Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 737/757 RS Pitches Larger Light Twin  
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 44214 times:

Aviation Week & Space Technology Jan 19 , 2009
"New Option Emerges in Boeing Single-Aisle Replacement Studies"

"The Light Twin, as the concept is called, is provisionally sized around the capacity of the out-of-production stretched 757-300, but is based on a twin-aisle configuration close in scale to the 787-3. Aimed at the 2,500-3,200-naut.-mi.-range market, passenger capacity is around 250-260 seats in a two-class cabin layout and 290-300 in single class."

This suggests to me that Boeing may consider to keep the 737 going - something like a 737NG+ - and concentrate on creating an alternative for the 787-3 instead, which (in its current guise) looks far from being an ideal 757/A306/762/763/764 replacement.

[Edited 2009-01-18 03:06:37]

181 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1912 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 44190 times:

I think Boeing should push the range envelope here up a little bit and go for the standard range of around 4,500nm. This way, they would have a true 757 replacement with a much needed East Coast - Central Europe range capability. I'm sure this would fit the needs of at least CO, AA, UA and DL quite nicely.


Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12900 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 44084 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Rheinbote (Thread starter):
The Light Twin, as the concept is called, is provisionally sized around the capacity of the out-of-production stretched 757-300, but is based on a twin-aisle configuration close in scale to the 787-3. Aimed at the 2,500-3,200-naut.-mi.-range market

In other words, a "replacement" for the stillborn 787-3.

From Boeing's 787-3 fact sheet

Quote:
Seating: 290 to 330 passengers

Range: 2,500 to 3,050 nautical miles (4,650 to 5,650 kilometers)

To me, it would seem an expensive route for a plane of limited appeal.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently onlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6791 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 43916 times:

I don't understand why they don't provide a true 757 replacement with an aircraft with capacity for 180-240 (2 aircraft 180-200 and 220-240) and a range of 4200 nautical miles.. then they can leave the 737 replacement at 140-190 capacity and have the 787 at the 290-400 range.. seems like they got it all to me if they do that..


Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineFUN2FLY From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1091 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 43885 times:



Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 3):
I don't understand why they don't provide a true 757 replacement with an aircraft with capacity for 180-240 (2 aircraft 180-200 and 220-240) and a range of 4200 nautical miles..

Me neither. They sold 1,000 757's. CO, UA, DL, and AA alone would probably buy 300-400 of them to start with. Must be something we're missing. I'd actually develop this over the 737RS as it would be a niche aircraft w/o competition if I were Boeing and do the 737RS later as Airbus has no plans on the A320 replacement.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12900 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 43851 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 3):
I don't understand why they don't provide a true 757 replacement



Quoting FUN2FLY (Reply 4):
Me neither. They sold 1,000 757's.

The problem being, A321s and 739s can do, maybe, 80-85% of the missions a 757 can do, and burn significantly less fuel doing them. You need to keep in mind what competition was around when Boeing launched the 757.

Yes, if you need that top 15-20% of the 757's mission profile, then you do need a 757. The question is, how many of those 1,000+ 757s that Boeing sold, are actually being used in that role today? IMHO, this makes the market for a top-end 757 replacement much smaller.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently onlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6791 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 43818 times:



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 5):
The problem being, A321s and 739s can do, maybe, 80-85% of the missions a 757 can do

Au contraire.. very few of the A321s and 739s are doing the missions that 757 are currently doing. Yes, they are performing the former role of the 757.. but the role of the 757 has changed from high volume short routes to low volume long routes. No aircraft can do that.. the A321 and 739 can barely do the transcons. Both aircraft only has the capacity similarity..

Boeing needs this niche market that has high demand. CO, DL, AA, and others such as Air Berlin, BA, Caribbean, etc. could use this aircraft which would open up some possibilities they are just beginning to see.

Therefore, I don't think an aircraft is currently available that can replace the capability, versatility, and dexterity of the 757 and Boeing should be looking immediately to find a replacement.. EVEN if it is the 787-1 and 787-2...



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7728 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 43678 times:



Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 6):
Au contraire.. very few of the A321s and 739s are doing the missions that 757 are currently doing. Yes, they are performing the former role of the 757.. but the role of the 757 has changed from high volume short routes to low volume long routes. No aircraft can do that.. the A321 and 739 can barely do the transcons. Both aircraft only has the capacity similarity..

That is the key point of the B-757, it was never a single use / mission a/c, somehow people seem to think that is a negative. Boeing is domiciled in the US, if they are not designing an a/c with transcon range and payload they effectively ignore one of the larger markets in the world.
2,500nm is not going to cut it, the fact that not even the initial 787-3 got orders outside of its launch customer should have told them something. The B-737 is selling, a twin aisle B-757 replacement will compete but will be heavier, burn more fuel and take more payload, not evey market calls for a larger a/c, they should be able to co-exist, is that not what the A321 is doing with the A320? Unless the only reason why Airbus continues to build them is because they come off the same line?


User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 837 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 43624 times:

It seems to me like Boeing is aiming at two markets with this idea.

