Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
757 Replacement:A Russian Airliner?  
User currently offlineRootsAir From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2005, 4186 posts, RR: 40
Posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5644 times:

boeing seems not to be focusing on any 757 replacement. The A321 cannot be stretched anymore to build a 757 equivalent.
Seeing the big success of the 757 its wierd no one has considered a replacement...apart from Russian tupolev. The TU 204 is a potential replacement for the 757 except for its range!

Is there any chance Tupolev can finally attract the big airlines into buying their planes and thus make the 757 replacement. I know they have a catastrophic safety record but things have changed since .

If a Russian manufacterer wasn't to make the 757 replacement , won't Boeing or Airbus have to focus on some solution (eg Airbus could cancel A350 and make the 757 replacement )

Regards

BM


A man without the knowledge of his past history,culture and origins is like a tree without roots
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5618 times:

Quoting RootsAir (Thread starter):
Seeing the big success of the 757 its wierd no one has considered a replacement...apart from Russian tupolev. The TU 204 is a potential replacement for the 757 except for its range!

It's likely that the next generation narrow-body (i.e. A320NG or 737-E) will encompass a 757 replacement. There will be some sort of replacement for the 1,000 757s out-there, in addition to filling the gap between the 739/A321 and 783.

Quoting RootsAir (Thread starter):
Is there any chance Tupolev can finally attract the big airlines into buying their planes and thus make the 757 replacement.

No... not likely


User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4537 posts, RR: 41
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5599 times:

Quoting RootsAir (Thread starter):
boeing seems not to be focusing on any 757 replacement.

Not neccesarily - don't forget the 737-900X project, which will give a 220 seat aircraft rather like the A321...

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineCORULEZ05 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5529 times:

Quoting RootsAir (Thread starter):
Is there any chance Tupolev can finally attract the big airlines into buying their planes and thus make the 757 replacement

........fat chance.........lol

Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 2):
don't forget the 737-900X project

exactly my thought. That project is specifically geared to the 757 replacement. Personally, I hate Boeing for discontinuing the 757 production because that is my fav. aircraft and I LOVE IT.....but I guess this new project will have new and improved technically so they had to dump the 757.


User currently offlineMKEdude From South Korea, joined May 2005, 1011 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5469 times:

There was a discussion here earlier about Russian planes in Western airlines. The consensus seemed to be that Russian aviation had such a bad reputation that the traveling public would never accept a Russian airliner. Perhaps that will change with time, but certainly not anytime soon.

As for the 757 I am convinced that the line would still be going if most of the American majors weren't so close to broke. I think that when plans for the 737NG are formalized there will be a stretch version that will fill the gap left by the 757.



"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline." Frank Zappa
User currently offlineMotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3197 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5436 times:

Quoting MKEdude (Reply 4):
The consensus seemed to be that Russian aviation had such a bad reputation that the traveling public would never accept a Russian airliner. Perhaps that will change with time, but certainly not anytime soon.

I've always wondered why Ilyushin or Tupolev haven't made serious overtures toward becoming a key component supplier (or airframe part supplier) to EADS, specifically the Airbus consortium. Anyone heard anything or know any background?



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineAseem From India, joined Feb 2005, 2046 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5425 times:

Quoting MKEdude (Reply 4):
As for the 757 I am convinced that the line would still be going if most of the American majors weren't so close to broke. I think that when plans for the 737NG are formalized there will be a stretch version that will fill the gap left by the 757.

Had a chance to meet one of the Boeing engineer and he was of the opinion that B737NGs are better liked by pilots. So maybe Boeing is considering B738/9 as B757 replacement.
rgds
VT-ASJ



ala re ala, VT-ALA ala
User currently offlineAfay1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1293 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5393 times:

Several Russian companies already are large suppliers of expertise and materials to Boeing and Airbus, with each respective company having technical centers in Russia. Whether the relationship will deepen and widen remains to be seen, but certainly A+B have an interest in making sure a truly efficient and cheaper Russian plane does not make it to market. As long as the PS90 remains less efficient than its western counterparts, there is no problem, not to mention the fact that spares and support remain the largest stumbling block. There is always precedent for a western firm placing a major order; think of how many "oddball" aircraft such as the Bac 1-11, F-100, and Caravelle flew in the US without major domestic parts supply, let alone manufacture....

User currently offlineYukonTrader From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 207 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5313 times:

Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 5):
I've always wondered why Ilyushin or Tupolev haven't made serious overtures toward becoming a key component supplier (or airframe part supplier) to EADS, specifically the Airbus consortium. Anyone heard anything or know any background?

