Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is There A Need For A True 757 Replacement?  
User currently offlineUALMMFlyer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 135 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5196 times:

Perhaps there has been a discussion on this topic already, but I don't seem to be able to find it. Apology in advance if this has already been covered.

With all the focus on A380/B747-8, 773ER/772LR/A345/A346 and A350/787 over the past 12 months, there has not been any discussion on the replacement for the popular 757. Boeing has delivered over 1,000 757 of all types to many airlines around the world. Most of them are still the workhorses for those airlines. I am a little surprised that either Airbus and Boeing have not really devoted resources to look into possible replacement. Perhaps, both manufacturers have been limited by the R&D of the super jumbos and 350/787, but many 757 will need to be replaced in the next decade.

I also understand the A321 or the B-737-900 can't measure up to the performance of 757. What do you all think? Are the airlines happy with only one type of single aisle plane (320/737) available in the future? It seems there should be a 757-type of jet slotted between the 320/737 and 350/787.


Treat others like you'd like to be treated!
28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5179 times:

Considering that just about every major operator of the 757 has yet to retire more than a handful, I'd say there is a definate need. Boeing will almost certainly answer this with the 737 replacement, possibly involving a separate wing. Airbus I'm not sure about, though they probably would as well.

User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5142 times:

While the 757 is more capable than the 737NG, the issue is that most airlines don't use the capability. Yeah, a 757 is great for transcons- but a 737-800 can do it cheaper. If you can CONSISTENTLY fill it, then sure, use it. Otherwise, it's over capable.

That said, the 757 has many uses, and is a versatile airplane. There is no narrowbody airplane in production (jetliner, that is) with a lower seat-mile cost.
But seat mile costs don't mean anything if there aren't hineys in the seats!


User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 30
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5130 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
While the 757 is more capable than the 737NG, the issue is that most airlines don't use the capability.

Tell CO that. I'd like to see them using those 737's on the numerous Europe routes flown by them.

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineAa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3347 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5112 times:

Quoting Newark777 (Reply 3):


Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
While the 757 is more capable than the 737NG, the issue is that most airlines don't use the capability.

Tell CO that. I'd like to see them using those 737's on the numerous Europe routes flown by them.

Not to speak for AA737-823, but I think that's where the word "most" comes into play.

AAndrew


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5019 times:

And of course there's also EGE. 757s make up the vast majority of flights into that airport, making it a very unique airport indeed. 757 has superior climb.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12380 posts, RR: 47
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4948 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If the demand was there I guess Boeing would still be building them.

Certainly in Europe we see a lot less 757s than a few years ago. A lot of airlines that don't need the 757s range have been slowly moving to A321s and 739s. Despite being derided in certain quarters here, the A321 has slowly but surely racked up 500 sales. Will be interesting to see how the 739ER goes.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1613 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4948 times:

The 787 is the 757 replacement. Except for the range, the 787 is a twin aisle 757. With the 737 and 787 series, there is not real in between plane that would be much different. The way it is selling, I would say "yes" there is a need for a replacement and it is on its way.

The 788 seems to be the closest seat-wise, but then there is the fuel tanks and such that add un-needed weight for trans-con flights. I do not think it would take much to resolve that issue. On the other hand, several airlines would benefit greatly having this as a 767 or 777 "spare" if these airlines continue to use both of these other planes along with a 787.

Of course, I am speculating and mainly talking about U.S. carriers, just my little $.02.

M


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4898 times:

Quoting ChiGB1973 (Reply 7):
The 787 is the 757 replacement. Except for the range, the 787 is a twin aisle 757.

If that were the case, Boeing would not have built the 757, since the 767 was just a twin aisle 757. Yet both sold a combined 2000 units (1050 for the 757, 950 for the 767).

The A321 success proves there is a place for a 757 replacement if it is part of the 797 family. What the 321 gives up in performance it makes up in efficiency and commonality in an A320 based fleet. The 757 did not offer that commonality in a 737NG based fleet, which is why B offered the 739 and now 739ER.

