Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
757: Stronger Than Most?...What Can Replace It?  
User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 24962 times:

It's my favorite aircraft of all time. It's versatile, powerful, elegant and serves a variety of purposes. I'm convinced if it had slightly less thirsty engines, it would be un-equalled as a passenger jet.

However, some are ageing, but we never hear of any going to the scrap yard. What is the useful life of a 757? Why are there 777's and 320's be scrapped while 757's have been flying a great deal longer?

Another question to ponder is what will replace the 757? It's a staple among AA, US, CO, DL, UA and many others. When they are not flying duties across the Atlantic, they fill in quite nicely on more dense domestic flights. A quick easy answer would be the 739 but it doesn't have the hot and heavy power, nor the ability to go across the Atlantic. The 321is in the same boat.

[Edited 2008-07-21 08:33:26]


757: The last of the best
170 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7308 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 24910 times:

The more efficient airplanes get, the smaller the operational envelope the aircraft has. Conversely, the 757 is an oddball. The engines have more thrust than it really needs. That extra thrust means it can use short runways. It means it can fly a lot further (transatlantic) with extra tanks. It's kind of like the Dash-7 of the jet world.

Here's an amazing irony. Because the 757 is inefficient it isn't getting retired as a result of high fuel costs. That appears not to make sense, but the reality is that nearly all aircraft are designed with barely enough capability to perform their primary mission. They aren't carrying around oversized engines because the extra weight makes the airplane burn more fuel. Virtually every aircraft is designed like that. Because it has these capabilities there are many missions that only it can perform. The alternative is a 767 or an A330 which cost a lot more to operate, but probably have too many seats for the need.

The A321 is super efficient, but you don't hear about 757s making fuel stops when the jetstream is strong do you? The A321 can barely make it across the United States.

What's really a problem, is that there is no aircraft that can replace it. There is definitely room for a high performance aircraft in somebody's product line.


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5872 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 24881 times:

While I also like the 757, I think I can answer some of your questions:

Quoting Manfredj (Thread starter):
I'm convinced if it had slightly less thirsty engines,

The 757, and in particular the -300, is the most fuel-efficient narrowbody in the sky. If it burned less, sure, it would be nice... hence the winglet modification! But still, even the 737-900 can't match both capability AND fuel burn of the 757s. Yeah, it carries almost as many passengers on less fuel, but it doesn't have the range or underbelly capacity that the 757 does.

Quoting Manfredj (Thread starter):
but we never hear of any going to the scrap yard.

Yes, actually, several have... MyTravel has already broken up a 757-225, line #18 or 25, I think.

Quoting Manfredj (Thread starter):
and 320's be scrapped

A320s were designed with a very short shelf-life, which is what originally led to them being labelled 'plastic airplanes'. Northwest has had to scrap them as they time out. Currently, Airbus is working on a 'life-extension' plan that will enable you to recertificate (cough cough, money) the frame for more hours and cycles. Granted, you could have bought a 737 or 757 and had that capability built-in from the get go, but then in fairness, you'd have had to pay a bit more.


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1596 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 24797 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
A320s were designed with a very short shelf-life, which is what originally led to them being labelled 'plastic airplanes'. Northwest has had to scrap them as they time out.

Can you prove that, i just don't believe this.? While their cycle isn't that high as other planes their label plastic planes did come from the high CFRP percentage compared to other planes of that time. Besides Northwest did scrap them because it was cheaper to rip the spare parts out of them then repair it.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
Granted, you could have bought a 737 or 757 and had that capability built-in from the get go

Yes but you wouldn't get any capabilities which did make the A320 so popular, so there must be something where it is superior to the 737/757...  Yeah sure



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7308 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 24769 times:



Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 3):
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
A320s were designed with a very short shelf-life, which is what originally led to them being labelled 'plastic airplanes'.

Can you prove that, i just don't believe this.?

I don't know where I saw it, but I've seen that as well. The A320 family was only designed as a 20 year airplane. The Boeing and MD aircraft were designed with a virtually unlimited lifespan. Having said that, the new Boeing aircraft are built from the same materials, so it isn't an attack of Airbus as much as just a change in the way planes are built. As airplanes have become lighter and more efficient it is not surprising that the useful life would decline.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 24763 times:

There is a huge demand for B752 Freighters worldwide.
So not many would be going to the scrapyard until needed.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 24744 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Thread starter):
Why are there 777's and 320's be scrapped while 757's have been flying a great deal longer?

To date, only two 777s have been scrapped. MSN 27109 (ex-Varig) was scrapped because it was worth more as spares. MSN 30314 (crashed at LHR) is beyond economical repair (worth more as spares also).

Many 757s have been scrapped already:

22200 757-225 My Travel Airways G-MCEA - Scrapped
23118 757-2G5 Volar Airlines EC-HQV - Scrapped
23452 757-2M6 Royal Brunei Airlines 08/04/1986 V8-RBA - Scrapped
23618 757-251 Northwest Airlines 03/02/1987 N524US - Scrapped


User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7308 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 24745 times:



Quoting Enilria (Reply 4):

I don't know where I saw it, but I've seen that as well.

BTW, I understand that is the reason why nobody has put Airbus airplanes on intra-Hawaii which is extremely hard on airframes.