One of the reasons might be that the CIS Aerospace industry is more fragmented that the first impression lets you assume. The four major Russian - or better CIS - commercial planemakers Antonov (Ukraina), Ilyushin, Tupolev and Yakovlev are only design bureaus. They engage in research & development for new airliners, and received their names from the chief engineers leading the design teams in the post WWII era. Il, Tu and Yak have their premisses at Moscow Zhukovsky (the famous test base with all the oddballs parked on the ramp...), Antonov at two locations near Kiev/Kjiv.

The only thing the design bureaus actually build are the various prototypes. These are used as testbeds for the initial design and future upgrades, very much like with us in the West. When it comes to manufacturing aircraft in large numbers, one or more of the many aircraft factories that are spread all over the territory gets assigned to build the serial aircraft. In the days of the Sovjets, the reason behind this strange separation of tasks was purely strategic. The factories in question are mostly located deep inside the former USSR territory, often East of the Ural, and mostly in cities that were "forbidden grounds" for visitors from abroad.

The result is that, for example, the various types of Tupolev aircraft have been built in different factories. And - to make things even more complicated - these factories would very likely not only have a production line running for the Tupolev in question, but would be assembling fighters in the hangar next door, while Helicopters might be built in a far corner...

Here's the story for the Tupolevs, as far as we know today (source TAHS Soviet Transports, 2004):

Tu-104:
- 2 prototype aircraft built by factory 156 in Moscow Lefortovo
- 44 aircraft built by factory 135 in Kazan (2 of them prototypes)
- 59 aircraft built by factory 166 in Omsk
- 96 aircraft built by factory 022 in Kazan

Tu-114
- 1 prototype aircraft built by factory 156 in Moscow Lefortovo
- 31 aircraft built by factory 018 at Kuibyshev (today: Samara)

Tu-124
- 1 prototype aircraft built by factory 156 in Moscow Lefortovo
- 163 aircraft built by factory 135 in Kharkov

Tu-134
- All 852 aircraft built by factory 135 in Kharkov

Tu-144
- 4 prototype aircract built by factory 156 at Moscow Lefortovo
- 16 aircraft built by factory 064 in Voronezh

Tu-154
- 11 prototype and pre-production aircraft built by?
- 606 Tu-154/A/B built by factory 018 in Samara
- 320 Tu-154M built by factory 018 in Samara, factory now called "Aviakor"

Tu-204
- All aircraft to date built by factory 025 in Ulyanovsk, factory now called "Aviastar"

Tu-214
- All aircraft to date built by factory 022 in Kazan

Tu-334
- 2 protoypes built at Moscow Khodinka
- 1 fatigue test airframe built by factory 030 "LAPIK" in Lukhovitsy
- Serial aircraft planned to be built by factories 030 "LAPIK" in Lukhovitsy and 473 in Kiev. Future uncertain...

Speaking of factories building planes from different design bureaus, let me just give you an example: Among others, the following aircraft types were/are built in factory 064, Voronezh: An-10, An-12, Il-28, Tu-16, Tu-144, Il-86, Il-96...

Of course, it was hoped that by splitting and assigning tasks in the manner described, each factory would be kind of a knowledge base in case the design bureaus or other factories would be knocked out. On the other hand, it makes it a little more tricky selling the aircraft. In Sovjet times, Moscow-based and state-run "export companies" negotiated with the few customers from outside the East Bloc, bundled their orders and forwarded them to the proper manufacturers. But nowadays it is basically up to the factories to market the aircraft they build...

That alone would explain the hard times receiving spares and support. But to make things worse, maintenance is outsourced one step further, i.e. to factories specialised in just overhauling certain types. Again, an example: A Tu-134 would be going to the factory in Minsk, Belarussia (and not Kharkov, Ukraina) for overhaul.

Holy moly, isn't it?

Lukas


User currently offlineJaws707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 708 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5201 times:

Maybe what would help the reputation of these Russian Airliners is if more of them were flying cargo. TNT I know has a couple of the TU-204 and I guess everything is ok with them, but I dont know that for a fact. The Russian Tu-204 costs a lot less then a 757 so maybe if more cargo carriers purchased the planes them more airlines might purchase them as well. As much as I love Boeing and Airbus, I love to see as much competition as possible from the likes of Bombarider, Embraer, and a solid Russian manufacturer would go a long way. Also is Russia still trying to consolidate their airplane manufacturing?

User currently offlineLegacy135 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1052 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5172 times:

Quoting YukonTrader (Reply 8):
That alone would explain the hard times receiving spares and support

When operating an aircraft the support received is one of the most important parts. Here you receive the real true answers how dependable a plane is and how much you need to spend to keep it flying. A manufacturer can actually build an average aircraft and can make it with the support an excellent choice. For sure they can do it vice versa as well...


User currently offlineJohnA From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 40 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days ago) and read 5048 times:

Up until a month ago, Boeing had invested just over $1B in its
Russian operations.

