Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2335 times:
Would there have been a market for a 757NG -250 ?
B757 was never really upgraded/refreshed, 757-300 seems to be a strech to far.
Specs :
- range 4500-5200 NM
- full 737NG cockpit commonality
- capasity 220 in 2 class config
- newer version of PW and RR engines
- 757-300 wings and undercarriage
- winglets for modern look
- 737NG interiors
Investment would not have been too dramatic for Boeing ...
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12562 posts, RR: 64 Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2261 times:
Why bother? By doing this you alienate EVERY 757 operator!! Surely these would be the key customers?
For that matter, you alienate every 737-900 operator who bought them because they wanted almost 757 capacity with 737 economics and commonality.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2246 times:
For that matter, you alienate every 737-900 operator who bought them because they wanted almost 757 capacity with 737 economics and commonality.
Name a 737-900 customer that is looking for an aircraft significantly bigger. Remember it's not just the flight deck, there are countless other systems. Having a hybrid is stupid -- a 737NG flight deck will put off current 757 operators (who need to retrain their crews) but also put off 737 operators who wouldnt want a new aircraft with different engines and systems in their fleet.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12562 posts, RR: 64 Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2239 times:
I think you're missing my point. I'm agreeing that a 757NG wouldn't make much sense, as Boeing has produced the 737-900 (and is developing the longer-range 737-900X) for carriers who might want near-757 performace, but can't justify adding an entirely different fleet type.
One such customer is the -900 launch customer, Alaska Airlines. They could benefit from 757s in the fleet, but the cost of crew training, spares, etc all makes it prohibitive. Buying the -900, with seating capacity close to that of the 757, makes perfect financial sense. They already have a large 737 fleet, so commonality is there. They just want longer range and more seats than the -400 offers. The -700 has long legs, but not the capacity they might like...hence the development of the -900X.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
EssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2214 times:
Seating capacity is only part of the equation. The MGTOW of the -900 is about 175,000 lbs as compared to 255,000 lbs for the 757. If Alaska thought they needed a heavier or longer range a/c, they'd buy it...Particularly now, when prices have to be very low.
I've stated this countless times: DOCs for an a/c are in DIRect proportion to MGTOW. Airlines essentially determine how much weight they want to carry over what distances, and buy an a/c that meets their needs. The 737 and 757 are different assembly lines, and "creating" an a/c from component parts isn't nearly as easy as it sounds.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12562 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