User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 24585 times:



Quoting Enilria (Reply 1):
Here's an amazing irony. Because the 757 is inefficient it isn't getting retired as a result of high fuel costs. That appears not to make sense, but the reality is that nearly all aircraft are designed with barely enough capability to perform their primary mission. They aren't carrying around oversized engines because the extra weight makes the airplane burn more fuel.

Awesome! Great stuff. It certainly goes to prove that we are NOT always moving in the right direction when it comes to efficiency/environmental changes. The 757 proves a theory that something built to last, may have LESS environmental impact than its "superiors."

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
But still, even the 737-900 can't match both capability AND fuel burn of the 757s.

Although I don't WANT to disagree with you, you may catch a lot of flack from others unless you can substantiate this claim.



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineTISTPAA727 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 330 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 24550 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 3):
Yes but you wouldn't get any capabilities which did make the A320 so popular, so there must be something where it is superior to the 737/757... Yeah sure

Your sarcasm isn't needed.

It's all dependent upon the mission the airline wants to fly each aircraft. There are missions the A320 series are much better suited and why thousands have been delivered. There are missions the 737 series is better suited and why thousands have been delivered. The 757 is hardly matched by either frame. Sure, the 320s and 737s have their similarities to the 757 but as an overall aircraft, I think it is hard to argue there is a true replacement. Same goes for the A300, regardless of AA tech issues that no one else seems to run into to.



Don't sweat the little things.
User currently offlinePlanefxr From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 24469 times:

You could argue the 737-700 has some of the performance characteristics of the 757, however you are reducing pax capacity by approximately 50. DL is doing just that with the 10 73W's that they will be taking delivery of. They will free up some 757's on thinner routes where the capacity is not needed but the performance is required. If the 757 were still available today there would be plenty of orders for it.

User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5588 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 24326 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
A320s were designed with a very short shelf-life, which is what originally led to them being labelled 'plastic airplanes'.

Not this myth again... it seems to pop up every time someone wants a reason to bash Airbus.

1) The NW A320s that were scrapped were not scrapped because they timed out, but because NW rejected them in Chapter 11 and the lessor decided they were worth more as spares.
2) Few A320-200s have been scrapped; the number is in line with other airframes of similar age. I don't know of any A319s or A321s to be scrapped yet, although I'm sure there must be one or two here or there.
3) Airbus is currently working on a program to extend the service life of the A320 to 150,000 hours... hardly "short."

The A320 series has efficiency advantages over the 737NG on short- to medium-length missions, and carries more cargo. For a long time, it was also cheaper to buy, although it appears the continued weakness of the dollar has changed that for now. Conversely, the 737NG is better on the very shortest missions (thanks to its lighter weight) and has slightly better performance for the very longest missions. The two airframes are competitive enough with each other that financing is going to be the biggest differentiator for most customers.

As for the 757 replacement, a high-performance airplane bigger than the 717-200 or 737-700 is definitely needed... but it won't appear for awhile. There is probably a need for only about 300 large, high-performance narrowbodies in the world. The newest 300 or so 757s are not that old yet and will fill this need for quite a few years, as the older ones increasingly get retired or converted to freighters.

I think that *eventually* we'll see a variant of a next-generation narrowbody by one manufacturer that has similar performance. I expect it to come from attaching wings and engines of the largest variant (which I would expect to hold about 240 single-class pax) to the fuselage of a smaller ~195-pax variant. It won't have 43k engines but it will be lighter and have more effective wings than the 757-200, so it should be able to pull all the same nifty field-performance tricks.


User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 24078 times:

Not all that many B757s are being used to the full extent of their capabilities - which is probably why we won't be seeing a direct replacement for a long time yet: there's no real need for it.

Quoting Enilria (Reply 4):
The Boeing and MD aircraft were designed with a virtually unlimited lifespan.

Whoever wrote that was making things up. Neither Boeing nor MD aircraft were designed with anything resembling a "virtually unlimited lifespan".

Quoting Enilria (Reply 7):
BTW, I understand that is the reason why nobody has put Airbus airplanes on intra-Hawaii which is extremely hard on airframes.

The fact that west-coast to Hawaii runs get close to the A320-family's range is probably more of a reason than that: of the members of the family, the A321 is the one that has the capacity that most airlines seem to want/need for Hawaii runs, but depending on the engines, the A321 is listed with a range of 2300nm on Airbus' website: LAX-HNL is 2221nm, SFO-HNL is 2084nm. With nothing but water to land on, I think most airlines would tend to send their A321s elsewhere.

It's one thing if you put in an extra landing in DEN on the way from JFK to LAX...

And so far, most airlines flying the route have their B757s available for the route...  Wink



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5872 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 24041 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 8):
Although I don't WANT to disagree with you, you may catch a lot of flack from others unless you can substantiate this claim.

I don't have to substantiate something that Boeing and Continental Airlines have stated, thank you.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 3):
Can you prove that, i just don't believe this.? While their cycle isn't that high as other planes their label plastic planes did come from the high CFRP percentage compared to other planes of that time. Besides Northwest did scrap them because it was cheaper to rip the spare parts out of them then repair it.

In order, "Yes," "Valid point," and "You're wrong."

NW scrapped them because they timed out, or cycled out. The DC-9s are still flying beyond 100,000 hours, in an unrelated (though entirely related) note.

