least another decade. Please do not be so sensitive just because facts negate your opinion.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-01-12 10:56:54 and read 8478 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 93):
Air Pacific in the early 90s operated 73Gs (I think might have been the -800) NAN-HNL (and then on to YVR). NAN-HNL is 2748 nm, so easily enough range. HNL-YVR is an hour shorter at 2351nm.

FJ still operates the 738 NAN-HNL once a week. CO also operated the 738 on NAN-HNL for a while but dropped the route a year or so ago.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-01-12 10:59:20 and read 8470 times.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 99):

I am not talking NB, I am talking about an all new size class. Stop thinking 100% 757 replacement, it will be something else, not an enlarged NB. 757+767+A332 replacement.

It is not ideal to haul 200 seats 10 hours in a 100t+ frame, that is all I am saying.

A NB will not be ideal and the 788 will not be ideal. Fuel will cost a lot more with time, every tonne will count.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Planemaker
Posted 2013-01-12 11:53:12 and read 8425 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 101):
Stop thinking 100% 757 replacement, it will be something else, not an enlarged NB. 757 767 A332 replacement.

First, I'm precisely NOT thinking 100% 757 replacement. There's obviously zero economic basis for such a program.

Second, just look at the facts for a specific 757 767 A332 replacement program - even just from existing OEM aircraft development programs - your proposed "program" would come after an A & B all-new NB program, let alone other industry dynamics. And as it is, the NEO and MAX will further erode (and continue to erode) the bottom end of that range while the 788 and A350 will erode the upper end. What you end up with is a very narrow niche that is then, obviously, further eroded by A & B's all-new NB programs.

Quoting sweair (Reply 101):
A NB will not be ideal and the 788 will not be ideal. Fuel will cost a lot more with time, every tonne will count.

In an ideal world you would have a bespoke aircraft for every route but that obviously just isn't possible. However, and this is an opinion (backed up with data), fuel will not cost a lot more with time... just the opposite. I belong to the same school as Adam Pilarski and opine that it is heading downward... Pilarski says: $40 a barrel, not $400

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-01-12 11:59:52 and read 8388 times.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 102):

Yeah $40 oil and Bernankenomics.. Have fun in lala land!

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Aircellist
Posted 2013-01-12 12:06:25 and read 8361 times.

Quoting mariner (Reply 88):
I'm scratching my head.

How did this thread turn into a war between an aircraft that Boeing isn't making and an aircraft that Arbus hasn't built yet?

I was wondering exactly the same... Yet, we should know better... Every time the numbers 757 and 321 are mentioned in the same topic, it turns out that way.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Planemaker
Posted 2013-01-12 12:13:20 and read 8346 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 103):
Yeah $40 oil and Bernankenomics.. Have fun in lala land!

You demand "respect" for your "opinion" that has been posited with no basis of fact and then turn around and show no respect for an opinion that is supported by facts. Very curious behaviour.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: ncfc99
Posted 2013-01-12 12:32:04 and read 8280 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 97):
Stop being so stuck up please, we all have different opinions lets just respect that.

I agree, we all have different opinions, lets RESPECT that.

Quoting sweair (Reply 103):
Have fun in lala land!

Oh wait.............

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: JayBird
Posted 2013-01-12 16:07:38 and read 7965 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 90):
I would think that the better choice would be a bunch of ATR72s or Q400s.

Any sort of turbofan would be vast overkill for 200nm routes. They could also offer hourly or even semi-hourly frequencies between all the major airports in Hawaii.

Turboprops have not worked in Hawaii in the past for interisland travel. Given the choice Hawaii prefers jets. The other issue is baggage. Whatever the next generation of interisland planes is - it has to be able to carry all passengers and all baggage together on the same flight - that's been an issue with some of the carriers who have tried to take on Hawaiian, and Aloha previously.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: gigneil
Posted 2013-01-12 20:08:02 and read 7739 times.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 84):
No... To the MAX, not the 757... But your Papa Westray point is cute...

