Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Would A 757-100 Have Succeeded?  
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6435 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3521 times:

What are your thoughts on whether a 757-100 would have succeeded or not? We all know that most aircraft shrinks have been rather unsuccessful. The 747SP, 737-600, MD-87, A318, and A340-200 are all excellent examples. Some shrinks, such as the 737-500, A319, and A330-200, however, have been rather successful. What about a 757-100? The 757 was officially designed to be a 727 replacement. The 757-200, however, is significantly larger than the 727. The 757 was streched instead to the 757-300, which holds more passengers in a two class configuration than the 767-200. While Boeing lanuched the 737-400 later as a smaller replacement for the 727, it was designed more to be a competitor to the MD-80. Airbus had a head start on a 727 replacement, releasing the A320. Boeing then went to the drawing board to develop the 7J7, but was axed due to lack of interest from airlines because of the UDF engines. McDonnell Douglas soon developed the MD-90, which Delta was originally supposed to replace their 727s with. The MD-90 did not deliver the performance of the competition, and flopped. Boeing then finally came up with a true 727 replacement in the 737NG family, the 737-800.

Lets say, if Boeing offered a 757-100, say, in the late 1980s, could have airlines replaced their 727s earlier?

[Edited 2006-10-24 18:10:03]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineF9Animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4993 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3522 times:

Did they ever plan or talk about a 757-100? Of course it would have been successful, if it was even an idea. I think the 200 was a very successful bird.


I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6435 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3527 times:

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 1):
Did they ever plan or talk about a 757-100? Of course it would have been successful, if it was even an idea. I think the 200 was a very successful bird.

Yes, it was studied, but never lanuched.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3497 times:

Yes, I think the 738 has been very successful...  Wink


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3497 times:

It would have been all about timing. At time of introduction, the -100 was proposed, and it may have been successful as a direct 727 replacement. As we all know it evolved into the aircraft it is today. But it could have worked in the 757 line if it was introduced along with the -300 as a family.

It would have made a heck of a BBJ member though.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22723 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3396 times:

Thing is, the 751 would have had so much excess weight to carry around. I would think the 751 would have worse economics than even the 318 because you're talking about having a large enough wing for a 753 and probably 100 fewer seats.


I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6435 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3364 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 5):
Thing is, the 751 would have had so much excess weight to carry around. I would think the 751 would have worse economics than even the 318 because you're talking about having a large enough wing for a 753 and probably 100 fewer seats.

If a 757-100 were made, it would have NOT been shrinked down to A318-size. It would have been about the size of today's 737-800 and would have carried about the same number of passengers as the 727-200 and 737-800.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2011 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3364 times:

Why did Boeing make the 757 wing so large? It's turned into a great transatlantic plane for quieter international routes, but the 757 was meant to be a 727 replacement.


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineMeacedar From Lebanon, joined Oct 2006, 753 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3336 times:

To be honest, I personally don't like the 757 at all. If it was between the 727 and the 757, I would have sticked with the 727. If think the MD80/87/90 would have been the best to replace the 727.

User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2072 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3232 times:

Wasn't it the fact that launch customers BA and Eastern both favoured the larger 757-200 that stopped the 757-100 getting off the drawing board? It wouldn't have been a shrink as such as it was initially going to be the base model alongside the larger -200. Also, BA purchased the 757 to replace its Trident 3s, which were a 727 sized aircraft, so I think it shows that at the time there wasn't much interest in the -100, just as there never was in the proposed 767-100.


Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3185 times:

Quoting Meacedar (Reply 8):
To be honest, I personally don't like the 757 at all. If it was between the 727 and the 757, I would have sticked with the 727. If think the MD80/87/90 would have been the best to replace the 727.

You do understand that the 757 covers an entirely different market segment as compared to the MD-80/-90, right?



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3150 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 6):
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 5):
Thing is, the 751 would have had so much excess weight to carry around. I would think the 751 would have worse economics than even the 318 because you're talking about having a large enough wing for a 753 and probably 100 fewer seats.