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 3):
Yes but you wouldn't get any capabilities which did make the A320 so popular

The A320 is popular for a variety of reasons. It's designed for a different mission than that of the 757, just as the 737 is.
The A320 flew further and on less fuel than the 737-3/4/5 which were available at the time. But you will NEVER see an A321 doing FRA-JFK, as the 757 can. I mean, we're comparing apples to broccoli here.

Quoting Enilria (Reply 7):
BTW, I understand that is the reason why nobody has put Airbus airplanes on intra-Hawaii which is extremely hard on airframes.

Yes, and it's also why the 737NG doesn't work well, because the CFM-56 does NOT like short hop flights like a JT8D did or BR715 does.

Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 11):
Not this myth again...

They cycled out.
If I was wrong, Airbus wouldn't have talked about a "life extension plan" at FAB this year, would they?
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...d-service-life-of-a320-family.html

I was quite meticulous to not bash Airbus in my post. I am factually correct- deal with it.


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5872 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 23992 times:

P.S.

In the article I linked to, you'll note that the A320 is currently only certified to 60,000 hours.
This answers the

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 3):
Can you prove that



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 11):
Not this myth again...

crowd quite nicely.

And, for what it's worth, SeaBosDca, they're targeting 180,000, not 150,000 as you say. 30,000 hours is quite significant, considering it's 50% of the original limit!

Finally, the article I cited was published in January, not at Farnborough. But for some reason, I want to say that it was brought up at Farnborough this year... Have to dig on that one.


User currently offlinePlanefxr From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 23521 times:

[quote=AA737-823,reply=13]They cycled out.
If I was wrong, Airbus wouldn't have talked about a "life extension plan" at FAB this year, would they?
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...d-service-life-of-a320-family.html

Had Airbus used cycle limits instead of hours initially then this would be insignificant. Cycles is more indicative of a frames useful life.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...d-service-life-of-a320-family.html

"When we launched the A320 we planned for a 25-year design service goal based on an assumption that each cycle would be 1.25h," says Antoine Vieillard, vice-president A320 family customer services. "Today the actual average flight duration for the fleet is 1.82h - we are doing many more flight hours than we had originally expected."


"For the ISG, we trade cycles for hours, switching from 48,000 cycles/60,000h to 37,500 cycles/80,000h," says Vieillard. "There is nothing in particular required to achieve this extension, other than one inspection of the trimmable horizontal stabiliser."


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5872 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 22242 times:



Quoting Planefxr (Reply 15):
"For the ISG, we trade cycles for hours, switching from 48,000 cycles/60,000h to 37,500 cycles/80,000h," says Vieillard.

Then that makes the picture even WORSE for the A320, as Northwest's 40-year-old DC-9s have way more than both of those numbers.
And that technology, as Airbus likes to point out, is more than 40 years old.

But all of that is irrelevant, as this thread was, in fact, about what can replace the 757.

And the answer, regardless of what manufacturer anyone mentions, is "nothing."

Nothing currently in production, or even on the horizon of production, can match what the 757 does.
Granted, it's got more capability than most carriers utilize, but we're watching that change, as now ALL of the US carriers that operate the type are doing transatlantic hops (DL, NW, US, AA.... oh wait, United doesn't. Okay, I correct myself). Anyhow, all but one, and now even the European (well, British) carriers are starting to, with L'Avion and Open Skies.


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 21760 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 16):
Nothing currently in production, or even on the horizon of production, can match what the 757 does.
Granted, it's got more capability than most carriers utilize, but we're watching that change, as now ALL of the US carriers that operate the type are doing transatlantic hops (DL, NW, US, AA.... oh wait, United doesn't. Okay, I correct myself). Anyhow, all but one, and now even the European (well, British) carriers are starting to, with L'Avion and Open Skies.

The problem for the 757, is that while many carriers have shifted their existing 757s onto transatlantic runs, they didn't in the main buy new ones to do this. Instead they bought new 737NGs or A32xx to replace the 757 on it's original duties. Hence the dry up of 757 sales...



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinePlanefxr From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 21695 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 16):
But all of that is irrelevant, as this thread was, in fact, about what can replace the 757.

And the answer, regardless of what manufacturer anyone mentions, is "nothing."

Nothing currently in production, or even on the horizon of production, can match what the 757 does.
Granted, it's got more capability than most carriers utilize, but we're watching that change, as now ALL of the US carriers that operate the type are doing transatlantic hops (DL, NW, US, AA.... oh wait, United doesn't. Okay, I correct myself). Anyhow, all but one, and now even the European (well, British) carriers are starting to, with L'Avion and Open Skies.

It will be a sad day in aviation, when the 757's stop flying, they are some of the best looking a/c flying. Fortunately that day is nowhere near as they will be flying for many years to come, FedEx has all but assured us of that. Thanks for the post on the article it is actually very interesting.


User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 21662 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 16):
But all of that is irrelevant, as this thread was, in fact, about what can replace the 757.
I retract my statement, although you shouldn't answer the post if you think the question is irrelevant as many in here think there is still use for an airplane with it's capabilities...hence the reason for my post.

[Edited 2008-07-21 14:19:41]


757: The last of the best
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 21516 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 16):
And the answer, regardless of what manufacturer anyone mentions, is "nothing."