I'm the one that made the original point, so I think I know what I meant  

I meant the 737MAX isn't even close to the range of the 757, much like the A321neo is not either. 4500nm is a lot of range.

NS

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: art
Posted 2013-01-12 20:38:32 and read 7711 times.

If the A321NEO can perform 90% of the missions the B757 is used for at much lower cost, it's not a perfect replacement but I would say it is a good replacement. How many B757's are used to fly routes that would not be possible with the shorter range A321NEO?

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: WingedMigrator
Posted 2013-01-12 22:33:29 and read 7613 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 108):
4500nm is a lot of range.

It is indeed, and certainly more than a 752 could ever do with a reasonable payload. Heck, even the A321neo can do 4150 nm with no payload.   

Once again:

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: gigneil
Posted 2013-01-12 23:11:13 and read 7553 times.

Wow I was way off on that one, wasn't I? What was I thinking?

NS

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-01-13 02:28:06 and read 7367 times.

What killed the 757 was 9-11 and the economical downturn around 2001 and the lack of upgrade to a 1978 dated fame.

Had it been upgraded as the 737 was I am sure it would have sold more as it would gotten a new role, from short haul to long and thin, maybe they could have squeezed another 3-400nm range into it as well, say 4500nm instead of 4100.

The 752 was a 57t frame, engines are antique and the wing is less than stellar, but if it had been upgraded in these areas it would have been more efficient than flying a 788 on a 400nm route. The 753 was a bit too much but the 200 model was a perfect sized frame IMO. Maybe it could have gotten the MTOW of the 300?

ANA fly the 788 with below 200 seats, close to the numbers the old 752s fly TATL. 175 seats. Its just that the 788 has about 40t more structure. On short routes in Japan they concluded the old 752 beats the 788, but the 788 is about equal to the 767 on those routes.

Most hostility towards the 757 is because people hate NB on longer routes, its simple math, weight to carry a certain number of seats across a certain range, its hard to beat a 40t lighter frame even if its 30 years old.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-01-13 10:38:20 and read 7001 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 90):
I would think that the better choice would be a bunch of ATR72s or Q400s.

Any sort of turbofan would be vast overkill for 200nm routes.

Agreed. Due to the short routes, the ATR would be the more economical choice (lower purchase cost). But some passengers like jets and HA has done well with inter-island jets.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 102):
First, I'm precisely NOT thinking 100% 757 replacement. There's obviously zero economic basis for such a program.

Agreed. It will be derivatives. As I've said before, these aren't dueling pistols, there is no need for exactness.

Quoting sweair (Reply 112):
Most hostility towards the 757 is because people hate NB on longer routes, its simple math, weight to carry a certain number of seats across a certain range, its hard to beat a 40t lighter frame even if its 30 years old.

   WHich is why, when the NEO becomes TATL capable, it will be even more desired.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: papatango
Posted 2013-01-13 11:04:52 and read 6911 times.

What will Boeing do when Delta either places a order for new A321's or picks up some used ones?

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-01-13 11:14:38 and read 6890 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 92):
I think the 767 was pretty close.

The 707-320B could carry ~140 in a mixed-class configuration and 189 in all-Y configuration. The 767 seats 181 in three-class configuration and up to 250 in all-Y configuration.

The 757 is much closer to the 707 in size and performance, although the 707 had longer range.

Similarly, there is no perfect replacement for the 747-100-400. The 77W is a bit smaller; the 748i is a bit bigger.

My point is that I'm not aware of many airframes that have been replaced perfectly by newer types. There is always a change in characteristics. Airlines adapt to these changes.

If there is never a 752 replacement, airlines will not collapse for lack of the type. The few TATL routes that use the 752 will either be flown at lower frequency on larger aircraft or dropped altogether in lieu of connecting services.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: 817Dreamliiner
Posted 2013-01-13 11:24:52 and read 6852 times.

