Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why A 757-200ERX If The 762 Is Almost The Same...  
User currently offlineGodbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2753 posts, RR: 16
Posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1638 times:

Why does Boeing want to bring out the 757-200ERX??? The 767-200 isn't much larger but it has more space in the cabin making long air travel more comfortable. I would for everything in this world prefer a 767 over the 757 on a flight over the atlantic! So I really can't understand Boeing with the 757-200ERX!

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBoeing757/767 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2282 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1571 times:

It's all about costs. On a per-seat-mile basis, the 757 tops the 767.

Also, other than CO, no one has expressed interest in reviving the 767-200.



Free-thinking, left-leaning secularist
User currently offlineKUGN From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 615 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1553 times:

This is just another part of Boeing's smokescreen to make you forget that they couldn't get the 747X off the ground.


Rediculous. You know, in between smokescreen attempts, Boeing needs to manufacture some aircrafts, you know.

767-200 has been discontinued, and as I understand 757-200ERX is much more efficient, and will be more affordable to smaller operators, as well larger ones would be able to order larger quantities.

In my opinion this will result one of the major advancements in the air travel economics in this decade.


User currently offline777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1506 times:

The 767-200ER has not been discontinued, it is still offered to existing customers , military organizations, and new customers if the price is right. The 757-200ERX is cheaper, more fuel-efficient, and a better fit at airports where the runways are not long and do not have the equipment to handle such a large aircraft as the 767.

Enough said.


User currently offlineKing767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1502 times:

The 767-200ER has not been discontinued! It is there if anyone wants it. Of course the 757-200ERX will have a lower operating cost (Lets use our heads, whats cheaper to operate, a widebody, or a narrowbody.) The 757-200ERX is going to operate in a niche market, from smaller city's (that cannot support a 767 or A330) to mainly Europe.

"In my opinion this will result one of the major advancements in the air travel economics in this decade."

See how economical it is to operate a 757, let's say JFK-CDG. It would not be economical to operate a narrowbody aircraft from large point to point destinations, as cargo is a big factor in profit. Also, to answer TEDSKIS question as to why Boeing would even think of airlines operate an "uncomfortable" narrowbody on such long-range routes, well, I don't think Boeing or any aircraft manufacturer really cares what people think (even though I would not mind hopping the pond on a 757). Boeing cares about what airlines want, and airlines want $, which this aircraft would provide on thin, long-range routes.

The best,
Tom



User currently offlineKUGN From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 615 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1494 times:

Well, I wouldn't agree that a narrowbody is "uncomfortable" by default on long haul.

There are many factors that go into the equation; for example I believe that CO 757s are more comfortable than some L1011, DC10s etc.

So, lets wait and see cabin layouts, inflight services, position and number of lavatories etc before making determination if 757-200ERX narrowbody is uncomfortable.


User currently offline767-322ETOPS From United States of America, joined May 2001, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1491 times:

The 767 can carry more cargo than the 757, this impacts the economics too.

User currently offlineGodbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2753 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1483 times:

But still I can't understand that airlines would rather get a 757 then a 762. Since airlines want to make sure that customers stay with them and for service a wider cabin really is an advantage. Plus that the 767 can carry cargo where the 757 has to have extra fuel-tanks.
So I could understand every charter airline to go for the 757-200ERX instead of the 767-200 since cargo ain't important for them and so they want to reduce costs where every possible so for example by reducing drag through a smaller cabin. Well but airlines really must think different since the last airline to order the 767-200 was CO and before that there havn't been orders for 7 years...


User currently offlineKing767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1483 times:

KUGN,
I was not saying that a Narrowbody would be "uncomfortable" on long-range flights, but just making refference to what Godbless stated. I would have no problem flying a 757 or 737NG across the pond.

Godbless,
Economics outweigh creature comforts. On the routes that the 757-200ERX will be operated, there is not going to be much of a choice who to fly to Europe. And if there is competition, they most likely are going to be operating a 757 or similar aircraft too, leaving the customer with no choice, unless they wanted to fly into a hub. An airlines is not going to operate a 767 or similar sized aircraft on such thin, low yield routes.

-Tom


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16892 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1440 times:

The 757-200ERX will not compete directly against widebodies but would instead compete against connections.

The 757-200ERX will open up routes that otherwise would require a connection like NY-Berlin, from a business travelers perspective a nonstop is always more desirable than a connection. This is the same debate seen with RJs and 737s or A319s, the RJ opens up many more flights opportunities that would otherwise require a connection like NY-Madison Wisconsin.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1437 times:

According to Boeing's specs, this aircraft would have the range to fly Houston Paris nonstop. In my opinion, 10 hours on a 757 is just too much, unless they add an inch or so in seat pitch and give us PTV's.

User currently offlineGregg From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1432 times:

Narrow boddies are not that bad. (I agree with the previous post that many 757s are more comfortable then DC-10s.. No "center of the center" seat. I'd much rather fly a 757 from the city that I live in, to Europe, South America, etc. Also if you travel in first or bus, all seats in a 757 are on a window or isle... I was happy when I flew a 707 30 years ago from Houston, stopping in LAX, HNL, then on to Tokyo. And ANY seat in a 757 is better then the center of a 5 seat seating section of a wide body.

But yes, a 767 is the most comfortable in steerage for long flights, no doubt about it.


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...
The 717 Is The Best 100 Seater! posted Sat Feb 21 2004 22:48:22 by Applepie81
Why Is The 757 So Succesfull As A Cargoplane? posted Sat Dec 2 2006 14:01:43 by AbleToFly
Is The 737-900ER Extra Door Same As A 757 Door 3? posted Mon Aug 14 2006 18:35:04 by Speedmarque
If The A330 Is So Successful, Then Why The A350? posted Thu Feb 3 2005 18:18:40 by PyroGX41487
Is The 757 Cabin The Same Width As The 737? posted Wed Jul 31 2002 07:15:38 by ChautauquaFA
Why Is The MD90 Out Dated But 737NG Is A Sucess posted Sat Dec 9 2006 06:02:48 by 747400sp
Why Is The Boeing 720 Weaker And Lighter? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 16:57:56 by Duke
Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 08:54:25 by Baron95
Why Is The Orange Air 742 At TLV? posted Sun Sep 17 2006 19:11:31 by Dangould2000
Is The 757 Being Reborn Or Just Being Used Better? posted Thu Jun 1 2006 16:22:48 by BHXDTW