Nothing currently in production, or even on the horizon of production, can match what the 757 does.

You're right but i think this is the answer as to why:

Quoting Leskova (Reply 12):
Not all that many B757s are being used to the full extent of their capabilities - which is probably why we won't be seeing a direct replacement for a long time yet: there's no real need for it.

But as AA737-823 mentioned, more an more operators are utilizing the 757s strengths such as range and payload, which could and probably is forcing A and B to come up with a 320/737 replacement that will cover effectively the 73G/319 up to 752 in pax and range. The trick for them will be how to optimize that broad of a platform...

On a side note, I'm curious to know some facts on the 753. I know it came too little too late for many airlines, but how are the airlines that have them liking them?? I think I've heard somewhere that CO really liked theirs, but what about NW and the others??



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlinePlanefxr From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 21415 times:



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 20):
On a side note, I'm curious to know some facts on the 753. I know it came too little too late for many airlines, but how are the airlines that have them liking them?? I think I've heard somewhere that CO really liked theirs, but what about NW and the others??

The one downside of the 757-300 is deplaning 220+ pax with only one aisle, it takes forever, not great in the day of 45 minute turn times. I would think that the CASM is very good.


User currently offlineFlylku From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 815 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 21411 times:



Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 3):
Can you prove that, i just don't believe this.?

- that the A320 was designed for a shorter lifespan.

Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 11):
Not this myth again... it seems to pop up every time someone wants a reason to bash Airbus.

I only have a sample size of 1 but a US Air mechanic who worked on 737's and A320's felt the Boeings were designed/built for a longer lifespan.

There is nothing wrong with engineering a device for a specific lifespan. Most customers want to get what they pay for: a machine that meets its target specifications. In other words, they get what they pay for.



...are we there yet?
User currently offlineFrmrCAPCADET From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1726 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 21306 times:

And there is no moral quality or bragging cerficate to a plane being designed to a specific number of cycles or hours of flight. You buy what you need. You also buy what you can get, but that did not apply because airlines knowingly bought planes designed for less cycles and hours, because they saw an advantage to them in doing so.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2182 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 21260 times:

Since any good stuff eventually comes to an end, are there any replacement plans for the niche?
A 757NG with more efficient engines and some weight cuts here and there?
An A321NG with more range?