Quoting papatango (Reply 114):
What will Boeing do when Delta either places a order for new A321's or picks up some used ones?

Delta have Ordered 100 737-900ER's from Boeing already, I doubt they'll need any A321s for now...

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-01-13 11:31:51 and read 6832 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 115):

You make the same mistake as all others, a derivative of the 752 will expand beyond TATL, it will be more capable. As the smallest WB worth buying in 15 years time will be a 100t+ 788, there is room for something between 48t A321 and 103t 788.

It will not be a shrink of 788 or A358. It will be something that is not in the market today, a medium body/medium range aircraft covering the market where the NB and the WB is less than ideal. Theoretically it will have a cross section above 12 feet but below 16. It will be maxed out at 5000nm and 225 seats or 2800nm and 240 seats.

Sort of a smaller A330-300, decent range to carry descent amount of seats. Where the NBs lack MTOW and cant have the OEW. And where the WBs have too much OEW. Look at the MAX/NEO, trying to make a midget normal sized creates pain.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: papatango
Posted 2013-01-13 11:38:25 and read 6795 times.

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 116):

As James Bond said never say never!

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: 817Dreamliiner
Posted 2013-01-13 12:03:41 and read 6719 times.

Quoting papatango (Reply 118):
As James Bond said never say never!

I didnt say they would never order them...

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Planemaker
Posted 2013-01-13 14:20:11 and read 6542 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 112):
What killed the 757 was 9-11 and the economical downturn around 2001 and the lack of upgrade to a 1978 dated fame.

9/11 did not "kill" the 757. The 757 was already "a dead man walking" before 9/11. An "upgrade" would have made no difference because airlines had all the 757s they needed. There simply was no business case for an "upgrade."

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 115):
If there is never a 752 replacement, airlines will not collapse for lack of the type.

Yes, airlines will not collapse for lack of type because there is no need for a 752 replacement since the niche is so small that there is no business case to build one.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 115):
The few TATL routes that use the 752 will either be flown at lower frequency on larger aircraft or dropped altogether in lieu of connecting services.

You forget that the NEO will eventually be TATL capable (well before 757 retirement) so the few 757 TATL routes are a non-issue.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-01-13 15:10:58 and read 6407 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 112):
The 753 was a bit too much but the 200 model was a perfect sized frame IMO.

I think the 753 would have been more popular had it been introduced earlier in the 757 program. It's a good DC-10 short-to-midhaul replacement and probably would have been more popular with both American and European airlines had it been introduced about five to ten years earlier than it was. By the time it was introduced, the 757 program was starting to wind down and so airlines just weren't into it.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 120):
You forget that the NEO will eventually be TATL capable (well before 757 retirement) so the few 757 TATL routes are a non-issue.

The whole point between the 321NEO is that it is not quite as capable as the 757. Combined with a newer overall design and brand-spanking-new engines, that gives it a huge efficiency boost. Whether it can do TATL routes is a function of payload. Remember, adding range to an aircraft usually means that you need to add weight. Basic physics dictate that an aircraft becomes less efficient the shorter the route it flies as a percentage of max range.

Also, the payload-range charts are above. As you move to the rightward end of the chart, you see that the 757 carries ~5,000 more kg than the -321NEO for a given mission distance. From EWR to LHR at ~3500NM, the -321NEO carries ~17,500kg and the 752 carries ~22,500kg. That's a huge difference. That puts you on the steep part of the -NEO's payload-range chart and on the gentle part of the 757's curve. But EWR-LHR is one of the shortest nonstop TATL routes there is. By the time you want to fly to CDG, your payload is down to ~13,000kg. And remember, a good ~2000kg of payload are already used on crew, interior fittings, catering, drinking/wash/lav water, etc.

If the -NEO becomes TATL-capable, it will be due to rightward shift of the payload-range curve as the engines get more efficient, but it will never have quite the oomph of the 752.