Recently, Boeing announced another ten year tranche of up to
$2.5B.

The CIS aviation market alone is estimated by Boeing to be
worth $12B. The Russian economy is showing consistently
that it can grow 6%+ per year and mostly, it's been 7% since
1998. The Russian stock market has been one of the strongest
performers in the world and occasionally sits at #1 for months
at a time.

Russia is the world's second largest exporter of oil. Sam Bodman,
energy secretary, wants ten times (10X) the supply of oil the
US now gets from Russia to come from Russia. All that is
needed is to break the deadlock on the Murmansk pipeline.
This would bring the Russian oil US import number close to that
of Canada or Venezuela.



Does any of this tell you anything?



Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5010 times:

It tells me that the replacement for the 752 is the 739x, and the 753 is the 783.  Smile that's what it all says, which is what boeing has said all along. It has said the 783 was a short range replacement for the 762/763 and 753 offerings, and the 752, the main 757 model, was being covered by the 737NG range. Airlines aren't screaming for the 757 even though some could still use a few more. If they were, Boeing would not have closed the line.

remember, the 757 sold 1050 planes, while the 727 sold nearly 2000, yet the 757 was a clear replacement for the 727. This happened because other 727s were replaced with 738s, 762s, MD-80s, and various Airbus aircraft. So even though the 727 is basically out of service as a pax plane, and there are more planes now than ever, the replacement wasn't 1:1 757:727, as routes expanded and the needs of airlines continued to grow in size or splinter into two smaller routes from one medium sized. plus long, single aisle planes have boarding/deplaning ineffeciencies compared to comparable capacity 2 aisle planes.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4957 times:

The 739 and 321 cannot hold a candle to the 757. They dont have the capacity or the range, or indeed the performance. Charter carriers in Europe particularly need an aircraft with the range, capacity and flexibility of the 757

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4878 times:

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 13):
The 739 and 321 cannot hold a candle to the 757.

Although it's arguable that the vast majority of customers even need the full capability of the 757. For many customers, it is "too much" aircraft.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
It tells me that the replacement for the 752 is the 739x, and the 753 is the 783

To be picky, the 739X is at the most a substitute for the 752. It is neither capable enough nor timed properly to serve as a 757 replacement. I think less than one 757 customer will actually replace 757s with 739X.

One thing we can almost count on is a highly capable member on the top-end of the 737NG/A321 replacement. If timed for 2010-2015, that's just when the large fleets of 757 will hit the end of their lives. The 200-250 seat narrowbody simply does not warrant the demand for a stand-alone product.


User currently onlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26444 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4870 times:

Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 2):
Not neccesarily - don't forget the 737-900X project, which will give a 220 seat aircraft rather like the A321...

Yes, but the 739X, though far more capable than the A321-200, still cannot hold a candle to the 752 for take-off performance or range and still has a higher seat-mile

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
It tells me that the replacement for the 752 is the 739x, and the 753 is the 783.

Except that the 783 is entirely too big to replace 753s



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4855 times:

The 757 is a difficult aircraft to replace I dont see an aircraft that at present can do what the 757 can do. The 757 is going to be hard to replace for CO and many European charter carriers.

The A310 market was ignored and no replacement designed and I suspect the 757 market wont see a direct replacement available either.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4833 times:

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 16):
The 757 is a difficult aircraft to replace I dont see an aircraft that at present can do what the 757 can do. The 757 is going to be hard to replace for CO and many European charter carriers.

It will likely be encompassed in the 737-E or A320NG products. There isn't huge (any?) demand for 757 replacement at this time...

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 16):
The A310 market was ignored and no replacement designed and I suspect the 757 market wont see a direct replacement available either.

Well the 767-200/200ER pretty much stalled in the late 90s as well, I think it's more of a case that the market isn't there than the airplane. Neither Boeing nor Airbus are looking at extending their 787 or A350 into that niche. I think it's clear that airlines want something 767-300ER to 772ER sized, not less.


User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4827 times:

Maybe for long haul but European operaors like LH,BA and IB often need an A310/767 sized aircraft for high density routes like LHR_FRA or LHR-MAD. These destinations require high capacity but dont need long range.

This sector of the market is being ignored by both major manufacturers. The 763 and 777 are hardly suitable or economic for short sectors like AMS-LHR or FRA-LHR which were served by A310s and 757s


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4760 times:

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 18):
These destinations require high capacity but dont need long range.

The 783 is about the closest effort you are going to see from either Boeing or Airbus for some time, it's about the same size as the A300 with superior opperating economics. If that doesn't work, then your sort of out of luck...