When I doubt... go running!
25 778NG : Keesje had some really good ideas with layouts for a replacement to the 737's & 757's. Resembled the 787 w/ 2x2x2 cabins etc... Im sure if you did a s
26 Gosimeon : I can't wait to fly a 757, but they aren't so common in the EU. I think they are lasting so long because airlines like CO and DL have given them a bit
27 PGNCS : Well that HAS to be valid...
28 Tiger119 : - I thought Boeing shut down the 757 assembly line and are using the factory space for something different? BTW, I enjoyed riding in the 752 and 753
29 Keesje : Flightglobal: Airbus is about to begin fatigue tests of full-scale A320 sections as it undertakes a major programme to extend the life of twinjet tha
30 SeaBosDca : Want to move 220 to 250 passengers over a distance of 2500 nm or less? There is absolutely no cheaper way to do it. CO snarfed up ATA's first batch o
31 AA737-823 : Don't worry, the NW guys say the same thing. And don't even get me started on dispatch reliability.... Hey, the 320 is a great airplane, and sells we
32 YULYMX : Would airbus built a A310 with more fuel efficent engines... 230 to 250 pax... range smaller than a A330 and good cargo capacity?
33 YULYMX : Boeing could do a B767-500 series... similar to the 200 series with better engines and new technologie... similar to B787???
34 UPS757Pilot : Just a pure joy to fly...There's nothing like the 757...I wish Boeing would bring it back. They could update the airplane and have the 757 still going
35 Post contains links and images TZTriStar500 : Would you care to explain this paragraph since it makes absolutely no sense in the case of the 757 or any other airliner for that matter. What is you
36 UPSMD11 : Staying on the B752 TATL topic of this thread, is UA the only major US Airlines not flying B752 across the pond? I know US, CO and DL are and I think
37 Planefxr : Is it safe to assume that these 4 -300's have Rolls hanging on the pylon?
38 TZTriStar500 : yes sir
39 Iloveboeing : I agree. Boeing could introduce an updated 757, with the same capabilities as the previous model, but with more fuel efficient engines (perhaps a lar
40 Planefxr : OK, thanks.
41 LTBEWR : The 757 has over 1000 frames and is really a 2 engined 707 with some other upgrades. We will probably see them as replacing DC-8's as freighters in an
42 Tdscanuck : About 30 years, depending on how it's used. A320's because their DSO (design service objective) was lower, 777's it's only the early ones, as far as
43 SeaBosDca : I thought CO was in negotiations with Boeing Capital for the frames. I haven't heard anything for awhile either, but that was the last thing I heard.
44 AirlineBrat : Although the 757 was built to replace the 727-200, I always saw it as a fuel efficient replacement for the DC-8. I think Boeing should update the 757
45 AA737-823 : Walk into a 757-33N lav and turn 360 degrees. Now walk into a 757-324 lav and turn 360 degrees. See the difference? If you don't have access to both
46 Atmx2000 : But had the current market existed back when the 757 debuted, they might have bought them for that purpose. Back in late 70s and early 80s, the 707s
47 HercPPMX : If Only They would! it's a little of topic but who do you think would order. I suspect if boeing truly had enough interest...... maybe. (very, very w
48 Post contains links and images Keesje : Well I did a beefed up new technology 757 style short/ medium haul inbetween last yr. click to enlarge Could be a CASM killer for shrink versions of
49 Flying Belgian : This is still one of my most mysterious enigma: Why the hell didn't Boeing try to develop a 757NG ??? The current 757s do live a second youth at the m
50 Post contains images SIBILLE : The solution is the Tu-204 NG with new engines   Seems to be a joke and in a sence, it is. Tu-204 will never replace passengers 757 but it could be a
51 Post contains images Keesje : Fitting standard ICOA cat D gates just like 767 and A310 is important at big hubs. E.g. Atlanta would require a big modification to fit a similar numb
52 Atlanta : I'm thinking a 787-2 might do the trick. Single aisle, smaller engines but not by that much, with about 215 pax, winglets and with the very fuel consc
53 Post contains links Revelation : I agree, but when I first saw the B737-900 the first thought I had was that it was a 2-engined 707. Its shorter landing gear makes it closer to the g
54 Manfredj : I don't think there is any question about it...it WAS a niche airplane only to have come into its own over the past few years. Think about it...now i
55 Revelation : I don't really think it was a niche airplane, especially in the US. Look at the fleet sizes (source: Wikipedia): DL: 135 AA: 124 UA: 97 NW: 71 CO: 58
56 AA777223 : I see by the wingtip fences, that Keesje expects the greenliner to be an Airbus product, LOL. In all seriousness, I have to say I find this product in
57 Cloudy : What about the Tu-204? If someone absolutely needs something like the 757-200, the Tu-204 fits performance wise. The main problems are parts and custo
58 Bmacleod : The 737-900ER is the closest current replacement, the A321 looks comparable. AC has only ten but they're holding up very well.... The range of the 757
59 SeaBosDca : The only reason this is the case is because those airlines acquired substantial numbers of 757s before the 739ER or A321 were available. CO is acquir
60 Viscount724 : That's why the 757-200 isn't the best option for most routes that don't require the 757's range. You're flying around extra weight which burns more f
61 Enilria : That must explain why 737-200s and 717s have been flying around Hawaii. Last time I checked, they can't make it to the mainland either. When the 737
62 SeaBosDca : This explains why there are a few 757s here and there. It doesn't explain why there are so many. DCA-West Coast and Hawaii are not the majority of mi
63 Viscount724 : PrivatAir hasn't operated the EWR-MUC route for LH for at least a year since they upgraded that route to widebody service. When PrivatAir did operate
64 Enilria : I think fuel stops are another reason. The Airbus aircraft have chronic fuel stop problems on transcons. Ops love the 757 which I've never even seen
