767-332ER From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2030 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7844 times:
Boeing should have just upgraded the 757 and then they wouldn't have to worry about launching this. If JAL wanted something in the single-aisle, 220 pax market...the 757 would have been it. Damn shame the 757 is gone...best airplane in it's class.
Twinjets...if one fails, work the other one twice as hard!!!
DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7639 times:
I was thinkng that if they needed 220 seats why didnt they order the 757-200 before the line was shut down? That was one damn fine airplane, and Boeing would not have to go through all the developemnt of the 900X that will now be required for this.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6282 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7509 times:
The 757 WAS a fine airplane. But, why fly 737s and 757s, which share nothing in common, when you can fly all 737s? It makes financial sense. Further, it is no sweat of Japan's back that Boeing has to spend money to develop a product they want.
Also, the 757 was a much longer range airplane than the 737-900.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3254 posts, RR: 21
Reply 15, posted (11 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7165 times:
The B736 is the dark grey sheep, because its sales figures are better than the B739's.
Yes, but in the long run I wouldn't be surprised if the B739 overtakes the B736 in orders. Now, with no B757 being offered by Boeing, the B739X might get chosen by a few Boeing customers who want to bridge the gap between smaller B737s and the B787. However, with the Embraers in the low end, it might be harder for the B736 to pick any new orders...
Of course, who knows?
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 29205 posts, RR: 73
Reply 16, posted (11 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7139 times:
>If 757 was such a great plane, why couldn't they sell them? If they could sell them, I assume that they wouldn't have shut the line.<
You mean all 1049 they could not sell?
>The 757 in a one class configuration could hold what, 250 or 260 passengers?<
240, it also has longer range and cruises much faster. Still, it is heavier and does not have commonality with the 737.
Neil is right about the -900 being the current black sheep simply because Boeing rushed it to the market to apease the needs of AS and KL, and did not fully engineer it to its greatest potential. This is why it has had its ass handed to it by the far better thought out A321 (which also had really really short range in the -100 version and was improved when Airbus saw a market in the US).
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
ODwyerPW From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 1090 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4638 times:
Why not develop the 900X as the replacement for the 900 and continue to call it the 900. Do you have to give it an entirely new designation just because you add two rear exit, move/reshape aft pressure bulkhead?
How much re-certifcation will these changes require?
They've sold 55, Delivered 46. Could they just build the last 9 in the existing configuration and begin offering the revised 900 (900X enhancements) for new orders.
I know with the added exit doors, you will be able to decrease seat pitch and add squeeze in another 5 rows of seating, so that you have a good boost to 220 in single class configuration.
With the gain of space in the rear with the redesign of the aft pressure bulkhead and push back of the rear galley, how much additonal capacity would be added in the 2-class configuration? Are we talking just one 1/2 row of seats here for an increase of 3 for a total capacity of 180 or a full row for an increase to 183?
[Edited 2005-02-19 00:25:47]
learning never stops.
: I know with the added exit doors, you will be able to decrease seat pitch and add squeeze in another 5 rows of seating, so that you have a good boost
: Ouch they really raped that 757 haven't they?
: "I think if they wanted a 220 seater, they could have selected the available modern 220 seater offered to them. However other factors obviously were o
: If Boeing could get some 787-effecient engines and a 3500NM range, the 739X would be a winner...
: Boeing appears to be serious about moving the 737 up to the 200+ single isle range. Noticed this statement from the 717 Line Closing Statement. http:/
: I think KLM has "hit the nail on the head" with their 737-900s, packing in 188 seats the smart way, by having seats with 33-34" pitch ahead of the ove
: The 737-900X would carry upto 220 passengers, wouldn't it intrude on B787-3 sales? The 787-3 will seat close to 300 passengers in a 737-like domestic
: The 737-900X will be exactly the same size as the current one. It won't be close to the 757's size. N
: Assuming that it gets the full 220-seat certification, that's only what, 19 seats (3 seatrows) short of the 752?
: The 752 can take 240 passengers, so it would be close. ~DeltaWings
: Just as clarification, the exit limit under the FAA for the four-door 752 is 239 passengers, whilst for the five-door version it's 224. Not sure if t
: If you go to GECAS.com and click on A321 info, you'll see a seat map with 220 seats at 28/29 inch pitch. The aircraft is packed solid, no more room f
: The 737-900X will be exactly the same size as the current one. It won't be close to the 757's size. Exactly. The same fuselage length will GREATLY red