But there is still a place for a 4500nm 200 seat aircraft. Especially if it is a generational advance in fuel efficiency.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineVivaGunners From Italy, joined Oct 2000, 363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4820 times:

I think there is a neeed for a 757 replacement too.
The US majors will need many 200+ seaters with 752's performances in 5-10 years time, and I don't think the 739ER will be the right replacement in some case. In fact a new 757 will probably have more seats, more cargo and more range, and finally also the commonality with smaller variants (797family), which the 757 didn't have.
I see orders coming also from EU charter carries like Thomsonfly, Firstchoice, Thomas Cook and so on, which now operate a fair amount of 752 configured with 230-240 seats, something the 739ER can't do.

Best Regards.



Any ideas for a signature?
User currently offlineGrbld From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 353 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4751 times:

Although the 757 market segment is very good, there's no need for a special 757 replacement. As some stated correctly (methinks), the 787 will fill the gap from the top and while the A321 and 738 don't quite fill it from the bottom, a new 737/A320 replacement certainly will.

It's simple, the 757 will NOT get a replacement. Why have an extra aircraft type when you can close the gap with the 737 replacement and the 787? One less production unit, one less 6 billion dollar development project.

It more or less comes down to the 737 replacement. If I may just speculate, it will be all new with a slightly bigger potential size-wise than the 737NG now. That means that it will stretch bigger than a 737-900 without feeling too stretched. A new wing and new engines with more powerful engine options will give it more 757-like performance for those airlines who do need it (and some really do). Expect the 737 replacement to align neatly or even overlap slightly at the top end with the bottom end of the 787.

On the bottom end, the 737-600 replacement may disappear. Right now Embraer and Bombardier are expanding upwards in the 100 pax jets and with their new airframes, they do it much better than a chubby stubby 736 (or A318).


Grbld


User currently offlineFlyBoy84 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 382 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4603 times:

I've heard through the Internet and threads on this site that the 737 replacement will have version seating 120/150/180/220 pax and that the larger versions will have a different wing. Most likely they will also have more powerful engines. At the same time, they will have commonality with the smaller planes rather than being tied to a widebody like the 757/767 program of old.

This would give us a 757 replacement, in essence.


User currently offlineMohamed From Egypt, joined Jan 2006, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4575 times:

It will defently need an replacment. If the replacment is the exact size of the 752 then a 10000km range version would be quite interesting for point to point transatlantik flights. Expect the replacment however to be from the future A320X and B737 replacments. Also many would maybe downgrade to A321 and B737-900ER, which seems quite interesting by the way.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
That said, the 757 has many uses, and is a versatile airplane. There is no narrowbody airplane in production (jetliner, that is) with a lower seat-mile cost.
But seat mile costs don't mean anything if there aren't hineys in the seats!

As good as I know it is the A321 with the lowest seat-mile. The B753 might be better, but the 752 probably (if not surley) isn't.



Don't mistake me by my age.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4565 times:

Quoting FlyBoy84 (Reply 11):
This would give us a 757 replacement, in essence.

that's the point we are all making. the next "757" will be part of the 797 family, though still have the capabilities of the 757 range now. Further, this plan would also allow for a SMALLER jet with the same abilities, in the 738 size. If efficient, there is a big market for such a plane for secondary USA hubs, or operations to smaller European cities, or longer routes to/from South America from/to smaller markets, etc.

People seem to only consider the 757 as a transcon/marginal transatlantic aircraft, but it has many other uses the 738/739ER/A321 can't quite fill.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1613 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4415 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
If that were the case, Boeing would not have built the 757, since the 767 was just a twin aisle 757. Yet both sold a combined 2000 units (1050 for the 757, 950 for the 767).

The best of both planes seems to be integrated in to one. Maybe there will be a single aisle replacement, but I doubt it. The 787's different versions easily replace both 757 and 767.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
People seem to only consider the 757 as a transcon/marginal transatlantic aircraft, but it has many other uses the 738/739ER/A321 can't quite fill.

I have to agree. I just don't think the 737 can do anything but what it's doing. The range is not there with a full load of customers and baggage, plus the all important cargo for the 737 to be extensively used trans-Atlantic. I know some are using it for HI flights, but I do not see it as a continuing trend. Just my opinion.