65 Post contains images TZTriStar500 : This is not entirely true and an over simplification. All aircraft were and are designed with a specific DSO in mind. What changed were supplemental
66 Leskova : From what I remember reading a couple of years back, DE was trying to get rid of them, but couldn't find any takers. They disposed of the B752s (not
67 Slider : NW began deliveries of their 320s in 1989 I believe....it'll be interesting Not quantitatively, but qualitatively, when you see the useful life and c
68 Keesje : A wide spread myth / believe here on a.net. Busses are build for shorter lives, Boeings for longer (quality see..) 20 years / 60.000 hrs was never a
69 Vfw614 : As Northwest did not take all of the first 107 Airbus A320 and is the only carrier to have - allegedly - scrapped them because they timed out, how th
70 Propjett : Park a 737-900 next to a 757, unload it and try to load everything on the 737-900 pax and cargo. Then try to take off (if you can get everything to f
71 JakTrax : FlyGlobespan used an ETOPS-approved 738 to fly across the pond - unfortunately the route didn't yield good loads and was axed. There was also talk of
72 Vfw614 : Sorry for smart-assing, but: Iberia no longer operates the Boeing 757. Greenland (Air Greenland, to be correct) and El Al do not really qualifiy as E
73 Post contains links and images AA737-823 : Because, airplane age doesn't go by YEARS. I thought we'd covered this above; it goes by CYCLES and/or FLIGHT HOURS. Clearly, flights in the US can b
74 Post contains links and images Vfw614 : No reason to shout. I am aware of this, and thus I mentioned the short intra-European routes. Either it is short routes and lots of cycles or it is l
75 Keesje : Yes, but also in fuel costs.. That's why it was beaten hands down by the A321. That thing doesn't have the payload range but can take cargo container
76 SeaBosDca : If this is true at all, which I'm skeptical about, I have a feeling it wasn't that "no one was interested" in the 753s, but that the 752s brought a b
77 Vfw614 : After having already leased out some examples to Transavia during the summer 2003 season, in fall 2003 Thomas Cook/Condor decided to withdraw 6 of th
78 Keesje : triggered me; NZ air force took over this Transavia 757..
79 EA772LR : You're not really showing the whole picture here. The 753s low sales has much more to do with the timing of the plane than anything else. If it was l
80 JakTrax : Well there was one in MAD a few weeks ago when I was there so unless they've been decomissioned in the last couple of weeks I'd say they're still ope
81 OldAeroGuy : Interesting, because if it had not been for Condor's constant urging, Boeing might not have built a 753. In the late '80's/early '90's, Condor was qu
82 Vfw614 : I was not talking about Boeing 757-300 sales in general, but about the problems Condor had when they tried to sell their -300s in 2003. Maybe, and I
83 OldAeroGuy : Not sure that the Vfw 614 would have been a success in any time frame. Its engine mounting scheme was unique and not repeated although the HondaJet c
84 Vfw614 : Well, it was one of the features that were part of the concept - like the Boeing 757-300's long fuselage that is causing airlines a headache. The VfW6
85 Enilria : There are probably 100 that are flying mission critical operations, but it appears that is enough to motivate airlines to keep them. As somebody who
86 EA772LR : True. One of the best examples of what you stated above is the timing of the 787...900 sales later couldn't possibly mean better timing! As well, Air
87 Vfw614 : I think one issue that has been brought up again and again with regard to the 757-300 is the difficulty in turning around the B757-300 in less than an
88 Revelation : It's partially due to that, and partially due to better (computerized) techniques that allowed one to use less of the material, regardless of type, a
89 JakTrax : We taxied past the stored one - it had an engine missing. The one I saw was active as it landed (on 33R) and taxied to T4. If I remember rightly it w
90 Enilria : Educational...but it can still suffer a catastrophic failure from fatigue can it not? That's not something you can anticipate with eddy current testi
91 WorldTraveler : Let’s correct a flawed assumption from the beginning of this post. The 757 is not a fuel-inefficient aircraft. Based on DOT statistics compiled from
92 Revelation : Backing up a bit, is it the consensus of this thread that roughly 100 of the 1000 B757s are used in roles beyond those that can be completed by B737-
93 SeaBosDca : Your numbers imply that there is a 10+% difference in fuel burn per seat between the A321 and the 739ER in similar configurations. That is unrealisti
94 Vfw614 : This one was with Audeli since 2006, stored since 2007 and is now with airbaltic. These are the dates the five A320-111 were ferried to the scrapyard
95 SeaBosDca : Yup. And, remember, there are about 200 757-200s that were built within the last ten years and a couple hundred more that are between 10 and 15 years
96 Post contains links Revelation : According to http://www.continental.com/web/en-US...vel/inflight/aircraft/default.aspx we see CO flies: 737-900ER: 20F, 153Y = 173 seats 757-200: 16F
97 Viscount724 : The 762 was used for quite a few years on routes where competitors were operating DC-10s and L1011s. The single-aisle 753 wouldn't have been competit
98 Revelation : So it seems we'll see something like a 737-9/A321 replacement, and, later, ER and LR variants for the heavier/shorter and longer/thinner routes?
99 DocLightning : I remember my one and only flight on a 753, which was a very full run from DTW to MSP. It was a very full flight and I was, of course, all the way ba
100 SeaBosDca : Check out reply 30 for what I think will happen... Especially in America, that would make no difference whatsoever to more than 1% or 2% of pax if th
101 Viscount724 : But do you really think that carriers operating 762s on routes where another carrier was operating a 753 wouldn't immediately match the $5 lower fare
102 SeaBosDca : Sure they'd match. But most passengers still wouldn't pay attention to the equipment. So you'd get two carriers charging the same fare, attracting ro