If a 757-100 were made, it would have NOT been shrinked down to A318-size. It would have been about the size of today's 737-800 and would have carried about the same number of passengers as the 727-200 and 737-800.

The -100 was initially supposed to be a 150 seat version.

http://www.answers.com/topic/boeing-757

Quoting Meacedar (Reply 8):
If think the MD80/87/90 would have been the best to replace the 727.

Boeing wouldn't have agreed as the MD-80/90 series was built by a competitor then, better known as McDonnell Douglas.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3071 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 6):
It would have been about the size of today's 737-800 and would have carried about the same number of passengers as the 727-200 and 737-800.

Which is why I pointed out that the 738 has been an amazing seller, and it is effectively a 751 without the drawbacks (no weight penalty for being a shrink) but covers 95% of the 727-200 routes. And of course this is borne out by the market, as a lot of airlines replaced their 722s with 738s. Fleets may have been expanded with 757s in the 1980s, but the 738 (and A320) was the main 727-200 replacement aircraft.

The 752 was the new market model that replaced the 727 on offer from Boeing, but considering the 727-200Adv wasn't that old when the 752 came on line, the 757 wasn't going to directly replace currently flying 722Adv aircraft in most fleets. Boeing was delivering 722Adv through 1983 (mostly freighters the last year). The "optimal" 20 year replacement period for the 722Adv was the early 90s to 2002. Some 757s were used for replacement in the early 90s by airlines that had a fleet of 757s already, but they kept the 727s they could for routes that couldn't support the 757. Airlines wanted something more and less than the 757-200 and weren't going to settle for replacing all of the 722Adv for larger 757s, and they were looking to the A320 and 737 family for the answer.

Airbus seemed to recognize that Boeing was leaving a hole in the market where the 727-200Adv used to sit by upsizing to the 757-200 and not offering a 757-100. The A320 as launched could do most things the 722Adv could do (not all, as it lacked the range). But they took a long time to put it into service, in essence leaving 6 years where you couldn't buy a plane with the size/range/capability of the 722Adv from anyone. This meant that airlines who wanted a 722Adv sized aircraft with 3000 mile range had to buy the 752 whether it was ideal or not. Douglas didn't have an alternative, nor Fokker, nor anyone else. One wonders if Boeing had taken the A320 more seriously and launched the 751, how Airbus's fortunes would have changed...

The 737-800 launch fit the ex-722Adv market perfectly. It could do transcons with fuel to spare and had good takeoff performance, it had the same fuselage, number of seats, etc. It could also use the same ground equipment the 727 used (the A320 is taller and could not). The main thing the 738 couldn't do was the transatlantic runs a few operators had the 727 doing. But the 752 was certified for that when increased range and ETOPS were approved for it, and the 752 was better suited to it than the 727, so this was not a tradeoff but an upgrade for those markets. And the 738 fit the role of the 722Adv even better than the A320, especially for many USA carriers. (Please don't flame me for that. the 738 is closer in ability and design to the 722Adv than the A320. That's all I'm saying). CO, DL, AA all replaced their 727s with 738s even though they flew 757s.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2011 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2992 times:

Most European carriers replaced their 727s with A320s, as the 757 I guess was "too much plane".

As I asked earlier, Boeing in a sense crippled the 757-100 by giving it such a big wing. If all 757s had a smaller wing, the 100 would have been more competitive perhaps?



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2957 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 13):
Most European carriers replaced their 727s with A320s, as the 757 I guess was "too much plane".

Exactly. For most European routes, the 727 was not being used to it's range extent. As I said, Airbus recognized that Boeing left a hole in the market and launched the A320. For 6 years, there was nothing to fit, but then the A320 flew with AF in 1988, and for a few years, there was no choice but the A320 to replace the 727Adv. Starting then, carriers who didn't need the 727Adv range could choose the A320, and then the A321, and those who did need the 727Adv range could choose the 757. The 734 was a poor alternative as it was too limited in range and capacity. It took the 738 to win the 727Adv replacement market back for Boeing. But it was too late for many, many carriers.

