Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
757 Or 321 In The Future  
User currently offlineFvyfireman From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 41 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5113 times:

Do you think Boeing will reopen the 757? and do you think Airbus would consider a 321ER?

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21528 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5084 times:



Quoting Fvyfireman (Thread starter):
Do you think Boeing will reopen the 757?

Enough of this already about the 757. It can't happen. The tooling and facilities are no longer available. The 757 is retired at 1050 deliveries.

As for an A321ER, I believe Airbus would need a new wing to do it, or a modified one, but I don't see why not otherwise. They do plan some kind of A320NG in the future, and one can expect a 4000nm A321NG is on "the list" of aircraft being studied.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5084 times:

757 line isn't going to reopen. Retooling a factory for a new aircraft (or a previously discontinued one) is not an easy task. This coupled with Y1 (the 737RS) soon approaching would make the restart of 757 production unlikely.


"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
User currently offline747fan From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1187 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4974 times:

Airbus could possibly consider developing an A321ER, but it would be a hard task - especially to give it range comparable to that of the 757. It would obviously need a higher MTOW to account for the added weight of the additional fuel that it would be required to carry, not to mention an additional fuel tank(s). The current MTOW of the A321-200 is either 196K lbs. or 205K lbs. I'm no mathmatician, but it would probably at least an additional 15K lbs. of MTOW in order for it to have a range in excess of 3000nm, which would still not give it transatlantic range. In order for TATL range to be achieved, you'd probably be talking about the A321ER requiring an MTOW in the 240-250K lb. range, about like the 757-200. Obviously, to compensate for the much added weight, Airbus wouldn't be able to use the current A321 engines (IAE V-2530, V-2533, CFM56-5B1, CFM56-5B2, CFM56-5B3). The highest thrust available from the current engines is 33K lb. by the V-2533, so you're talking requiring engines with nearly 40K lb. of thrust, like the 757. Not one of engines in the V-2500 or CFM56 series meets this thrust requirement, so you'd be talking about the development of a new engine or possibly using the PW2000/RB211-535E4 that are currently used on the 757.
To sum it up, Airbus could probably theoretically develop an A321ER with a range of at least 3000nm, but I don't really see it happening. That's my  twocents 


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4795 times:

The 757 is done, this thread should compare the 737-900ER and A321, the 739 is basically the replacement of the 757, so you should compare those two.

User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4727 times:

The B739 killed the B757.
But the A321 still is in production.With more B757s converting to freighters,soon the A321 frieghter when produced will be a good alternative.

regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4629 times:

With the vast majority of routes - just about anything but transatlantic and some transcontinental US routes - being served by B757s fully within the capabilities of the A321, I don't see why Airbus should spend money on such a development - or why Boeing should pour money into reopening a line that they cannot reopen without cost that'll probably be close to building a completely new frame... especially, since they've got the B739ER.


Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlinePavlovsDog From Norway, joined Sep 2005, 658 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4547 times:

I imagine that if Airbus were to redo the 321 that they'd come out with a 322 as well. If you're going to make a new wing and new engines you'd might as well make a little family. A new 321/322 could very well have the lowest CASM and be useful for a wide variety of routes if they got good enough performance. I can see if covering both high-density medium haul as well as thin routes up to 9/10,000 km if the performance figures for the 787 and 350 with their light frames and thrity engines can be translated downwards one size.

User currently offlinePlunaCRJ From Uruguay, joined Nov 2007, 574 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4488 times:

An A321ER would make an excellent airplane, but with Airbus and Boeing both studying the replacement of their respective aircraft families in this category, I doubt it will happen.

And wouldn´t a A322 be a bit overstretched? It would be the A340-600 of the A320 family.


User currently offlinePavlovsDog From Norway, joined Sep 2005, 658 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4332 times:



Quoting PlunaCRJ (Reply 8):
And wouldn´t a A322 be a bit overstretched? It would be the A340-600 of the A320 family.

As it is the 321 is 3 meters shorter than the 757-200 and 10 meters shorter than the 757-300. A 322 is mere speculation on my part but we do know that the 753 has a very low CASM. That's impressive for a machine where basically the engines are close to 35 years old and the fuselage 25!


User currently offlineBoeing74741R From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2007, 1164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4306 times:

Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 9):
That's impressive for a machine where basically the engines are close to 35 years old and the fuselage 25!

And the engines are very efficient as well.

In my eyes the 757 it's one of the best planes Boeing has ever built.

[Edited 2007-12-01 07:52:48]

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21528 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4246 times:



Quoting PlunaCRJ (Reply 8):
And wouldn´t a A322 be a bit overstretched? It would be the A340-600 of the A320 family.