M


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4408 times:

Quoting ChiGB1973 (Reply 14):
The best of both planes seems to be integrated in to one. Maybe there will be a single aisle replacement, but I doubt it. The 787's different versions easily replace both 757 and 767

The 783 is way too heavy and large to be an effective 757 replacement, at least when compared to the potentially MORE efficient composite high bypass replacement that could be built to replace the 757.

just like the 762 was not a direct replacement for the 727 despite being more versatile and efficient. Why? because the 752 was even better than the 762 and more efficient than 762 on the missions it was designed for.

same will be true of the 797-5 or whatever it will be called when compared to the 787-3.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4390 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
just like the 762 was not a direct replacement for the 727 despite being more versatile and efficient. Why? because the 752 was even better than the 762 and more efficient than 762 on the missions it was designed for.

Also, the 787-3 is significantly larger than the 752, 753, and 762, being aimed at the extremely popular 763 size category. While some 753/762 carriers might be more than happy to move up to the larger cabin, the 787 makes a singularly inappropriate replacement for the 752. Saying there will be no replacement for that aircraft means there will be a very large gap between the 739/321 size narrowbodies and their ~190 two-class size and the 783/358 sized widebodies at ~300 two-class size.

Why would either mfgr ignore the 200-300 seat market like that? Is there a similar size gap anywhere in the product range now? Of course not, that means they have ideas on how to target it. The talks about Boeing shooting the gap with the 737 replacement by using two wings makes sense. I'd be surprised if Airbus didn't take the same tack as well.



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4336 times:

Quoting ChiGB1973 (Reply 7):
The 787 is the 757 replacement.

No, it's not, and I don't understand why people think this. Yea, it's what Boeing says, but I say it's redflag . The closest they get in capacity is 279 all economy passengers on a 753 and, by my calculations, the single class capacity on a 783 would be 304. 25 seats is not exactly a close match.

Quoting FlyBoy84 (Reply 11):
I've heard through the Internet and threads on this site that the 737 replacement will have version seating 120/150/180/220 pax and that the larger versions will have a different wing.

I've heard this as well, and it makes a lot of sense. Us "wishers" out there may be hoping for the large wing on the smaller fuselage for a BBJ-NG.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 15):
The 783 is way too heavy and large to be an effective 757 replacement

 checkmark  Especially the -200.


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4213 times:

In my opinion a 757 sized aircraft with a range of up to say 6000Nm would open up a new niche. I hope that Y1 will have this capability or at least more than the current 757 range. Imagine what have happened since the powerplant where being developed for the 757. I wonder if the next generation CFM56 engines or V2500 engines can produce thrust from about 25 000lb and up to 50 000 needed for a true 757 replacement? Maybe the start of the Y1 will be the 757 replacement


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineGARPD From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2613 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4195 times:

The 757 was and still is a bit of one man army.
Used to its full potential there is nothing that can touch its economics.

The real question is, is there a market for a plane of the 757s capabilities?
Does anyone needs it payload/range/hot&high/short field performance?

As has been pointed out a lot on several unrelated threads, the Airbus A321 is proving an attractive replacement. But only for the airlines that only use the 757 for its seating capacity. Even then the A321 still falls a little short and it is only really an effective replacement when you do not need the 757s payload and range combination.

So, how many airlines operate the 757 to its fullest?

I know CO would jump at a direct one to one 757 replacement, given that their 757 fleet is currently forming the backbone of their transatlantic point to hub expansion.

Icelandair are a possible taker of a direct 757 replacement.

AA perhaps?

Any others?



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4302 posts, RR: 36
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4106 times:

The airlines which took more then half of the 757 production output were United, American, Delta, Northwest and British Airways (I ignore CO to make my point). They will remain in the downsize mode for the next couple of years, switching widebodies and 757s to A320/737s and not expanding. That meant the death for the 757.


nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 960 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4084 times:

Quoting ChiGB1973 (Reply 14):
The best of both planes seems to be integrated in to one. Maybe there will be a single aisle replacement, but I doubt it. The 787's different versions easily replace both 757 and 767.

IK is right, the 787 is way bigger than the 757. The smallest 787 (-3/8) is bigger than the 767-300ER, hardly a ~200 seat product. In fact, the 787 (-3/8) seats over 300 when configured like the 752, nearly 50% larger.

The 787 is not in any way, shape, or form a 757-200 replacement. Even analogies to the 757-300 are pushing it.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 18):
In my opinion a 757 sized aircraft with a range of up to say 6000Nm would open up a new niche.