Quoting sweair (Reply 117):
You make the same mistake as all others, a derivative of the 752 will expand beyond TATL, it will be more capable.

Then I am making the same mistake as every single airline in the world. And I promise that they know more about aviation than either you or I.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: AngMoh
Posted 2013-01-13 16:01:09 and read 6284 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 121):
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 120):
You forget that the NEO will eventually be TATL capable (well before 757 retirement) so the few 757 TATL routes are a non-issue.

The whole point between the 321NEO is that it is not quite as capable as the 757.

If there is no need for the capability, does it matter? Same for the Concorde: great capability, but the cost made this capability worthless and it has not be replaced and will never be replaced. Instead of a sexy supersonic jet, the passengers which used to take this option now fly 767/777/787/A330/A380 or a private business jet.

No airline would have bought the 757 for its TATL capability. They ended up in that role because TCONs could be done cheaper by 738s and TATL was an good alternative for deployment of these otherwise redundant frames. The real workhorses TATL are still the 767 and A330, soon to be joined by the 787.

The 757 will be replaced by A321OEO/NEO and 737-900ER/9-MAX only because it is too expensive. The perceived capability does not make any money for the airlines and the "need" for this capability will go away.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-01-13 18:06:53 and read 6127 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 117):
You make the same mistake as all others, a derivative of the 752 will expand beyond TATL, it will be more capable. As the smallest WB worth buying in 15 years time will be a 100t+ 788, there is room for something between 48t A321 and 103t 788.

It will not be a shrink of 788 or A358. It will be something that is not in the market today, a medium body/medium range aircraft covering the market where the NB and the WB is less than ideal. Theoretically it will have a cross section above 12 feet but below 16. It will be maxed out at 5000nm and 225 seats or 2800nm and 240 seats.

Sort of a smaller A330-300, decent range to carry descent amount of seats. Where the NBs lack MTOW and cant have the OEW. And where the WBs have too much OEW. Look at the MAX/NEO, trying to make a midget normal sized creates pain.

Boeing and Airbus have their hands full with their current engineering projects. The a/c you envision has a narrow market and would require a clean sheet design. Given the offerings which will be fully developed by then, the market in this niche would be small.

Your a/c presumably would also be for long/thin routes for TATL type routes (transcon in the U.S. wouldn't be profitable given the other narrow bodies available are lighter). It won't have the range of the 787 series or the cargo capabilities which can really boost revenue for airlines.

Given all of that, it just doesn't seem likely that any aircraft maker would be willing to sink the billions of dollars needed to develop a niche a/c with a limited appeal.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: WingedMigrator
Posted 2013-01-13 22:47:54 and read 5981 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 117):
a medium body/medium range aircraft covering the market where the NB and the WB is less than ideal.

That's the whole problem, finding an efficient medium-body cross section between 3-3 and 2-4-2. The 767 was an attempt, but has not been emulated since. Too much compromise.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 121):
And remember, a good ~2000kg of payload are already used on crew, interior fittings, catering, drinking/wash/lav water, etc.

Those items are not considered payload; they are part of OEW.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 121):
If the -NEO becomes TATL-capable, it will be due to rightward shift of the payload-range curve as the engines get more efficient

  

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 121):
but it will never have quite the oomph of the 752.

Um, you lost me there... What is this 'oomph' you speak of, and why would airlines seek it?

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Valcory
Posted 2013-01-14 01:03:54 and read 5869 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 61):
Updated engines with full time FADEC gives you say another 2-3 % less fuel burn

The RB 211 were not FADEC. The PW 2037/2040 were FADEC actually one of the very first engines on commercial airplanes with FADEC.
long live the 757 I know its going to be sad day for me when i stop working on them, lots of great memory.

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-01-14 02:17:15 and read 5768 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 121):
Also, the payload-range charts are above. As you move to the rightward end of the chart, you see that the 757 carries ~5,000 more kg than the -321NEO for a given mission distance.