Actually, a 249 seat (max one class) A322 with 3200nm range would be a very good aircraft. Turn times maybe a bit slower than desired, but still better than the 757-300 in that regard. The length would be somewhere between the 752 and 753.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineGilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3021 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4192 times:

An A321-ER, is unlikely and will be pushing the A32X frame to the limit. Which they have more or less done with the current A321.

Airbus has already stretched the range of the aircraft when they launched the A321-200 over the 100 series for US Airways and Air Canada, which allowed them to operate East-West flights across the USA.

Even though the A321-200 is a very capable aircraft and 97% of the time has no issues flying Trans-Con flights in the US. This does impose restriction on the aircraft and has been pointed out before it usually can only cruise to about 15-20,000ft after take off on these long flights and not until some of the fuel is burnt can it make its way up 33,000ft+ and like any aircraft will not operate at its optimum until at this sort of height. Also when the aircraft is full loaded and on a hot day, it will struggle even on the longest of runways.

A321 is supposed to be just an extended A320 and share almost all components of this aircraft.

If a longer range A321 aircraft was to be launched it would need a new wing, landing gear and greater ground clearance for the larger engines required. In effect being a totally different aircraft.

But on the other hand the A340-500/600 had brand new wings and landing gears over its predecessor and remained the ame aircraft type.

Even though the A321 and 737-900 have sold well, they have not sold as well as the A319/A320 and 737-700/800, so I think Airbus would want to be guaranteed of a substantial order before investing in any such model.


User currently offlinePlunaCRJ From Uruguay, joined Nov 2007, 574 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4135 times:

The 737-900 didn´t use to sell because it lacked an additional emergency exit, which limited the passenger load to about the same as the 737-800.

In the 737-900ER, the additional emergency exit was placed, and the airplane is starting to see some success. O f course it won´t be as successful as it´s smaller siblings, but it could still win quite a few orders.

The A321, although not as successful as the A320/A319, has got many orders.

These kind of airplanes are just waiting for a giant order from AA, DL, UA and European charter airlines to reach their full potential. Don´t forget that what is wanted here is to replace the 757.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4099 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 5):
The B739 killed the B757.

I think that's a little flattering for the -900.

The -900 sold a paltry total of 52 frames in 6 years. It wasn't until Boeing launched the -900ER that sales picked up somewhat (currently sitting at 169).

The A321 has built up a steady sales number over a longer period, and indeed overlapped with the 757 for some time. Sales currently sit at 650+.

Now, while neither the A321 nor 739(ER) can do all the missions a 757 can, they can do something like 80-85% of them. More importantly, they can do that 80-85% with significantly lower fuel burn. So, unless an airline absolutely needs that top 15% of missions that only a 757 can do, an A321 or 739 is really a better choice. This is one of the reasons quite a few European charter airlines have replaced 757s with A321s.

In the end, there weren't enough airlines that needed that top 15% of 757 performance to keep the line open. With over 1,000 sales, it's difficult to view the 757 as anything other than a great success, but one whose time was eventually over.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21528 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4067 times:



Quoting PlunaCRJ (Reply 13):
The 737-900 didn´t use to sell because it lacked an additional emergency exit, which limited the passenger load to about the same as the 737-800.

only in high density one class. in two class in service, it holds about 17 more pax, which isn't that much of a difference (10%) over the 738, and doesn't come close to the 189 seat limit of either plane. The 739ER addresses that small difference a bit with 3-6 more seats based on the revised rear of the cabin.

the real problem was actually one of performance. the 739 didn't have the legs airlines needed when compared to the 738. the 739ER modifications fix that, even without extra fuel tanks. And even using only one extra tank, the range is greatly increased while cargo space is still similar to the 738. Because cargo isn't that important on short and even medium haul flights for many airlines, it's not a bad sacrifice.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
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...
Could IND No Longer Be An LCC Haven In The Future? posted Sat Nov 24 2007 12:00:14 by FWAERJ
BKK, HKG, And/or SIN In Delta's Future? 777LR's? posted Thu Apr 19 2007 18:07:32 by Rwy04LGA
NW 757 Getting Tossed In The Wind Like A Kite posted Thu Dec 14 2006 21:36:34 by Airportopz
US/DL Merger: Remember This In The Future posted Thu Nov 16 2006 20:35:10 by Wingspan
Report: AZ Deal With AF Or CA In The Works. posted Sun Oct 29 2006 17:08:35 by Nycfly75
Kalitta Air - Any Plans For 744F's In The Future? posted Sat Sep 30 2006 23:16:03 by Maiznblu_757
SoCA Airports To Be Slot Controlled In The Future? posted Thu Jun 15 2006 21:30:00 by PanAm747
PHL To ANC On US In The Future? posted Mon May 29 2006 05:58:39 by Jdwfloyd
London Ashford LCC Airport In The Future posted Mon May 15 2006 16:12:32 by Ba757gla
TUI : The Biggest European LCC In The Future? posted Fri Apr 28 2006 12:40:27 by FCKC