The top-end 757 market, twin-aisle for fast turn-arounds and long-range capabilities. Two things not possible by the 739ER and A321.

And they aim at the A300 market, domestic wide-body routes. A 783 Light with smaller wingspan and less weight seems to be something a lot of airlines are waiting for; LH, AA and others...


If they can push the range up to the area of the 752 that plane could be a winner. TATL range, 753 size, A300 capabilities...


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 43590 times:



Quoting Rheinbote (Thread starter):
The Light Twin, as the concept is called, is provisionally sized around the capacity of the out-of-production stretched 757-300, but is based on a twin-aisle configuration close in scale to the 787-3.

I see a great A300 replacement for LH here.............



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12973 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 43459 times:



Quoting CARST (Reply 8):

If they can push the range up to the area of the 752 that plane could be a winner. TATL range, 753 size, A300 capabilities...

Very good point.

Still, one wonders how big the market would be in terms of number of airframes.

And if Boeing reuses too much 787 technology without reducing weight, will they get such an aircraft, or will they get a 787-3?

How does this proposal differ from the 787-3?

I don't subscribe to AWST and the thread starter's description sounded awfully like the -3.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 43156 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 10):
I don't subscribe to AWST and the thread starter's description sounded awfully like the -3.

Don't want to go beyond fair use excerpt, so only a few more snippets

"...the Light Twin study is believed to be an indication that Boeing is considering broadening its attack on the short- to medium-range markets with a smaller-capacity stablemate to the 787-3 ... Although forming the upper part of its single-aisle replacement studies, the Light Twin effectively undercuts the 787-3..."

Quoting CARST (Reply 8):
If they can push the range up to the area of the 752 that plane could be a winner. TATL range, 753 size, A300 capabilities...

"Following the recent discussions with European operators on the Light Twin, Boeing is said to be resisting calls for slight increases in range beyond the relatively restricted design envelope outlined. As now configured, the Light Twin also addresses the baseline 757-200 replacement market"

Interesting bit:

"Boeing sources indicate that revised systems considerations include a potential return to hydraulics from the radical “more-electric” architecture pioneered on the 787. The technology suite being looked at within the RS/Light Twin study is understood to include several evolutionary “hybrid” system approaches"

This commentary seems to be based on a misunderstanding. The 787 is 'more electric' in the sense of 'less bleed air' or 'no pneumatics', i.e. air compressors and hydraulic pumps are powered by electric motors instead of bleed air. But apart from that and 5000psi operating pressure, 787 hydraulics are almost identical to the 777.
So if there are hybrid system approaches, this would actually aim at *replacing* hydraulics rather than "returning to hydraulics". Such hybrid approaches have also been chosen for the A380 and the A350.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31442 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 42936 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I know a few forum members have been suggesting a twin-aisle A320/737/757RS (though with seating around 200-250 in two/three classes).

The problem with a twin-aisle plane is it will add structure which adds weight. I expect this will not appeal to short-haul missions (250-2500km) since it will drive up fuel burn. Now some have addressed this by feeling that Airbus and Boeing would create two families - one narrowbody and one widebody: kind of a 757/767 sharing as much systems as possible and mostly distinguished by width and TOW.

That would result in a more effective offering tailored for each market segment, however it means more expense and time to develop which means a more expensive final product for the customers. Will WN and FR and U2 want to pay more for their narrowbody planes just to allow AA and BA and KL to get their widebody planes, as well?

And while I operate under no illusion that Boeing would be happy to have more 787-3 customers, I also operate under no illusion that they would not build it for just NH and JL. They built them the 747-100SR and the 747-400D, after all, and the 787-3 has more orders then either of those models.


User currently offlinePRAirbus From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2005, 1144 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 42401 times:

Yeah! Never understood why the 757 was taken off production. Glad to hear there might be something in the works. Hopefully the US Majors, will show interest on this plane.

User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12973 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 42370 times:



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 11):
Boeing is said to be resisting calls for slight increases in range beyond the relatively restricted design envelope outlined.

It would have been nice of AWST to follow up more on this. The longer ranged plane would be carrying more weight than the shorter ranged plane, so one could presume this means Boeing things the market wants the shorter ranged plane, or one could presume Boeing wants to preserve the longer ranged market for more profitable planes.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 42268 times:



Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 6):
Boeing needs this niche market that has high demand.

If it's a niche market, doesn't that mean the demand isn't high?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
The problem with a twin-aisle plane is it will add structure which adds weight. I expect this will not appeal to short-haul missions (250-2500km) since it will drive up fuel burn.

I think the theory may be that it will allow utilization to increase (via quicker turns) enough to cover the excess weight.

Quoting PRAirbus (Reply 13):
Yeah! Never understood why the 757 was taken off production.

Because nobody wanted it. Literally. Orders went to zero 4 years before production ended.

Tom.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31442 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 41919 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 15):
I think the theory may be that it will allow utilization to increase (via quicker turns) enough to cover the excess weight.

