Woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1032 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (15 years 1 month 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1150 times:
I dont know why anybody would want a 757-300, it duplicates the capacity and range of a 767. I have been puzzled ever since the -300 came out as to where they thought it would fit in fleets. Why would they compete with themselves and build something they basically already sell.
TWA recently did place a large order for the 717-200 that will undoubtedly augment their already large MD-80 fleet which gained 34 a/c (the last of the new MD-80s) in 1999.
Sammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (15 years 1 month 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1119 times:
The 757-300 is cheaper (by some 30 million at list prices) and has less range. I don't believe the 767-200 is offered anymore, and that just the -200ER version is available. The range difference is rather large as well, the 767-200ER can go 7600 miles, while the 757-300 only goes about 4000 miles. The 757-300 is also cheaper to operate.
Acvitale From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 922 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (15 years 1 month 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1075 times:
TWA has not made an major orders lately nor has it ordered any 757-300. It has leased 2 additional 767-300ER aircraft and is looking at acquiring 3 more (ex-Aeromexico). They continue to shed 767-200's as they can get deals on 767-300er's with PW engines.
Boeing still makes the 767-200 however no one has ordered one in quite a while.