Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Cutbacks: Nobody Is Grounding 757s?  
User currently offlineCandid76 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 743 posts, RR: 4
Posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 8314 times:

Given how just about every major airline in North America (and increasingly elsewhere as well) seems to be announcing service cuts and aircraft retirements, I can't help but notice how few of these grounded aircraft are 757s.

Most US Legacy carriers operate 757s, some of which are quite old now, but off the top of my head only NW intends to ground any, even then only a handful.

My question (mainly for our US guys) is this - what is so special about the 757 that makes it seem very resistant to these cutbacks? Especially when you consider that cargo operators are desperate for them, hence the airlines could probably sell them more easily (and for a better price) than, say, 737 classics which look set to flood the market.

I sometimes wonder if they should still be building them!

47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8770 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 8159 times:

This is a good question.

The answer seems to be multiple. There will be 757 retirements. But after you winglet a 757, it becomes an excellent craft for several tasks in the USA:

(1) Trans-con flying over 2200 miles; perfect operations with full loads
(2) Latin American flying like Bogota or Lima to USA; (including harsh altitude or conditions);
(3) European ETOPS and Hawaiian as well from mainland USA;

Although the 757 is quite wasteful in short-range flying relative to say a 738 or 739ER, most airlines take advantage of some of the 757's unique performance. UA uses the 757 to Hawaii, probably Vail Colorado, and other things.

Long story short, the 757 fleets are very large and quite new. DL and AA combined have some 200 757s. This is not trivial to replace. The A321 would not attract them. The only viable replacement for many of them is the 739ER. This is a brand new airplane from 2007. DL and AA cannot afford to buy 50x 739ER each just to replace some 757s at this moment, even though they might like to. AA, in particular might like 100 739ERs right now, and dump many 757s.

DL, AA, NW are waiting for the next narrowbody to replace their 757s. Meanwhile, CO has largely replaced domestic 757 flying with 739 / 739ER to all extents possible. Also, US has retired some 757s, ordered A321s and probably will retire more old 757s.

Even in the deep future, there is no narrowbody yet envisioned that can match the 757's high altitude, ETOPS and 2500-4000 mile range set of skills. The USA is in a unique position to desperately need some of these skills, at least for certain missions.


User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6789 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 7862 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 1):
The only viable replacement for many of them is the 739ER.

Sort of.. the 739ER doesn't really have the range as the 757.. it does have the capacity but there just isn't an aircraft in service to date that has the power, range, and versatility as the 757.. no boeing product or airbus product can duplicate it as of yet.. which is, in my opinion, why there isn't a huge rush to replace these aircraft.

US is replacing some of theres, but not the ones they use for these special needs.. they are mostly replacing them for the domesticate market.. which the 321 can do for the most part.. but if it came to a pissing match.. the 757 would literally burn the paint off any other aircraft that attempts to be in the same class as it..

Number-wise:

752 (215 pax ave, 9550 ft takeoff, 3900nm/4100nm wingletted, 40,000 ave thrust)
739ER (200 pax ave, 8181 ft takeoff, 2950 nm ave, 27300 thrust)
321 (202 pax ave, 7152 ft takeoff, 3000 nm ave, 33000 thrust)

pax ave = average between standard and high density, single vs dual class
nm ave = average between different versions...



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7788 times:



Quoting Candid76 (Thread starter):
Most US Legacy carriers operate 757s, some of which are quite old now, but off the top of my head only NW intends to ground any, even then only a handful.

they arent as ols as you think. While the 757 came out in like 1983, they were poor sellers until AA and UA made a huge order in 1988, for delivery in the 1990s....EA's went to US and HP..NW took the 757 in 1985 along with RC..but the 757 wasnt a success until the mid 1990s.


It is also one of the most fuel efficient planes in the sky on a per saea basis


User currently offlineCFMitch56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7718 times:

Can anyone give an estimate of the difference in fuel burn or operating cost between an old 752 and a newer 752? An EA one vs. a CO one, for example.

User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7718 times:



Quoting CFMitch56 (Reply 4):
Can anyone give an estimate of the difference in fuel burn or operating cost between an old 752 and a newer 752? An EA one vs. a CO one, for example.

how about PW versus RR?