Well right now the LCCs deal with that by choosing models with 150 seats or less. They also save on cabin crew costs (three FAs - at least in the US) and it means less seats for those FAs to "clean" in-between the time the pax leave and the pax board. And it makes it easier to tailor capacity to demand via frequency.


User currently offlinePanAm788 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 41878 times:

The problem is this. Boeing wants 1 narrowbody, 1 middle widebody (787), and 1 large widebody (777+/748/replacement for both/they'll figure it out). The 737 is still selling well and it does a decent job of preventing Embraer and Bombardier from gaining a huge footing in the small narrowbody market. It would cost a lot of money to develop a 757 replacement as it would take away sales from the 737 and possibly the 787 too. Boeing would rather just stretch the 789 to its range limits and think about a replacement for the 737 and 757 later. IMO, I think this strategy is problematic because it's going to be hard to make a shortrange 120 pax aircraft and a 230 pax aicraft with 4,000 nm range on the same platform. But that's what Boeing is going to have to do if they want to prevent C-series and E-jet sales and replace the 757 with the same airplane.


You know nothing Jon Snow
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 41721 times:



Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 6):
Au contraire.. very few of the A321s and 739s are doing the missions that 757 are currently doing. Yes, they are performing the former role of the 757.. but the role of the 757 has changed from high volume short routes to low volume long routes. No aircraft can do that.. the A321 and 739 can barely do the transcons. Both aircraft only has the capacity similarity..

Boeing needs this niche market that has high demand. CO, DL, AA,

Yes, but the important point to note is that those airlines are using the 757 for routes it was not specifically designed to do. Yes, it's proved extremely good for those routes but that was not it's primary role. Thus, is it viable to produce a replacement for what is largely a minor role?


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21590 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 41585 times:

Sounds like a straight 767(non-ER)/ 757 replacement study. There is a huge market for this. Right now, Airbus is cleaning up with the A332 on these kind of missions. The 787-3 was way to heavy for the task.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 18):
Yes, but the important point to note is that those airlines are using the 757 for routes it was not specifically designed to do.

The 757 was designed to replace the 727Adv and cover the routes that plane could cover. It was also given slightly more range to be able to do New York to London, etc. It was part of the ETOPS program specifically so it could fly to Hawaii and Europe from mainland USA.

The 757 was designed to do what it is doing. Flights between 2000 and 3500nm miles.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4722 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 41283 times:

I think both Airbus and Boeing could design a new small widebody which might roughly look like this:

Wingspan of slightly less than 52m, wing optimized for M.80 cruise
Downscaled GEnx or Trent 1000/XWB engines
Fuselage width similar to the original Airbus cross section (5.64m)
Two fuselage lengths: the shorth one would have the same capacity as the A310, B753, B762
the longer one would correspond to the A300 and B763

What kind of performance could such an aircraft achieve? Come on, I know some of you guys can give an assumption within a few minutes!  Smile



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently onlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 926 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 40856 times:

I have long argued that there is a gap in the market for an aircraft like this. The problem with the new generation widebodies (B787 and A350) is that they are optimized for long ranges and high payloads. As a result, they do not offer a quantum jump in economics over existing (A330) or even old competitors (A300, B757, B767) when it comes to short- to medium-range operations.

To be successful, such an aircraft would have to be optimized uncompromizingly for shorter ranges. Transatlantic capability seems overkill already--you have B787s and A350s for that. Thus, it could be much lighter than the B787 and A350, be cheaper to build and purchase, and offer a reduction in operating costs that is at least in the double digits. Optimizing it for high cycles would also allow airlines to avoid excessive wear and tear on their precious B787 and A350 fleets. And by using standardized wide-body cargo containers it would permit the efficient transfer of cargo between long-haul and short-haul flights.

There are plenty of short- and medium-range routes were using higher-capacity planes makes more sense than increasing frequency, because frequency is already high, slots are constrained, and the cost of operating one 250-seat flight is a lot less than the cost of operating two 125-seat flights.

One additional strategic advantage: it would remove the pressure to offer a larger next-generation single-aisle plane, thus allowing a lighter and smaller B737 replacement that would compete better with the likes of Embraer, Bombardier, Mitsubishi, Sukhoi, and AVIC.

Go for it, Boeing!

[Edited 2009-01-18 12:16:25]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31442 posts, RR: 85
Reply 22, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 40112 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I just wonder if the market is really there. The 757-300 sold very poorly (55 frames), yet it really wasn't that bad of a plane. It could fly it's maximum structural payload 2500nm with Pratts and close to that with Rollers. The 757-200 could do 3000nm with Pratts and 2750 with Rollers so it really only gave up about 500nm which doesn't strike me as horrendous. 2500nm will cover all of Europe or all of North America. It's almost enough to get you to Hawaii from the West Coast, so you don't need to trade off too much payload to make it.

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 39942 times:

I have been a long term believer (romantic  Wink ) this segment would be filled in and have promoted it on a.net for yrs.

When Boeing killed in the 757 in 2003/2004 the industry was in a historical dip. Boeing had to cut costs. Shortly after the market boomed and thousands of aircraft were sold. I think the fact the 757 sold soft in its last yrs had little to do with long term market requirements.