Pushing what could be accomidated with a common wing/structure with the other 737NG replacement variants. 3500-4500nm is much more reasonable, and more than capable for the market niche. What airlines don't need is an aircraft with way more capability than needed, as the 757 was percieved early in its life.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4050 times:

For years I´ve been trying to push Airbus  Wink into coming up with a good A325:
- 230-250 seats
- higher bp ratio engines (e.g. cfm56-5c derivative), there is room left under the 320s wing..
- longer stronger landing gear / wings
- 3500 Nm range (7 hours)

It would have an empty weight of about 55.000 kg (133,300lb), lighter then a Boeing 787-3: 105,500? kg (230,000 lb), heavier then a Airbus A321: 48,500kg (92,100 lb), about the same as a Boeing 757-200 57,840kg (127,520lb).

Nothing revolutionairy just a transcontinental / regional / leisure people mover to stop the gab until something better comes along (500-700 sales?).

Something all new would decrease the add on commonality with the thousands A318/321´s flying around.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Fagerström



User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4008 times:

The need is for an aircraft with the approximate floor area of the B757, better payload/range performance, the ability to carry single-file LD3s, and lower seat mile costs. I expect both Airbus and Boeing to offer such planes around 2015 as part of the families that replace the A320 and B737NG. I expect them to further fragment the Atlantic, Northern Pacific, and South American markets. I doubt we'll see the stunning hot&high performance of the B757 though.

User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3974 times:

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 17):
No, it's not, and I don't understand why people think this. Yea, it's what Boeing says, but I say it's .

It's a quasi red herring. The 787-3 has the same range and will seat about 240-260 comfortably (to provide any measure of service on it, you have to pull seats and add cabin amenities) and it will burn only a smidge more gas, on par with the 753 - certainly less per pax. As a result it's a more economical aircraft than the 752 on long domestic operations on major trunk routes like JFK-LAX. The 737-8 is more appropriate on thinner domestic routes from hub sites to large spoke markets where multiple connection opportunities are available.

It's a balance of the change in how markets are handled by certain aircraft. I.E..What was once a DC-9 4 times a day is now by majority a 50-70 seater 5-6 times a day. So, in affect it's a replacement because the types of routes it will be used on (large trunk routes) dictate a larger aircraft than the 752 with new efficiencies to meet growth demand. In other words, a direct replacement isn't in high enough demand to dictate building a new one, at least today. That's not to say the growth created in the past 5-7 years by the 737-8/A320 won't dictate a 757 sized bird in 7-10 years when the 797 or whatever they call it starts rolling off the line.


25 Carpethead : The 757 is basically a non-factor in Asia and European operators are going either larger or smaller (mainly smaller). Therefore 757 replacement will b
26 OyKIE : I would believe that AA, UA and DL to have the ability to offer non-stop flights from ORD or ATL to Europe. A 6000Nm would probably be to much for th
27 Zvezda : ATL-Europe requires a lot more range than ORD-Europe.
28 OyKIE : True, but still ATL-TLS would be possible with 4500Nm
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...
Is There Need For 4th Airport In South Fla posted Tue Jun 11 2002 23:30:11 by PALMBEACHFLYER
Is There A Need For SJU-Europe Routes? posted Sat Nov 11 2000 20:59:24 by TWA902fly
Is There A Market For A 787-7? posted Wed Aug 16 2006 22:05:00 by 1337Delta764
Is There A Market For Scheduled Flights To VCV? posted Tue Aug 1 2006 02:29:38 by SBNair3022
Is There Room For AC To Fly Nonstop YYZ To KIX? posted Thu May 18 2006 04:05:46 by AirCanada014
Is There A Market For A 90-160 Seat Props? posted Thu Mar 16 2006 14:32:46 by PavlovsDog
A True 757 Replacement posted Fri Sep 16 2005 23:22:33 by FlyingHippo
Is There A Website For Air Cargo Price Comparison? posted Fri Sep 9 2005 15:19:07 by Sabena332
Is There Room For A French Lowcost Airline? posted Fri May 6 2005 14:23:23 by Beaucaire
Is There A Policy For Airlines Landing? posted Fri Jan 28 2005 10:56:46 by Ktachiya