User currently offlineIsuA380B777 From New Zealand, joined May 2005, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4498 times:

Only if the aircrafts operate with out much trouble with in the Aeroflot fleet and the TU can supply the a good after sale service to airlines, I think that many airlines would buy TU 204. We have to wait and see, too early to predict from now on
Regards
Isu


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1875 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3352 times:

Quoting MKEdude (Reply 4):
There was a discussion here earlier about Russian planes in Western airlines. The consensus seemed to be that Russian aviation had such a bad reputation that the traveling public would never accept a Russian airliner.

The majority of which is due to the years of Western anti-Soviet propaganda. The only thing that's wrong with modern Russian airplanes is that they (still) burn more fuel than their Western counterparts. As far as performance goes, look at Tu-204 and its derivatives - everybody who bought one is happy with it.

Not to mention the fact that Russian Mig-29 and Su-27 fighters own all of the F-15s/-16s/-18s/-22s and Gripens  Smile  Smile  Smile  Smile



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineDalavia From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 548 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3285 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 21):
The majority of which is due to the years of Western anti-Soviet propaganda. The only thing that's wrong with modern Russian airplanes is that they (still) burn more fuel than their Western counterparts. As far as performance goes, look at Tu-204 and its derivatives - everybody who bought one is happy with it.

I agree. Russian airliners are sturdy, safe when properly maintained, cheap to purchase and beautifully engineered.

Now, if they could market them under a Western-sounding name (maybe Douglas or Vickers or whatever) and get a good, reliable Western agent to handle spare parts (Embraer or Bombadier perhaps - now THERE'S some good Western names if those makers want to act as agents and sell some larger airliners to go "big time" instantly!), then Airbus and Boeing will have REAL cause to worry!


User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1608 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (9 years 3 months 22 hours ago) and read 2848 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 21):
The only thing that's wrong with modern Russian airplanes is that they (still) burn more fuel than their Western counterparts.

Try to get parts for it in an AOG situation...


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (9 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 2821 times:

Quoting Dalavia (Reply 22):
Now, if they could market them under a Western-sounding name (maybe Douglas or Vickers or whatever) and get a good, reliable Western agent to handle spare parts (Embraer or Bombadier perhaps - now THERE'S some good

Boeing has been helping Sukhoi develop, finance, and market the RRJ for two years now. The closest they've been to a real customer was Air France/KLM and all it took was a rebranded F100 to steal their attention. A Russian aircraft simply isn't going to go anywhere anytime soon.

Quoting Dalavia (Reply 22):
Western names if those makers want to act as agents and sell some larger airliners to go "big time" instantly!), then Airbus and Boeing will have REAL cause to worry!

Boeing has been helping them along and no one has yet to bite

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 21):
The only thing that's wrong with modern Russian airplanes is that they (still) burn more fuel than their Western counterparts.

Good thing fuel burn is such a minor issue. Oh wait.... it isn't.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 21):
Not to mention the fact that Russian Mig-29 and Su-27 fighters own all of the F-15s/-16s/-18s/-22s and Gripens

If you really think that the former Soviet Union can develop aircraft to compete with Western aircraft, your delusional. If you really think an Su-27 has a chance in hell against a stealth superfighter with more lethality than a prostitute with a herpes outbreak, then you deserve to be slapped upside your pinko head.

The only propaganda is the belief that Russian aircraft do compare favorably with Western counterparts. Perm engines? What a joke. The best product Tupolev has to offer features last-generation Rolls Royce engines and tuned-down import avionics. Boeing and Airbus are leaving aluminum behind and those superb Russian manufactures have yet to build a single widebody twin.

Ex-Soviet aircraft were built and designed in an environment with different design philosophies and virtually no competition. That makes their modern counterparts today almost completly unsuitable for export sale. It would be tough for Tupolev to sell the Tu-204 in the west if this were 1978. 2005? Chance = zero


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...
757 Replacement? posted Fri Aug 4 2006 08:51:10 by GREATANSETT
Is There A Need For A True 757 Replacement? posted Thu Jan 5 2006 05:07:13 by UALMMFlyer
A True 757 Replacement posted Fri Sep 16 2005 23:22:33 by FlyingHippo
Flying A Russian Airliner In Europe posted Wed Jul 20 2005 10:45:57 by Noelg
Boeing 757 Replacement Idea posted Tue Jul 19 2005 16:41:23 by Wdleiser
A300/310/757 Replacement posted Sat Apr 30 2005 22:00:06 by Caribb
757 Replacement...what Type Of A/c? posted Wed Apr 20 2005 17:19:49 by PRAirbus
Every Russian Airliner Launched By Aeroflot? posted Thu Apr 7 2005 17:50:42 by American 767
Airbus 757 Replacement posted Tue Mar 22 2005 18:02:32 by Flydc10
29 Killed In Russian Airliner Crash posted Thu Mar 17 2005 02:25:13 by 777ER