IMO the 757/ 767/ A300/ A310/ Tu154 replacement market is enormous. A few yrs back I sketched a twin aisle narrow body "Greenliner" and discussed it on forums :

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/greenliner-1.jpg

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/30317...767-replacement-aircraft-idea.html

I would not surprized either if Airbus took an innitiative too e.g. a A325/26 sub series, based on the A320 fuselages with a bigger wing / new engines.



http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/233825/


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 39839 times:



Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 3):
I don't understand why they don't provide a true 757 replacement with an aircraft with capacity for 180-240 (2 aircraft 180-200 and 220-240) and a range of 4200 nautical miles.. then they can leave the 737 replacement at 140-190 capacity and have the 787 at the 290-400 range.. seems like they got it all to me if they do that..

The best idea, but I've been wondering if they still couldn't pull it off with one base frame. Shrinks are historically inefficient and heavy but wouldn't the use of CFRP mitigate this to some extent? Couldn't a shrink feature thinner hull walls and an overall light structure, or am I way off base here?

Not and engineer.  Smile



Airliners.net Moderator Team
25 Scbriml : Maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly enough. IMHO, only a small percentage of 757s are being used on missions that an A321 or 739 couldn't fly mor
26 PanAm788 : It would be really really difficult to do. 120-230 pax is a huge difference. They need to make all variants efficient to keep airlines from buying C-
27 Keesje : Boeing and Airbus both see enormous numbers of narrow bodies and twin aisles being required for the next 20 years. Nothing indicates there exists a ki
28 Khobar : If an A321 or 739 could fly so many 757 missions so much more efficiently, that's what they'd be doing.
29 DfwRevolution : I agree completely. When you further consider the expectations for the A320/737NG replacement, the gap will grow smaller or perhaps vanish completely
30 A342 : The majority of the under-used 757s are serving with US carriers who can't afford to buy or lease that many new aircraft. Just my two cents.
31 DfwRevolution : That's exactly what some airlines are doing. Besides, airlines don't go replacing aircraft with life left in them just because there is something mod
32 Keesje : Replacing 757-200 + 757-300 + 767-200 + 767-300 + A300 + 310 + Tu154 = 2000 ? Does anybody have the real numbers? I don't see many downscaling to A321
33 BrianDromey : That is exactly what the A321 and 739ER are doing, where their capabilities allow. US is bringing more A321s on property, replacing 757s, dito for CO
34 Travelhound : Sounds like an aircraft based on the A300 business case. I'm not sure how successful Airbus (or its predecessor) was with this aircraft, but it did h
35 EBJ1248650 : Are we tallking perhaps a somewhat hi-tech wide body 757 sized airliner; 753 capacity but with reduced fuselage length similar to 752? More realistic
36 Stitch : I expect one of the advantages of the A300B2 and A300B4 is they needed two engines while their competitors (DC-10/L1011) needed three. True, the tri-
37 Tdscanuck : Part of the problem with downsizing CFRP is that, at some point, your fuselage skin thickness starts to be sized by impact requirements (hail, ramp r
38 DocLightning : I agree completely. Glad to know that Boeing is carefully considering our educated and well-researched opinions. The best thing to do is to design a
39 DfwRevolution : My estimate: A. Boeing 757-200 - 912 units but will be replaced by a combination of existing A321, 737-900ER, or later their replacement aircraft. B.
40 Scipio : About a decade ago, Singapore Airlines complained to both aircraft manufacturers that no modern replacement for its A300s and A310s was available. Eve
41 SEPilot : Simple. They weren't selling any, and didn't want to keep an empty production line. As to the main question, A-netters and other observers can conjur
42 DfwRevolution : Not very significant. Between the two of them, they fly less than 40 A300s. All of American's will be gone by September 09. LH only flies 7 of them.
43 Ikramerica : Exactly. But the 757 falls in that same size category. So it would end up being a family from a bit bigger than the 752 to about the 763 but without
44 DeltaL1011man : i like the idea of 2-2-2 config. they also need a true A300 replacement. That way they can carry LD3s
45 DL767captain : It could be like some of the previous suggestions, having a small twin aisle (sort of like the 787-3 but better) that is more suited to take over 757
46 PDXCessna206 : That greenliner looks like it would be my kinda airplane to fly in with those 2-2-2 seats. I cannot stand sitting in the middle.
47 Khobar : So the desert is completely filled with discarded 757's now that airlines no longer fly them in favor of A321 AND 739...or the 757's are happily flyi
48 MMEPHX : Bit of an odd size choice, seat capacity that rivals a 767 but a much shorter range than a 767, also similar capacity to a 788 or 789 but again much
49 Scipio : You do not understand the big picture. Airlines have pushed Boeing and Airbus to build planes that could do things that existing planes could not. Ai
50 Ikramerica : I do to, but it's very wasteful. A 2-2-2 is basically 17" wider than an A320 without any increase in capacity. It also isn't wide enough for side by