To address the question: would a 751 have been successful? We'll never know, but we do know Boeing dropped the ball by not offering ANYTHING in that size class and range for over 10 years, and it gave Airbus a huge leg up in the market...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22723 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2814 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 6):

If a 757-100 were made, it would have NOT been shrinked down to A318-size. It would have been about the size of today's 737-800 and would have carried about the same number of passengers as the 727-200 and 737-800.

Right, but as I originally said the 751 would have had WORSE ECONOMICS than the 318. I never said anything about size.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2669 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 10):
Quoting Meacedar (Reply 8):
To be honest, I personally don't like the 757 at all. If it was between the 727 and the 757, I would have sticked with the 727. If think the MD80/87/90 would have been the best to replace the 727.

You do understand that the 757 covers an entirely different market segment as compared to the MD-80/-90, right?

I believe he meant that the MD-80/90 would be a better plane to replace the 727 rather than the 757.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2644 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 16):
I believe he meant that the MD-80/90 would be a better plane to replace the 727 rather than the 757.

And he would be wrong.

The MD-80/90 can't fly New York to LA or Toronto to London, as just two examples.

And yes, airlines flew the 727 on northern north america to northern europe routes.

And the 727 was designed for hot/high airports and short runways, much like the 757. The MD80/90 is not known as a hot/high/short aircraft. It was designed for over water routes (3 engines). And it flew faster than the MD80/90.

While the 727-100 seated 149, the 722 seated 189, way more than an MD80/90 of any length, but not by accident, the same max capacity of the 738...

Again, the 752 was Boeing's sales replacement for the 727 going forward from 1983, but the 738 was the plane Boeing designed to actually replace the 20+ year 722s in airline fleets.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2623 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):
Again, the 752 was Boeing's sales replacement for the 727 going forward from 1983, but the 738 was the plane Boeing designed to actually replace the 20+ year 722s in airline fleets.

Ikramerica. I agree with you on this, however the MD-90 was the plane Delta originally wanted as the replacement airplane for their 727.

That being said, with 25000 lb on each engines and a MTOW of 70 tonnes it does not seem to suffer on take-off.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineTrintocan From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 3225 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2541 times:

I distinctly remember that the 757 was touted as the 727 replacement when it was launched. An Eastern Airlines magazine carried an article which compared the 2 types and put forward that the 757 was the plane of the future (this was in 1983). The truth is that in those days aircraft developers tended to design new models with growth (ie increased size) as a major attribute; consider 707 to 747 and DC-9 to MD80. The simple replacement of a plane of given size by another model of exactly the same dimension was not widespread then.

The 757-200 thus featured longer range and greater capacity yet ability to use shorter runways than the 727. When its attributes became widely known, though, it created an entirely new segment of the airliner market which has yet to see another comparable model. The bulk of the 757s built were delivered to US carriers whose routes grew to require the larger bird over its smaller sisters.

It is true though that eventually airlines did want a direct replacement and so Airbus stepped in with the A320, the later -200 model of which matched the 727 in all aspects with the advantages of 2 engines and 2 crew. Boeing's answer was the 737-400 which was a poor rival to the A320 but still sold fairly well to loyal customers, especially those with large 737-200 and -300 fleets.

As for the 757-100, if it had been developed it may not have had much success because of the issues of greater inherent weight, reduced efficiency and the relatively young age of many 727s at the time. The larger -200, though, really set the market alight.

TrinToCan.



Hop to it, fly for life!
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2420 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
Which is why I pointed out that the 738 has been an amazing seller, and it is effectively a 751 without the drawbacks (no weight penalty for being a shrink) but covers 95% of the 727-200 routes. And of course this is borne out by the market, as a lot of airlines replaced their 722s with 738s. Fleets may have been expanded with 757s in the 1980s, but the 738 (and A320) was the main 727-200 replacement aircraft.

