TransPac From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 108 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5371 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?
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1004 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5333 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
Carpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2989 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5272 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.
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9904 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5238 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!
N1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26926 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5193 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
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 13080 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5095 times:
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.
FLYSSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7444 posts, RR: 57
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4876 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.