51 Dw747400 : How much faster can you turn a 2-2-2 Aircraft? After getting off a heavily loaded A319 this past Friday I got a great demonstration of how rough unlo
52 JoeCanuck : Boarding on and off from the front and the back at the same time would accomplish the same thing as twin aisle.
53 OyKIE : How did you get the AV&ST Jan 19 issu on January 19th? I do not recieve my copy before tuesday at earliest. Sometimes it takes until thursday before
54 DocLightning : Try the back of a fully-loaded 753. 30 minutes from when the door opened until I walked off. 30 minutes. Then why the 787?[Edited 2009-01-18 23:40:58
55 Panais : Agree with this point. We tend to think in terms of range and payload, but miss the city pairs that have a lot of frequent travel. I believe that it
56 GothamSpotter : Last year, Steven Udvar Hazy said he expected the next gen 737/A320 to be a twin-aisle config, and usually he's right about these things. This seems
57 Scbriml : Not the last I checked, but those that are being discarded by airlines are being snapped up by the package carriers. Nobody has said the 757 is a bad
58 Rheinwaldner : Big question marks all around. Dreams of a revival of a high volume 757 market. Small, at least medium range aircraft: But read exactly what Boeing pl
59 Parapente : As others have pointed out this is the "Gap in the market -Market in the gap" question. New planes come along and sreal markets.Lokk at the VLA - the
60 Planemaker : Here is your proof... below is the flight summary for 757-200s for 5-11 January 2009. Range (st-m) Frequency per week 0 - 99 4 100 - 199 18 200 - 299
61 Scbriml : Wow, interesting data!
62 SEPilot : Perhaps I should have been more specific; I was referring specifically to those routes that cannot support a widebody but are beyond the range of the
63 DfwRevolution : Yeah there is more to the story - you don't understand the concept of fleet planning. Airlines don't have the luxury of being able to ground an entir
64 Planemaker : Yes, the stats I provided were just for pax 757s in service. There are 115 freighters in service.
65 PVD757 : I know that everyone is comparing this to the 787-3, but I believe that Boeing and Airbus will have overcome a significant learning curve after the 78
66 SEPilot : Thanks for the info. That leaves 175 unaccounted for (Boeing lists 1050 as being delivered). How many are parked, and how many are scrapped? IIRC the
67 Scbriml : Airlinerlist.com gives the following for the 757: 967 in service 8 WO 22206 Birgenair TC-GEN crashed in sea shortly after t/o Dominican Rep. 6/2/96 2
68 SEPilot : Thanks for the info. I had forgotten that 2 of the 9/11 victims were 757's, and also about the midair collision, and the AA flight in Columbia. I did
69 Post contains images Keesje : If you leave out the 757-200 1000 B757s were build, 1000 B767s, 800 A330/310's and large fleets of e.g. 727s and Tu154s. Both Boeing and airbus see l
70 Scbriml : Sorry, I have no idea.
71 AirbusA6 : Airbus started off with the A300, a regional "airbus" designed for short to medium haul routes. It had a slow start, but ended up selling steadily, pa
72 Ikramerica : The passenger cabins need to be about 10" wider, however, so that the 2-2-2 seating that airlines will put in J/F will be 20" wide instead of 18.5".
73 DfwRevolution : I just can't see how you insist on including the 757-200 when the existing A321 and 739ER are so close in capability. The additional range and payloa
74 Post contains links Keesje : That not the point 757's need to be replaced. Not every airline that operated it for the last 20 years would be happy to downscale to a a321/739 that
75 DfwRevolution : Refer to the statistics regarding 757-200 utilization. The vast majority of 757-200 routes are within the performance envelope of the existing 737-90
76 Planemaker : The concept study is a 753 to 763 replacement... with "2,500-3,200-naut.-mi.-range market... 250-260 seats in a two-class cabin layout and 290-300 in
77 Keesje : I suppose you mean Boeing?
78 Burkhard : I also do not see how a standalone type in this size could ever pay off. They cannot use many parts from low cycle/high range aircraft like 787 and A3
79 Rheinwaldner : Good lifecylce analysis. The topic contains much food for lifecycle discussions. The 757 is a candidate which is ripe for replacement. It is also a g
80 Zvezda : Yes, the airlines were choosing A321s rather than 757s because the operating costs are so much lower. Keeping operating costs down is a key requireme
81 Post contains images Travelhound : Yes, I think you are both hitting the nail on the head here. I suspect the risk for either player is in developing a new single aisle plane they run
82 Panais : Is Boeing trying to do a short version of the Blended Wing Body? The shape is such that it can be scaled up from 200 to 800 passengers.
83 Rheinwaldner : All true. The point is IMO that a plane that is deliberately restricted to 2500nm can be optimized in a way that it delivers world leading CASM. Bett
84 Chautauquasaab : Maybe Boeing needs to revive the original concept for a 767-100, updated with improved wing and engines. That would seem to fill the bill!
85 Stitch : I've always been of the opinion the 787-3 was a "quick and dirty" model built for the Japanese. While the 787-3 appears to have gained no traction out
86 Rheinwaldner : With 2500 nm range the new Boeing proposal does not even match 763-non-ER range. In other words Boeing now wants to make a clean sheets design with t