The 757 tanks enough fuel to have a max fuel range about 450Nm better than the NEO (for a P+W powered plane - the difference being about 300Nm for the R version).
The NEO obviously performs best in compariosn where it stays within its max fuel range.
The max fuel range of the A321NEO should be of the order of 3 350Nm to 3 400Nm with a 21t payload, tanking 23.4t fuel.

At 3 350Nm - 3 400Nm, the 757 according to Boeing's R/P (for the P+W powered 113t TOW plane) will be lifting about 23 tonnes, tanking 30t of fuel.
Now I suspect the Boeing document shows ranges sans winglets. In which case the fuel carried by the 757 should come down to c. 29 tonnes (still 24% higher than the NEO) and payload up to 24 tonnes (about 14% higher than the NEO)

For interest, the RR powered 757 doesn't fare as well, being about equal with winglets to the P+W powered 757 without.
i.e. at 3 350Nm - 3400Nm, 23 t payload (10% higher) and 30t fuel tanked (28% higher)

As a point of order on the chart, Airbus are quoting a nominal range of 3 650Nm for the A321NEO - that will be with an assumed 17t payload.
WM's chart appears to undersell the A321NEOa bit on that basis.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 121):
If the -NEO becomes TATL-capable, it will be due to rightward shift of the payload-range curve as the engines get more efficient,

Agree

Rgds

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-01-14 06:26:57 and read 5529 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 121):
Basic physics dictate that an aircraft becomes less efficient the shorter the route it flies as a percentage of max range.

That needs to be discussed as for any mission less than 3000nm, the A321NEO will be very competitive.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 121):
If the -NEO becomes TATL-capable, it will be due to rightward shift of the payload-range curve as the engines get more efficient, but it will never have quite the oomph of the 752.

I'm also hearing of airframe improvements. e.g., the wing root as well as a (small) MTOW increase. Note: I haven't heard anything about fuel other than the cargo bay tanks, but the A321NEO will certainly have room for those.

Quoting dtw9 (Reply 21):
Tell that to McDonnell-Douglas when the MD-11's SFC came in 7-8 percent higher than predicted for both P/W and GE engines.

Where did you get that number? The Pratt was 4% below spec while GE, whom was later, was something less (I do not recall the number). The MD-11 did miss fuel burn by about 8%, but much of that was due to the high wing loading. Douglas, with the help of NASA, helped cut their fuel burn and Pratt fixed their engines, but not before the airframe became an orphan.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 124):
That's the whole problem, finding an efficient medium-body cross section between 3-3 and 2-4-2. The 767 was an attempt, but has not been emulated since. Too much compromise.

Due to the need for cargo today, I don't think there is a step between 3-3 and 2-4-2. There will be a large jump in capacity unless another long narrowbody is built.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-01-14 13:20:54 and read 5257 times.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 122):
the passengers which used to take this option now fly 767/777/787/A330/A380 or a private business jet.

For BA, the pax that used to take the Concorde fly the A318!

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Max Q
Posted 2013-01-14 13:31:08 and read 5227 times.

Quoting Valcory (Reply 125):

The RB 211 were not FADEC.

I know, that was my point !

Topic: RE: Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?
Username: Max Q
Posted 2013-01-14 13:35:21 and read 5233 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 115):


Quoting Max Q (Reply 92):
I think the 767 was pretty close.

The 707-320B could carry ~140 in a mixed-class configuration and 189 in all-Y configuration. The 767 seats 181 in three-class configuration and up to 250 in all-Y configuration.

The 757 is much closer to the 707 in size and performance, although the 707 had longer range.

The 762 was pretty close, and with it's fairly narrow fuselage unable to take LD3's side by side and its range performance it wasn't that different in class than the latest 707's and Dc8's.


Kind of academic I know.


The 757 was close in size but had nowhere near the range of a 707.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/