User currently offlineRbgso From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7661 times:



Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 2):
752 (215 pax ave, 9550 ft takeoff, 3900nm/4100nm wingletted, 40,000 ave thrust)

A fully loaded 752 needs almost 10,000 feet of runway to take off? Is this accurate?


User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6789 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 7651 times:



Quoting Rbgso (Reply 6):
A fully loaded 752 needs almost 10,000 feet of runway to take off? Is this accurate?

No.. just going by the wiki numbers.. I've seen a fully loaded 752 take off at ~6000ft of runway



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 7550 times:



Quoting Rbgso (Reply 6):
A fully loaded 752 needs almost 10,000 feet of runway to take off? Is this accurate?

not with those engines..757 has one of the highest thrust/weight raios


User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5841 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 7542 times:



Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 7):
I've seen a fully loaded 752 take off at ~6000ft of runway

Varies widely depending on the MTOW, the engines, the temperature, and the altitude.

Two examples:

At sea level with RR -535E4B engines, you're not far off -- it needs about 6500 feet.

At 8000 feet with -C engines, you lose 12t of payload and you need over 10,000 feet.

See the documentation.


User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7564 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 7533 times:

NW is storing a few 752's for the winter.


"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offlineEghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 7366 times:



Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 7):
I've seen a fully loaded 752 take off at ~6000ft of runway

Delta and American have been flying 757's out of LGA for years. United has been flying them out of SNA for years.


User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 7241 times:

DL has/is dropping 5-6 752s. NW is storing a few but they should be back in the high season.


yep.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20352 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 7208 times:



Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 2):
Sort of.. the 739ER doesn't really have the range as the 757.. it does have the capacity but there just isn't an aircraft in service to date that has the power, range, and versatility as the 757.. no boeing product or airbus product can duplicate it as of yet.. which is, in my opinion, why there isn't a huge rush to replace these aircraft.

Which I think is why Boeing's 737RS is also going to be a 757RS. These A/C are just too useful for transcon flights, transatlantic flights, and shorter pacific flights to not have a replacement.

Also, although it's not a NG high-tech airliner, you have to remember that the 757 was a response to the 70's energy crisis, which is a crisis similar to what we are having now. It is a modern, fuel-efficient airliner, especially at the extremes of its performance. The 739ER is a great plane... but it ain't no 752.


User currently offlineTK787 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4475 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 7166 times:

I have been on DL's transcons to SEA many times, but looking at some schedules later this year, I see them being replaced by 738s. I must have missed something, but why is that? Do they have PTVs a la Song?

User currently offlineEghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 7130 times:



Quoting TK787 (Reply 14):
I have been on DL's transcons to SEA many times, but looking at some schedules later this year, I see them being replaced by 738s. I must have missed something, but why is that? Do they have PTVs a la Song?

I flew Delta SAN--JFK in January with 757 going and 738 return. Both aircraft had PTVs.

I am sure that someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the PTVs are being added at the same time the plane is painted with the new red diamond logo. So if the plane has the new look, it should have PTVs. If it still has the wavy-gravy tail, it should not.

The B738 I flew JFK-SAN on also had winglets. I think this might has been added the same time as the new paint and PTVs.


User currently offlineMarkC From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 7090 times:



Quoting CFMitch56 (Reply 4):
Can anyone give an estimate of the difference in fuel burn or operating cost between an old 752 and a newer 752? An EA one vs. a CO one, for example.

The original 2000 engines did not have Fan Exit Guide Vanes. They were later added in a performance improvement package. There was also a fairly significant compressor improvement in the early 90's. I believe the burn difference between a 1986 build 2000 and a 1996 build 2000 was about 4 or 5%. Of course, some of the older ones were modified to the latest standard.

I have no idea if there were airframe improvements.


User currently offlineImapilotaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 6993 times:



Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 2):
Number-wise:

752 (215 pax ave, 9550 ft takeoff, 3900nm/4100nm wingletted, 40,000 ave thrust)
739ER (200 pax ave, 8181 ft takeoff, 2950 nm ave, 27300 thrust)
321 (202 pax ave, 7152 ft takeoff, 3000 nm ave, 33000 thrust)

I interviewed for a strategic planning position with US back 3 years ago (right at time of merger) and they showed me their CASM, Cost per BH, etc for the A321, 757, 737 & A320 to do some ad hoc comparison of the aircraft on the spot, and for the average stage lengths that US was using the 757s/A321s on (Hawaii hadnt started yet), the A321 was literally 25% cheaper to operate than the 757. It was amazingly surpising, but their 757s are older and cost much more Mx wise than the 321s.