87 Post contains links Keesje : ? Any source for that ? Udvar Hazy mentioned US carriers might be more interested in a -3 with a bit more range. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl
88 Rheinwaldner : The whole thread is about an article which says Boeing aims for a 2500nm range plane. Yes, I agree fully. Because of that I wondered what degree of f
89 Stitch : The problem with the 787-3 is her abysmal MTOW. The original spec had a MTOW of 165t, which was a full 55t lower then the 787-8's original spec. Now
90 Post contains links Keesje : 2500nm (with full passenger load) does not seem like a realistic range, trans continental flight, Western Europe - Middle East, Far East from Japan,
91 Zvezda : I think the reason that few 757s have been replaced by A321s is that the difference in operating costs, while great enough to through all the new sal
92 Stitch : I wonder if such a plane would "run up the backside" of a ~250t 787-10. I know it won't be as good as a 777-200ER, much less an A350X-900, but the A3
93 Revelation : Maybe you should make a color graph of Planemaker's data - you might convince yourself it's not a typo.
94 Scipio : Yes, that seems to be the idea. And achieving that would require an uncompromized clean-sheet design focused entirely on achieving short-range missio
95 Post contains links Keesje : We should add the 767-200, 767-300, A300/310 to the list & include growth 2014-2034. 2500nm is less then a A320 or 737. It needs more. I said / maint
96 Stitch : And yet none of those models are still available for sale. I doubt Boeing nor Airbus did this out of spite, but instead out of a lack of market inter
97 Post contains links and images Keesje : If I look at forecasts (Airbus) : Boeing offers similar forecasts: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo...ages/2008/lg/lrg_new_airplanes.gif I imagin
98 Zvezda : For the idea to fly, CASM needs to be substantially (20% ?) lower than alternatives with the same or smaller size and equal or greater range.
99 Scipio : One can debate about the exact cut-off point, but it should be in that order of magnitude. About the range of an A320. The A320 flies 3,000 nm with a
100 Ikramerica : Well, they don't really. They cover some of the missions. So airlines said "we have enough 757s right now, but we don't need that much capability for
101 ATA L1011 : Yeah there is more to the story - you don't understand the concept of fleet planning. Airlines don't have the luxury of being able to ground an entir
102 Keesje : Ikra you're doing it again, agreeing, Get Out o' Here!
103 DfwRevolution : Let's take a closer look at the these commonly repeated "truths" 1. The issue of OEW. Note that the 737-800 is 17% heavier than an MD-80 empty. The 7
104 Stitch : I understand that Boeing and Airbus both see tremendous growth in narrowbodies. But do they see that growth because airlines have no choice - the gap
105 Rheinbote : The question is, would such a light twin need an engine significantly beyond 30,000lbs thrust class, and if so, which OEM would be willing to develop
106 Stitch : Let's see... The CFM56-5Cx series used on the A340-300 family is in the 30,000lb thrust range. I don't know how much it shares in common with the CFM
107 Bahadir : In other words, another A310
108 Keesje : Boeing 757's single aisle operating costs played also role. GE / Safran (Snecma) have the JV called CFM and play and GE plays a big role in Leap-X. I
109 Ikramerica : It's an interesting question. One answer is that they were competing with the DC10. Another is that the 762ER and 763ER were more versatile (which is
110 Stitch : The A310 was shrunk to improve the range. And would this not also come into play with the 737RS and A320NR? Especially if Boeing and Airbus build a m
111 Planemaker : Voila... sm-range/frequency flight summaries for 5-11 January 2009 (note: for reference 2500-nm to 3200-nm range are in bold). A300 (includes all A30
112 Ikramerica : I think if this comes to pass, Boeing will not go there as well. Size would likely fall where they do now: 149 seats, 189 seats, 215 seats. (single c
113 Stitch : I think 149 seats would be about the minimum Boeing and Airbus are going to want to play with. The RJs, while stretched to the limits, can cover the
114 Travelhound : Yes, but I think any proposal for a wide body short hauler is not just about replacing planes flying in this segment today, but what is the size of t
115 Ikramerica : No, I don't see it. 149 seats is the 73G/A319 size, and Boeing is not going to abandon this huge segment. 189 is 738 replacement, 215 is 739 replacem
116 Mandala499 : I do wonder though, how many of those routes went to the 738/9 and 321 purely based on "we want lower cost coz we don't need the beefed up 752 payloa
117 Zvezda : Yes, but the different wings would provide different range envelopes as well, so we might end up with 4 fuselage lengths 3 of which are available wit
118 Travelhound : Add choice of engines into the equation and you are going to have a myriad of variants out there. Not good for residual values and leasing companies.
119 Rheinwaldner : I have come to the conclusion that this new Boeing proposal is a 1-to-1 match to the A300 role. Boeing has a vision of shortrange planes going bigger.
120 Keesje : It becomes clear many fly longer routes & narrowbodies can replace only so many. For the ones that fly shorter stretches : they also cannot be replac
