Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No Airbus Equivalents Of The 757 Or 7E7-3?  
User currently offlineTransPac From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 108 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5114 times:

I've wondering why Airbus has never, and so far isn't planning on, competing with the Boeing 757 series of airliner. The A321 is somewhat a competitor for lower-mid range 752 ops but for instance can't fill the 752's longer range pond-crossing market. While Boeing has closed the 757 line it is releasing the 7E7-3 which will cover most of these market segments. The A321 has never been a real 757 competitor and will be even less a 7E3 competitor. The new A350 that's in the works won't be a 7E3 competitor either. Why has Airbus ignored the important 757 market? The 757 has been quite a smash because of its versatility and I imagine the 7E3(although its not an exact replacement) eventually will be as well. Airbus has had quite a bit of success targeting Boeing's markets, why not this one?

--Paddy

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5076 times:

I've wondering why Airbus has never, and so far isn't planning on, competing with the Boeing 757 series of airliner. The A321 is somewhat a competitor for lower-mid range 752 ops but for instance can't fill the 752's longer range pond-crossing market

Let's look at the 757's history first. It development was two fold, first as a 727 add-on and then later morphed to parallel the 767. Boeing developed the 767 as a replacement for the 707 and as a competitive move against the new Airbus twin-jets. The 757/767 were designed to offer airlines a quasi-common family of aircraft offering both narrow and widebody economics to fly hub-spoke routes, regional widebody routes, and then later, long-range ETOPS routes.

So in a sense, the A300/A310 were the inital counterparts to the 757/767. Naturally when the A321 came along, the 757 was the closer counterpart, but the A321 is a stretched A320 designed primarily for charter opperators. Hence, the A321 doesn't have the uplift or range of the 757, they were designed for completly different missions.

While Boeing has closed the 757 line it is releasing the 7E7-3 which will cover most of these market segments. The A321 has never been a real 757 competitor and will be even less a 7E3 competitor

The 7E7-3 is another regional widebody in the tradition of the A300/A310 and 762A/763A. It's the short-range counterpart to the 7E7-8, just as the 757 was the short-range counterpart to the 767. The 7E7-3 is being billed as a 757 replacement because it has very low seat/mile cost, but in reality, it is far to big to replace 757s directly.

The A321 and 7E7-3 are obviously in different worlds.

The new A350 that's in the works won't be a 7E3 competitor either. Why has Airbus ignored the important 757 market?

The A350 is rumored to have a counterpart called the A30X... something of a 7E7-3 competitor.

Airbus has had quite a bit of success targeting Boeing's markets, why not this one?

Airbus hasn't targeted this niche because it's mostly gone, nothing or noone to sell to. The 757 will probably be replaced by a mix of 737/A320 and 7E7-3, but no direct sucessor....

In the 1980s when the 757 was at its prime, Airbus was heavily invested in the A320 and A330/A340 development. Later in the 1990s, the 757 began to wind-down as most demand had been met. The A321 was also available, and got some market share. At the end of the 90s, the demand for the 757 was almost non-existant. Boeing tried very hard to win additional orders, but was empty. They announced the closing of the line, and no customers made much of a protest


User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2961 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5015 times:

A large chunk of the 757 manufactured have been placed in the US, which currently doesn't need replacement for some time. The A321 is slightly lower capacity but current A320-series operators will more than gladly take on the A321 than a new type of plane. Examples such as BA, CZ, MU, & AC.

The A321's fuselage length is about as far as it gets without tinkering the A320-series wing. Why create a whole new aircraft for one type of aircraft that Airbus's rival manufacture will no longer be producing.

As for the 7E7 rival, we will wait and see what Airbus comes out after the A380 project settles down some.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9661 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4981 times:

Dfwrevolution provides a good explanation. Although the 757 is a popular airplane, there is no need for a direct replacement. The 757 is very versatile, but it is not perfect. The A321 does the 757's job on short runs very well. And yes the 757 can fly across the Atlantic, but just barely. It can't be relied upon as a transatlantic plane because it only has the range to reach parts of western Europe. Airlines did not buy the 757 because it could just barely cross the Atlantic. There is a very small market for this type of plane. The 757 is used primarily on medium to long transcon routes in the USA.