Granted those numbers dont tell the whole story now that they fly 757s TATL and to Hawaii, but it was a very telling reason why US was happier with the A321s.


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8505 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 6961 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hawaii needs the 757 as does the transcontinental routes from CLT and PHL.

User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5841 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 6837 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 18):
as does the transcontinental routes from CLT and PHL.

CLT, not really. Nothing in the West is a challenge for a new A321 from CLT.

Even from PHL, only SFO is really borderline, and that only in bad winter conditions.

But put runway performance into the mix and things change.

US will never be able to use an A321 on DCA-PHX or DCA-LAS.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week ago) and read 6761 times:



Quoting Candid76 (Thread starter):
My question (mainly for our US guys) is this - what is so special about the 757 that makes it seem very resistant to these cutbacks?

No real replacement available, plus the majority of them are still in the prime of life and quite efficient.

Quoting Candid76 (Thread starter):
I sometimes wonder if they should still be building them!

If they were building them now they'd probably sell, but at the time they shut the line down nobody wanted to buy.

Quoting CFMitch56 (Reply 4):
Can anyone give an estimate of the difference in fuel burn or operating cost between an old 752 and a newer 752?

Provided you've got a current engine, it should be very close. There weren't a huge number of aero or weight changes to the 757 over its life. The winglet is probably good for 3-5% if you've got it fitted (on a longer range flight).

Tom.


User currently offlineDTWAGENT From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1283 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week ago) and read 6664 times:

I like the B757 better then the A321. To me it seemed like their was more room on the B757 then on the A321. However, I flew on both of these aircraft with US. DTW/PIT/SAN. Back when PIT was a good place to change planes at.

Chuck


User currently offlineDC8FanJet From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6201 times:

757 simply outperforms anything in the size class. While the A321 is better on shorter flights as it is lighter, the 757 has the shortfield performance and longer range. (the 737-900 does better on short flights for the same reason.)

UA flys the 757 trans-con, to Hawaii, and ORD-ANC with extremely heavy loads, without
restrictions. I've never seen the 757 weight restricted.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7719 posts, RR: 21
Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6149 times:



Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 2):
Quoting Flighty (Reply 1):
The only viable replacement for many of them is the 739ER.

Sort of.. the 739ER doesn't really have the range as the 757.. it does have the capacity but there just isn't an aircraft in service to date that has the power, range, and versatility as the 757.. no boeing product or airbus product can duplicate it as of yet

.....which is precisely what he in fact said, if you read the whole post -

Quoting Flighty (Reply 1):
there is no narrowbody yet envisioned that can match the 757's high altitude, ETOPS and 2500-4000 mile range set of skills



Quoting Flighty (Reply 1):
most airlines take advantage of some of the 757's unique performance

The whole point of his excellent post was indeed to point out that, with the proviso that SOME could be shed, the 757 is unique and fills a niche for many who use it.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5067 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5901 times:

And lets not forget, any 757s that are withdrawn from use may find a home as a freighter, as FedEx and UPS are really getting into the 757. It is going to be as popular as a freighter as it is for passenger.

the ones that USAir is going to ground might be the really old ones. US & NW have some from the first few dozen off the line, back in 1984-85, that are probably getting close to max hours.

Which leads me to this: if the 757 is so popular as it seems to be, then why did Boeing pull the plug on production? Couldn't they have sold more of them, or even built a factory freighter version? Seems to me that you would not want to end production on a product that is so versatile and popular.



Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
25 Wdleiser : how fuel efficient would a 757 be with some GenX engines from GE? And how come Boeing won't slap on more efficient engines (GenEx) if the efficiency w
26 Tdscanuck : The GEnX is far too large to be fitted to a 757 economically. However, you could design a 757-sized engine using GEnX technology and probably get som
27 Platinumfoota : You'd be surprised on how much a 757 can hold in cargo. Just one example, UA's LAX-GUA flight (which is soon ending ) on a daily basis has 240+ bags i
28 Farzan : I always wondered why only 757's are used for pax flights into Lhasa. So does that mean that 757's has some unique performance advantage operating on
29 DeltaL1011man : more around 300. then add in NW (soon to be Delta) you get 350ish Ok 28 738s have Winglets/PTV/AVOD. 27 of them are in the wavy gray. 1 is in the new
30 PanAm747 : It has been mentioned here at a.net in past threads that the thrust-to-weight ratio of most 757's (someone will have to fill in the specific engine t
31 Captaink : Because the 757s new found use ie. transatlantic, occurred around the time Boeing decided to pull the plug. Back when the 757 was still in production
32 TSS : The 757 is popular and much-sought-after on the used market now. At the time it was discontinued, it wasn't selling well at all and hadn't been selli
33 Yyz717 : A strong used 752 market now is still not an indicator that new 752 orders could have been forthcoming had Boeing kept the 757 line open.
34 Hypersonic : Reading all these positive comments lauding the superb 757. Do you all think then that Boeing was a tad 'premature' in retiring the aircraft as a prod
35 Hypersonic : Reading all these positive comments lauding the superb 757. Do you all think then that Boeing was a tad 'premature' in retiring the aircraft as a prod
36 N31029 : Hi Everyone. The B757 is indeed a remarkable aircraft. From an enthusiast's point of view, I am sure I am not alone when I say it is - by far - the mo
37 Dispatchguy : Concurred When I dispatched at HP, my favorite was a B757 coming off of DCA. We could be fighting some severe westbound headwinds DCAPHX on a 57 (lik
38 SeaBosDca : To add to what others have said... ...when most of the 757s were sold, in the late '80s and mid-'90s, there was no alternative. The A321 was availabl
39 PSU.DTW.SCE : The 757's sales really took, when US domestic carriers got serious about replacing 727's on domestic routes that needed additional capacity, and down
40 Tdscanuck : In hindsight, probably yes. But there way no way to have known that at the time, so you can't really fault their decision too much. Keeping an aircra
41 Cloudy : How does the 757-300 compare to the 767 and A300/10, in economic terms?
42 Flighty : Delta may be using the 738 because it stacks up to the JetBlue A320 much better than a 757. The 757, against the A320, burns way more gas for not muc
43 Rbgso : Agreed. The 757 is the most beautiful aircraft around, IMHO. Her sleek lines, no-nonsense nose, the "don't mess with me" eyebrow area are especially
44 Vfw614 : That sums it up very nicely. The excellent characteristics of the B757 come at a price and are only needed under exceptional circumstances, or as som
45 Wjcandee : There was a common wisdom that a narrowbody would not be acceptable to pax TATL. This turned out to be wrong, and opened up new opportunities for the
46 ThreeIfByAir : From previous A.net 757 engine discussions, I seem to recall that the PW2000 series was more fuel efficient, but the early models had some reliabilit
47 DeltaL1011man : No I think the the 757-300 Told Boeing it was over. Wasn't There going to be a 757-200ER? Agreed I'm just happy DL is getting the 753s in the NW merg
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...
US Airways CEO Is DUI Suspect posted Fri Feb 9 2007 14:50:27 by Positiverate
% Of Total US Air Travel Is Business/First posted Fri Nov 17 2006 04:49:23 by Gpeso8
US To Add Winglets To 757s posted Sun Aug 27 2006 02:21:22 by Mu2
US/HP: Coke Is It. posted Thu Apr 20 2006 23:12:29 by N801NW
US/HP PHX To HNL 757s posted Thu Dec 8 2005 08:43:09 by Boeing 747-311
MDA Now Officially Part Of US... Mainline That Is posted Thu Aug 18 2005 23:52:21 by SonOfACaptain
HP+US Merger Etc.-is Vendor Financing A Good Idea? posted Tue May 24 2005 01:36:35 by WGW2707
"Nobody Is Raising Their Hands For The 7E7" posted Thu Feb 26 2004 11:31:03 by KEESJE
US Airways Color Is Blue! posted Sat Dec 13 2003 03:35:51 by Kearnet
The US Big 4: United Is Pro-Consolidation, Still posted Tue Nov 4 2003 23:24:51 by UA744Flagship