Just out of curiosity here, what roles can't the 738 do that the 722adv could? I am pretty sure a 738HGW has more range, is the same size, etc. You mentioned some TATL traffic that was run on 727's, but those can all be done better by the 757 or the 738 both. I guess there is the ETOPS consideration...any fly-by-night operator can cross the ocean in a 727, but you need some planning to go out and get yourself ETOPS. Still, you don't need more than ETOPS 90 or 120 for most of the eastern seaboard to northern Europe, right?



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2322 times:

Boeing did actually talk about a 757-100, but nobody wanted it. So your answer is NO...


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineMEACEDAR From Lebanon, joined Oct 2006, 753 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2255 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 10):
You do understand that the 757 covers an entirely different market segment as compared to the MD-80/-90, right?

Yes, but I meant in a airline point of view. If an airline has 727s get the MD80/87/90 instead of the 757.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2256 times:

Quoting Trintocan (Reply 19):
I distinctly remember that the 757 was touted as the 727 replacement when it was launched.

There is a BIG difference between the product a company replaces with a new product, and a product they expect customers to replace their former product with.

The 757 is the replacement MODEL for the 727 in the Boeing portfolio.

But at 757 EIS, over 1/2 of the 727's flying, and the majority of the 722Adv were less than 6 years old. With an aircraft replacement cycle of 15-20 years, nobody was going to buy the 757 as a one to one replacement for their 727s in the 1980s. 757s were bought as fleet expansion aircraft and to replace 707s and DC8s on non-intercontinental routes, while 767s were meant to replace these aircraft on inter-continental routes (and compete with longer range DC10s). Some of the older 722Adv were replaced due to the 3 man deck, but that wasn't enough to replace 10 year old aircraft before their time.

When that 722Adv replacement cycle came about in the early 90s, Boeing was left without a complete product line. The 757-200 was larger and heavier and was only a direct replacement for the longest routes, or where the 722Adv was full all the time. Airbus was offering the A320 and A321 which straddled the 722Adv size. Boeing may have been hoping airlines would just buy more 757s, but they were asking for something else, and the 738 was that response. 2000+ orders can't be wrong, considering that's 3x the number of 722s. And it took until 2003 for the last USA carrier to retire it's last 722. At that time, nobody was buying 757s, but the 738 sales were even better.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineThestooges From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2144 times:

Slightly off the topic, but it has been talked about a lot in this post.

I have never heard of a 727 crossing the Atlantic before. I had no idea it had this kind of range. Does anyone know what airlines used it and what routes they flew it on.

And whats this about a 737-800 being able to cross the atlantic as well, what exactly is a 737-800HGW, never heard of that before either. And if it can, do any carriers plan to use it on such routes like some obviously did with the 727.


25 Cubsrule : The 722 Advanced had a maximum range of about 2400 nm. There's no way that could do most transatlantic routes. And even a "normal" 738 has more range
26 Yyz717 : Up until launch, the 757 was a T-tail with wing-mounted engines. It was changed to the current configuration at launch and kept the same fuselage len
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...
Does Anybody Have Drawings Of 757-100 Or 767-100? posted Thu Jan 12 2006 21:49:54 by OyKIE
Why No Boeing 757-100? posted Sun Sep 25 2005 11:13:26 by AirworldA320
Boeing 757-100? posted Fri Jul 1 2005 14:33:38 by Goinv
Would The 707 Have Flown Without The Comet? posted Sun Mar 28 2004 19:40:50 by Spike
Was There Ever A 757-100? posted Sat Jul 19 2003 17:55:24 by Dan2002
Differnce Between 738 And 739? Why Not The 757-100 posted Mon Aug 19 2002 18:33:53 by Airmale
757-100, 767-100, 777-100 posted Tue Jan 15 2002 18:00:24 by Rj777
757-100 posted Sun Aug 19 2001 10:40:35 by Hoons90
How Sucessful Would The L1011 Have Been... posted Wed Jul 12 2000 13:01:51 by Adam84
NG Boeing 757-250ER, Would It Have Been A Succes? posted Thu May 15 2003 20:11:55 by Keesje