103 Viscount724 : But with fares equal, more passengers would prefer the widebody. They'd have a competitive advantage and would probably generate higher load factors
104 Revelation : Makes sense to me. With CFRP construction you could make the shortest fuse with thinner walls so it won't pay a big penalty for having the larger fam
105 Jariarkko : They have 7 planes, compare this to 29 for 319 and 32x series. It is still very unlikely to ride on a 757 in Europe. I don't think I have done it mor
106 SeaBosDca : This applies to maybe 1% of passengers. Most passengers look at four things: 1) price, 2) price, 3) schedule, and 4) price. The revenue premium obtai
107 EA772LR : The 753 operators could always discount deeper, because their plane is more economical than the competitions 762. This is all speculation and a moot
108 Viscount724 : I wonder why the original major 762 (non-ER) customers like UA/AA/DL didn't just buy more 752s and forget about the 762? My guess is that the widebod
109 EA772LR : Not necessarily. The 762 obviously seats more than the 752 if both are configured with the same seats. In CO's case, they're 762s are configured with
110 Post contains images SeaBosDca : They did exactly that.    Almost all non-ER 762s for US carriers were delivered between 1982 and 1985, and ordered before that. There was considera
111 WorldTraveler : these are numbers based on airline reports to the DOT. I adjusted fuel burn to the number of seats per aircraft. The A321 has not sold well at all ei
112 Post contains images Keesje : I do not I understand what you are saying. At this moment 721 A321 are ordered and it is selling better then ever before. It can take cargo container
113 Manfredj : Shouldn't be surprising. The airplane simply didn't fit into the niche they had bought it for. That doesn't mean that other airlines can't make a siz
114 SeaBosDca : The rest of your arguments in favor of the A321 are correct, but not this one. The 757 engines are terrific, especially considering their fairly adva
115 LAXDESI : [ Not really. The F seats in 752 are at 55" pitch, whereas they are at 38" pitch in 739. If they were similarly configured, the 752 will have 24F seat
116 Commavia : Yeah ... bottom line ... the 757 is an amazing airframe that was ahead of its time and incredibly impressive - as evidenced by the fact that, 30 years
117 Gigneil : Engines are the reason for this. Just to reinforce what's been said, that is not correct. It isn't that it CANNOT, its that it is not DESIRED. The 75
118 Viscount724 : I don't think it's a question of modern technology not being able to improve on its performance, but rather the fact that there hasn't been enough de
119 LAXDESI : I couldn't resist comparing the 752 to the current 739ER, and then speculating on a replacement from Boeing. First, the 752 to 739ER comparison: Specs
120 Propjett : Maybe he cooks airplanes
121 Propjett : 757 Is still a Ferrari Performance wise, whereas the 737/A321 is definately a Volkswagen.
122 Leskova : So what you're saying is that the B757 is too loud, consumes way too much fuel, offers acceleration and top speed that, truly, no-one needs, and it's
123 PlaneWasted : Dont kill me now but: I find the 757 awful for long-haul, especially when having a windows seat, the side wall takes away alot of foot space. Very lou
124 Propjett : Yeah, but it sure is a fun ride (especially when climbing steep and pulling a g or two).......what would you rather have..... The hot blonde with eve
125 Keesje : The A321's French/US CFM56 engines are incredible reliable and silent. Better then the 757's RR en Pratt's. The 757 has its niche that even the A321
126 Vfw614 : Of course. The only problem the Boeing 757-300 has is that only the grand total of seven airlines found the concept useful (and of those seven one ha
127 Post contains images Keesje : A quick copy & paste..
128 Enilria : That's misleading because the average stage on U.S. 757s is MUCH greater than the A321, so the fuel comparison isn't valid. Shorter stage means takeo
129 EA772LR : Hilarious!!!
130 EA772LR : I don't understand this. If you take an A321-200 with the IAE V2533 with 33,000lbs of thrust, and the max takeoff weight of 206,000lbs, that gives yo
131 LAXDESI : This is not a very useful measure. The relevant measure is MSP (maximum structural/revenue payload), which is the difference between MZFW and OEW. Th
132 AA737-823 : Yes, Kees, they are. Also, the Continental O-200 engine in early Cessna 150 aircraft is quieter than the JT-9D-7RG4 engines found on 747s. See my poi
133 SeaBosDca : Airbus arguably undersized all of its wings until the A330/A340. Now with the A380 they've made up for lost time.
134 EA772LR : ....and then some I wonder what the max structural weight the A380 wings are rated for?? 650tonne+?? Anyway, I really believe a re-winged A321 would
135 MD-90 : Where you sit makes a big difference. Flying to Ireland sitting ahead of the wing on a Delta 757 was very quiet and flying back from London on a Delt
136 LAXDESI : An all new B739/A321 should be available within the next 10 years--about the time airlines need to replace B752s.
137 Enilria : This confuses me because range is a function of how much fuel is onboard and the amount of fuel that can be carried is a function of payload. Can you
138 Lemurs : Regarding the closing of the line, Boeing was quite clear about it at the time of the announcement: There were more than a couple of customers interes
139 DiscoverCSG : Is this code for "Concorde" ???
140 SeaBosDca : The issue is that all payload is not interchangeable. You can only land carrying a certain amount of weight, so unless you want to throw pax out the
141 Gigneil : Fuel efficiency and weight are two factors to range you didn't count. NS
142 Post contains images Keesje : I think the very reliable CFM56 engines that are leading on the A321 and B737-900ER have a bypass ratio of only 1:5. All the designs we see being exp
143 Rheinwaldner : Making a new Wing for the A320 family is genious. Why? Do something like the 737 classic -> 737NG transformation! The new wing brought the 737 on par
144 Post contains images Keesje : I think for dedicated 150-200 seat short haul routes (
