747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3994 posts, RR: 2 Posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5368 times:
I been wondering this for a some time now. The A320 was bigger than 737 300 and I believe it has a longer range. I been told that the a320 was built to go after the 757 market. So anybody who know please tell me.
Mrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5350 times:
I only know that IC in the mid-80s previously selected the 757 for its operations, but then switched in favor for the A320 (in a political move of the Rajiv Gandhi Govt). This supports your assumption.
I sounds likely that the 320 was supposed not only to compete with the 757, but also with the 737 - especially the development of the 31x-32x family makes it a competitive product against the 737 and 757 (and for some lovers, the 727 )
Access-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1940 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5226 times:
No, the A320 was built to diplace the 727 from service...point in fact most every airline that flew 727s (the 200 series) with a typical coach layout of 135 passengers has been replaced with A320s seating a similar lot....
I think we tackled the 757 vs A321 issue in another thread....
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5052 times:
The A320 was built WAYYYYYYY before the 736, 73G, 738 and 739 ever came into existance so there was no way it would be in competition against each other like it is now. Just my opinion, but I could be wrong.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
Mark777300 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5051 times:
I was always under the impression that the A320 was built to compete with aircrafts within the 150 pax category, 737-300/400, MD-80/90 family. But the 757 was a slightly larger aircraft than the A320 to be a direct competitor. The A321 was more of a competitor.
Col From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2174 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4950 times:
The 757 and 320 were designed to replace the 727, just as every man and his dog designed a plane to replace DC3. The 757 was too much of a plane, hence fewer orders, whereas the 320 was direct replacement. Boeing also produced the 734 to do same thing. Airbus then did the 321, 319, 318 to give it a family to compete with 737. The Airbus family took a few years to develop, which is why the 737NG has sold so many so quickly, the family was developed over a very short period.
So you could say that they did compete for a specific market, but the 757 had more capability in other areas, and opened up other markets.
Azmd80 From Italy, joined Nov 2003, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4736 times:
No I think that 757 and a321 are not direct competitor, or almost not ever.
A321 is a streched version with lower range than a320, 757 is an aircraft born for medium range (some atlantic also) route without penalization.
They are competitor only in short high density route or charter where dey do the same works.
Col From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2174 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4544 times:
The 321 in USA is used on same mission as 757. 757 is better on longer haul flights out of USA, where 321 does not have range. Not sure what percantage is, but I would guess that 321 can cover a high percentage of 757 routes on domestic USA flights today.
When Airbus first came out with 320 in 1984, it was designed as 727 replacement. It entered service in Apr 1988. The 734 was developed to expand 737 family and compete with 320, and entered service in Oct 1988.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4351 times:
Its interesting to look at a time line and what was going on as the 737, 757 and 32X series were developed. Until the mid 1980s, the 727 dominated the short to medium haul fleet of many airlines, especially the large US carriers. Many carriers that purchased 727s in the 1960s simply replaced them with new 727s in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
The 733 was basically a follow-up of the 732, more seats, better range and new features.....the original plan was for the 732 and 733 to remain in production side by side, but to increase sales and to satisfy customer demand, Boeing went on to develop the 734 and 735.....the 734 with more capacity was a type of 72S replacement but it did not sell well in the US and the 735 carried on for the 732. The 734 was more aimed at the MD80 series than anything else.
The 757 was designed and developed to be a 757 replacement, the original 757-100 had about the same passenger capacity of the 72S but this model never went into production. Launch customers EA and BA convinced Boeing to build the 752 as both wanted the extra seats......early customer DL agreed and the 752 became the baseline aircraft. However, the 757 ended up being a lot more aircraft than the 72S, with the ability to fly US transcon and even trans-atlantic flights as well as the more typcial 500-1500 mile segments flown by the 72S and carry about 30 more passengers. The 757 sold in huge numbers, but never really replaced the 72S.......there was a hole in Boeing's lineup between the 734 and 757.....Boeing did not have an exact replacement for the 72S.
About then, Airbus was thn developing its single-aisle airliner series and very smartly sized the first model, the A320, at 150 seats, which just happened to be the perfect size as a 72S replacement and the airliner sold well because it was the right size and the right time. Many airlines purchased the A320 as 72S replacements. The later A319 and A321 expanded the market, with the A319 being a sensible replacement for 733/734 aircraft and the A321 adding more seats......although the A321 carries roughly the same number of passengers as the 757, they are very different aircraft with the 757 having more range and capability (nothing against Airbus, that was the intent of the design). The A321 is ideal for high density short to medium haul operations, and can fly many of the routes that a 757 can, but the 757 is designed to do more.
With the later 737NG, Boeing updated the 737 line to fill the gaps in its lineup. While the 736 is the same size as the 732/736, and the 73G is the same size as the 733, the 738 was streched and is larger than the 734 so that the 738 could directly replace the 72S (which it has in many cases, examples are AA and DL) and better compete with the A320. The so-far unpopular 739 is a simple strech of the 738 to add more seats at the cost of range - look for Boeing to improve the 739 in the near future as it is now Boeing's largest narrow-body.
Bmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4306 times:
The 321 looks more like a 757 so I believe it's main competition was the 757. I know AC chose the 320 to replace its 727s and the 319 to replace its DC-9s. The 319 was also a good replacement for older 737s such as the 737-200.
The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
Sandiaman From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4229 times:
You might say that changing market conditions favored the 737 and A320 over the 757. There's a good article written by R. Aboulafia on the subject the the 757 entitled "Requiem for a Narrowbody"
An interesting quote from the article:
"A new “clean sheet of paper” aircraft designed today for the 757 market would look a lot like the 757. The intriguing aspect of the 757’s demise is that this is the first Boeing jetliner program to end because of market conditions, not technological obsolescence."