121 Planemaker : No, the L1011's last delivery was in 1985... and some airlines, like AC or CX, never ordered the 767 after ordering their 1011s. I never said that th
122 Rheinwaldner : Very true! Many aircrafts have run out of life without a decent successor. I can list A300, A310, 757. The market always aligned itself accordingly.
123 Keesje : Some national services, check the schedules between MUN, FRA, TXL, HAM, same in France. Then we have services between AMS, CDG, LHR, FRA and the othe
124 Rheinwaldner : Amazing! There is the demand for high capacity short range aircrafts! Can you imagine the amount of fuel saved if those flights switch from 150 seate
125 Travelhound : I think if this plane was developed it would have to be on the back of a fundamental shift in choice of airplane patterns. Add in sales that would cr
126 Planemaker : It can't because an airline has to meet competitive market demands. Again... 9 752 flights could not "do the service" of 12 739/A321 flights. You are
127 Keesje : So you are saying there is no airline that flies 737-900 or A321 exclusively on a city pair and therefor there can be no substantial market for anyth
128 Stitch : I agree the 149-seat models still appeal to the LCCs due to cabin crew and turnaround time issues, but many two-class 73G customers are finding their
129 Planemaker : I said... ... and that point was raised secondary to your false claim that 9 752 flights could replace 12 739/A321 flights. Did you not read my reply
130 Zvezda : A circular cross section is not absolutely a requirement. The 737 does not have a circular cross section, for example, though the A320 does. Imagine
131 Post contains images Keesje : As you probably know LH even flies A300 high frequency domestic in combination with A321/20's. I'm feeling better and better on market portential for
132 Rheinwaldner : You think the market demands more than double the frequency? As I have shown in the future the frequency will still have to be raised despite a possi
133 Planemaker : Yes, as I posted... "legacies fly a variety of equipment from RJs to wide-bodies depending upon time of day/day of week (like LH...". You forgot that
134 DfwRevolution : 1. Every aircraft is a compromise. The fact that you don't understand this shows a fundamental lack of engineering proficiency. 2. The 737-800 and 77
135 Ikramerica : Well, some of us have been saying all along that the 787 competes with the A380 (in a 2 to 1 fashion). We were also wondering why more 767 customers
136 Post contains images Stitch : Possibly not much. When Boeing canceled the Sonic Cruiser, those of us working on it were moved to the 7E7 program. The original models Boeing was pr
137 Ikramerica : Absolutely. The point is that some airlines find it more valuable to standardize on one type and that influences the decision. AA decided 738s were t
138 Planemaker : As you know, Boeing started marketing the 767 way before the 767 EIS in 1982... in fact, several years before the first 767 order in July 1978... 7 y
139 Ikramerica : That is fine and dandy and has little to do with anything. Once a plane enters service and proves itself, then and only then do the orders for previo
140 Rheinbote : A320 cross-section ain't circular either.
141 Planemaker : It has everything to do with that it competed... and that was the simple point.
142 Rheinwaldner : This is true. I am aware that for competitiveness a lot of factors are important. Of course on short ranges there are many routes that never need mor
143 Planemaker : Airlines avoid putting a larger aircraft than neccessary on a route, even though it may have lower CASM. Airlines endeavour to match capacity to dema
144 Zvezda : Short of a new paradigm like BWB, I would agree that a fully-optimized clean-sheet twin with a fuselage cross section similar to that of the A330 or
145 Keesje : I doubt it. I think a fully-optimized clean-sheet twin with a fuselage cross section similar to that of the A320 / 737 and very roughly about 2000nm
146 Rheinwaldner : What you describe is a strategy which happens often and which often reduced the average plane size. But it is only the half truth. Also the opposite
147 Post contains links Keesje : I think we were comparing aircraft with the same seat capasity, technology and range. I think under 280 seats (~46 rows) 3-3 is more efficient. Above
148 Rheinwaldner : Valid thoughts. The exact trade off to get the most efficient fuselage width seems difficult to find out as layman. The important thing is that the i
149 FlyingAY : I was just a couple of hours ago booking a LH flight from MUC to FRA and noticed that it was operated by A321s and A300s only for that particular day
150 Planemaker : No, it is not the half truth... the industry does not work in the way that you imagine. Just look at MUC-FRA... LH Wed sched A319 x 1 A320 x 1 A321 x
151 Post contains links Keesje : American to deploy 757s on transatlantic flights Oneworld member American Airlines intends to upgrade 18 domestic Boeing 757-200s and transfer them to
152 Rheinwaldner : Obviously this is not an example for what I mean. I have not a theory that applies everywhere (thus I said half of the truth). Pointing to specific n
153 Planemaker : It doesn't apply anywhere. You can't explain why LH on monopoly routes doesn't follow your "theory". Or BCN-MAD, where not a single wide-body is used
154 747400sp : I been think about think ideal before it was posted on A.Net, but it had A330 style wing with winglet not fence.