It's performance is excellent and it serves its purpose, but the airlines evolve their demands. Continental has found that the 757 is very good at doing some low density runs to the UK and a little beyond. This is more of Continental finding a good use for the airplane rather then buying an airplane with the goal of using short transatlantics. The same way has evolved with its service to Hawaii. It is very good at that and NW has had success using 753s from the mainland to Hawaii. They are finding the best way to utilize the plane. The specific characteristics of the 757 are not a goldmine that warranted 1000 to be built, but rather the extreme flexibility that it had.

The 757 could do just about everything that the airlines could want a narrowbody to do. If Boeing does the same with the 7E7 then it will be utilized for routes that we can't imagine now. Creating a versatile airplane is what allows for success. The 737 was a great plane because it is so flexible to do anything on the domestic market. The 757 is similar but on a slightly larger scale. The A32XX is the same way. Capacity and range alone are not what make a plane a huge success, but rather it's flexibility to do the stuff that the designers don't plan for that makes a plane a success.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4943 times:

As has been mentioned, Airbus believes the best approach to the market is via two different aircraft, not just one as Boeing does.

I don't really know exactly what Airbus' plans are, but there has been rampant speculation that the A30x plan would be revived.

N


User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26534 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4936 times:

>Examples such as BA<

BA was one of the biggest 757 operators at one time. The reason they switched to the A320 is because none of their routes require the 757s range or performance, so they can use the plane that has greater commonality (though higher seat-mile). Hawaii service has been done by 757s for years, particularly to Hilo, Kona and Kauai, which don't require bigger planes, and Maui because of its short runway.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12569 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4838 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Why do Airbus need to compete with a 'dead' plane?

As others have stated, the A321 can do a significant % of 757 missions, but doesn't match the 757's range/payload at the top end. However, not many airlines use the 757 to its full capability.

When I used to fly LHR-ABZ on BA a lot, most of the flights were using 757s. They were nearly always full, but it was only a 600 mile hop. An A321 could easily match that now for BA, but at the time, the 757 was the only plane BA had that offered more seats that the 737s they had then. It will be interesting to see which routes BA operates its new A321s on.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24938 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4801 times:

The BA A321s are being operated on European routes out of LHR T4


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineFLYSSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7412 posts, RR: 57
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4619 times:

A lot of airlines are replacing their B757 by A321.
Most of them now prefer to offer more frequencies rather than big capacities, in order to feed their HUB... and the B757 became too big for their short/medium network and too small and inappropriate for long-haul services.

In Europe, among the three "majors", AF has completely phased out the wide-bodies from the Domestic/European network. The A321 became the biggest capacity available on theses routes.
LH still uses some A300's while BA's 767 are becoming rarer and rarer on the European network.

Moreover, the B757 was not so popular with the big regular airlines : only BA and IB used it while SR, AF, KL, SN, AZ, LH, chose the A310.


User currently offlineNORTHSEATIGER From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 432 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4596 times:

Why no Boeing Equivalent of Concorde or the A380 and as far as I can remember the 7E7 does'nt even exist except for on paper.


T's And P's look good....Rotate
User currently offlineANA From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 294 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4586 times:

Airbus could make an uprated 321 to take auxiliary fuel tanks, for longer range, but there is apparently no demand for it.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No Further Development Of The A330? posted Wed Aug 15 2001 14:48:47 by Rabenschlag
Why No Airbus Or Boeing RJ? posted Fri Jun 17 2005 05:12:22 by Airbus3801
Why 20 Years To Use The 757 As Intended? posted Tue Oct 10 2006 09:36:37 by N328KF
Why No Western Aircraft On The Russian Register? posted Thu Jul 27 2006 18:08:28 by TradewindL1011
Why No AC Route To Either BKK Or SIN? posted Sat May 14 2005 07:55:29 by AC787
Ryanair- Why No Airbus A319? posted Sun Feb 13 2005 22:09:00 by Aerlingus330
Why No A380 Orders From The States? posted Sat Nov 6 2004 13:02:04 by BMI701EGCC
Why No Russian Planes In The U.S.? posted Tue Sep 28 2004 01:55:33 by Wedgetail737
Why No Center Gear On The 340 Test Plane? posted Wed May 26 2004 03:44:22 by AV8AJET
Future Of The 757 posted Fri May 21 2004 19:53:47 by CougarAviator