145 SeaBosDca : What engines would you use for these stretches? No one currently seems to be interested in producing new 40k engines. Do you think there would be suf
146 Enilria : OK, engineers. Won't the new wing (for an NG A321) being discussed weigh more (assuming the materials used are comparable to a smaller wing) and poss
147 Post contains images Keesje : A dedicated engine seems unlikely so it would probably be an uprated refanned version of a 35k lbs engine similar to what was done with the CF6-80E1,
148 EA772LR : Did anybody notice the half NW, half UPS vertical stabilizer in Keesje's pic of the NW 757 in reply 144?? That's odd...
149 Keesje : This aircraft like all new aircraft would have a Carbon ReinForced Plastic (CRFP) wing. The A320 eighties wing is fully metal. Also the wing torsion
150 Gigneil : Not so odd... happens all the time. You get parts where you can get parts. In this case, UPS obviously had a rudder somewhere that NW needed. NS
151 Post contains images SeaBosDca :    There *will* eventually be another narrowbody of 757-300 or slightly smaller size. It will just take a little while. It will be the last variant
152 Gigneil : I concur, the 33k lbs the A321 makes per side is already more than sufficient for far more payload. The 739ER still muddles through just fine with 27k
153 LeftWing : the 787 ish wing would do the trick on all Boeing's.....give a new life to the 777 & 737
154 Flyingclrs727 : But the 737 needs taller landing gear to allow larger diameter high bypass engines. If it were raised any more would it be allowed the same type rati
155 Post contains images STT757 : For CO the 737-900ER is the perfect replacement (Domestically) for their 757-200 fleet, there still is no replacement for the 757-200 on trans-Atlant
156 AirNZ : Yes indeed, but I think you should clarify that to clearly state neither the A320 or A321 were designed to fly US transcons. That's not exactly the s
157 Manfredj : "Here I go again on my own," one of my favorite songs....certainly in line the the 757's birth date. My first ride in a 757 was about the same time.
158 SeaBosDca : This is incorrect. Airbus had US airlines squarely in mind when it designed the A320-200; a big part of the plane's reason for existence was to serve
159 FlyingClrs727 : It was never intended for transcons. Boeing still had the 757 in production for that market. It isn't a bad aircraft for an airline like Continental
160 STT757 : CO's 737-900s (non ER) are perfect for EWR-Florida, IAH-California. Personally I've flown EWR-CUN-EWR and EWR-MCO on CO's 737-900s, great aircraft. I
161 SeaBosDca : That may be true, but AS never got the memo. They acquired it at least partly for SEA-MCO and SEA-MIA and were quite disappointed when it could not r
162 LAXDESI : The F seats on 752 have a much larger pitch than the 739. See below.
163 FlyingClrs727 : That's because the 752's are configured with international business class seats for use on transatlantic routes. The 752's need seats like that consi
164 AirNZ : Ah, my apologies then......I actually didn't realise that, so thanks SeaBosDca.
165 Tdscanuck : Not necessarily...a redesigned pylon and nacelle might make some expansion possible without making the aircraft taller. It depends on what you can ge
166 Keesje : True, but then you rely on a lot of legacy technology for your future in a competative x000 airframes segment.. The A350, 767-400ERX, 747-8i proved l
167 Revelation : Yes, I think there won't be a 737-NNG, there will have to be a replacement, even though that will be costly. Hopefully someone will figure out how to
168 STT757 : Of Course because as mentioned CO's 757-200s have the BusinessFirst cabin, however it only offers 16 seats up front. CO Frequent Flyers much prefer m
169 LAXDESI : My post was in response to a seat count comparison of B752 to B739 without normalising for different seat products.
170 Tdscanuck : If the A320 wing could handle a winglet easily I'm sure we'd have seen it already. Airbus took the design margin too close to 0 to economically fit a
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...
What Can Be Done To Aid The Airline Industry? posted Sat Apr 12 2008 22:35:17 by HNL-Jack
NW Flight #94 To DUS, What Gate Does It Arrive In? posted Wed Dec 19 2007 06:39:37 by IliriBDL
What Will Replace The Smaller Turboprops? posted Tue Nov 6 2007 15:10:51 by HUbsnotDubs
What Can You Tell Me About This Airline? posted Sun Oct 14 2007 01:54:03 by CV990
Breakdown Of A380 Routes, What Can We Expect? posted Sun Sep 16 2007 19:27:48 by SiouxATC
Irate Passengers, What Can Be Done? posted Sat Sep 1 2007 05:42:36 by Boston92
What Will Replace The B1900? posted Wed May 2 2007 00:03:08 by PiedmontINT
Indonesia's Aviation Woes; What Can Be Done? posted Wed Mar 7 2007 17:56:37 by SLCUT2777
BA Connect BAe 146-100 - How Can I Fly It? posted Fri Feb 23 2007 14:12:44 by UK_Dispatcher
Ex-AA 727 At YIP, What Happend To It? posted Mon Jan 22 2007 17:47:57 by Falstaff
NW Flight #94 To DUS, What Gate Does It Arrive In? posted Wed Dec 19 2007 06:39:37 by IliriBDL
What Will Replace The Smaller Turboprops? posted Tue Nov 6 2007 15:10:51 by HUbsnotDubs
What Can You Tell Me About This Airline? posted Sun Oct 14 2007 01:54:03 by CV990
Breakdown Of A380 Routes, What Can We Expect? posted Sun Sep 16 2007 19:27:48 by SiouxATC
Irate Passengers, What Can Be Done? posted Sat Sep 1 2007 05:42:36 by Boston92
What Will Replace The B1900? posted Wed May 2 2007 00:03:08 by PiedmontINT
Indonesia's Aviation Woes; What Can Be Done? posted Wed Mar 7 2007 17:56:37 by SLCUT2777
ATL Delays - What Can Be Done? posted Sat Aug 7 2010 20:25:37 by TLHFLA
United Ted-What Happens To It? posted Wed May 12 2010 16:59:22 by laxboeingman
AU Question - What Will Replace The DHL Jedi 727? posted Mon May 10 2010 04:31:39 by bwvilla
What Will Replace Air Transat's A310's? posted Sat Apr 17 2010 11:40:54 by gilesdavies
LHR Webcam - What's Up With It? posted Mon Apr 12 2010 10:02:17 by virginblue4
What Can And Cannot A FAM Do? posted Thu Apr 1 2010 13:18:10 by boeingfever777
Thai: What Will Replace Their 734 (and When?) posted Sat Feb 20 2010 06:48:29 by dairy
Airline Loyalty Schemes - What Can We Learn? posted Thu Feb 18 2010 05:08:32 by VikingA346