155 Rheinwaldner : Your mode of denial is astonishing! I said: "It also explains why later on (and until today) the A300-type of aircraft could no longer play a decent
156 Planemaker : Look, I have provided real world, actual examples of routes, aircraft types and frequencies... on the other hand you have not provided any that suppo
157 Ikramerica : I would imagine they replaced DC8, 707, 727 etc. flights. It's an ebb and flow. Midsized widebodies took over because they had better CASM. But then
158 Rheinwaldner : You summarized in three lines what I tried to say in countless posts, thank you! My description are so easy to follow. I am sure you know better than
159 Planemaker : First, the 731 was not replaced by the A300... LH has never had bad fleet planning where they would replace a 100-seater with an aircraft almost 3 ti
160 Post contains links Rheinwaldner : In the timeframe when the A300 entered the fleet, the following Boeing narrowbodies left the LH fleet: Mainly 707, but also 727, 731. The trend has b
161 Planemaker : What happened 35 years ago in a heavily regulated air transport system with political interference by nationalistic governments to protect aircraft m
162 Rheinwaldner : Might be true to some degree. However in the sources I mentioned there is somewhere a LH statement that they are under no plitical pressure. They sai
163 Planemaker : Not "to some degree" but entirely true. The industry has changed completely in 35 years! And for you to continue to twist the facts from 35 years ago
164 Post contains links Rheinwaldner : You have a rather unconcerned relationship to superlatives, don't you? Completely means everything, you know as well than I that not everything has c
165 Planemaker : Did not buy???? Speaking of no credibility, you continue to post about subjects you have no knowledge of... LH 1970's Orders: 727 - 24 737 - 30 Sorry
166 Post contains images Keesje : At the end of the day / this thread I think we all agree there is a big hole in Boeings as well as Airbus' portfolios. Even if conservative technolog
167 Rheinwaldner : Probably my english is too bad. Or you lack good faith at least to try to understand what I have meant. I never said LH ordered A300 exclusively. I am
168 Parapente : I believe that the above post from Rheimwaldner says it all. In a very well argued way. There "was" a market (I flew on my first trip to Paris on a Tr
169 Planemaker : You did indeed say that LH did not buy 727s or 737s... "in the seventies when LH bought A300 their CASM advantage was so tempting that they did not b
170 Travelhound : I was thinking a 767 fuselage diameter would be where the design would come into its own element. As someone else asserted your ratio of seats / aisl
171 Keesje : So there is a need for something significant bigger then A321 on short haul? I know carriers that use widebodies in the aerly morning to make a short
172 Post contains links and images Keesje : I have seen it too. I doubt it would be lighter / more efficient then a 3-3 aircraft that is 15% longer.. Source: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/68
173 Rheinwaldner : That is interesting. I don't question it but do wonder what are the reasons? What are the factors that would either favor the narrowbody and what are
174 Planemaker : Yes, you just have to look at all the wide-body flight data that I have posted. But just because there is a "need" doesn't mean that the airlines wil
175 Keesje : - The A320 cross section is significantly wider the e.g. 757. I guess to new centersection/wing box/LDG would be required. - A320 carry cargo contain
176 Post contains links Rheinwaldner : Of course true but completely meaningless. A plane can be successfull and still be outsold. In absoulte numbers larger planes always sell less. I did
177 Zvezda : That limit depends on the materials being used. For aluminium alloys, that limit seems to be around 10/1 or 12/1. It should be higher for CFRP.
178 KELPkid : I for one, am glad that Boeing seems to have woken up and smelled the coffee: The 737-900 is NOT a viable replacement for the 757 on many routes for m
179 Zvezda : This is a well-understood problem that has been studied by both Airbus and Boeing. The way to optimize embarkation/disembarkation times for 6 abreast
180 Planemaker : To continuosly deny the facts demonstrates that you are either intellectually dishonest... or very forgetful! In your very own words... That was inde
181 XT6Wagon : Stitch, in this case its likely due to the 306 being an almost completely new plane, and having minimal commonality with the older models. On the 6 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...
Boeing 737 Landing Light Question posted Thu Feb 28 2002 05:35:59 by Rolex01
Boeing's Stretches: 737-9, 757-3, 767-4, 777-3 posted Tue Dec 25 2001 17:36:08 by Vfw614
ATA To Acquire 47 Boeing 737-800s & 757-300s posted Sun May 7 2000 21:33:14 by 767-400ER
Boeing 737 Emergency Landing At Copenhagen Kastrup posted Fri Sep 19 2008 03:58:30 by SKAirbus
Boeing 737-200 Crashes In Ecuador. posted Sun Aug 31 2008 05:31:33 by Rleiro
Gust Of Wind Pushes Boeing 737-800 (Video) posted Sun Aug 3 2008 10:27:56 by Amritpal
Boeing Forecast Sees Shift To Larger Types posted Wed Jul 9 2008 07:23:41 by Aviationbuff
Boeing 737-900 No Longer In Production? posted Thu May 1 2008 08:44:47 by Speedmarque
Continental Boeing 737 Off Runway At CMH posted Sat Mar 8 2008 02:39:33 by Boeing727flyer
Awas Orders Up To 50 Boeing 737-800 posted Fri Dec 14 2007 07:24:56 by Danny