Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Markets & Research- A321Neo, 737-900 Are No 757  
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 942 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 12299 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Interesting article about the 757 and what's suppose to be its raplacements, the A321, and 737-900.

Airbus and Boeing's newest variants are replacing the 757 on several routes but the 757 filled a void these new airplanes cannoot fill, "it has a niche, spcecially on the U.S East Coast to non-hub European markets.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Resear...s-Comparing-bw-2172414628.html?x=0

84 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2351 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 12261 times:

Boeing made a strategic mistake by not offering a 757NG. Can anyone explain the costs in bringing the 757 back with a lighter design and more efficient engines? The upcoming NEO'es and MAX'es still couldn't hold a candle to a 757NG.


The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlinepnd100 From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 12261 times:

While I agree there is no like-for-like replacement, a combination of capacity / frequency can replace the service provided by a 757. Instead of a daily 180 passenger 752 (1,260 PPW) you can use a 5x weekly 763 with 259 seats (1,295 PPW).

User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 12208 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 1):
Boeing made a strategic mistake by not offering a 757NG.

757 production ended because nobody wanted 757s. A 757NG would have been like GM bringing out a next generation Aztek.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 1):
Can anyone explain the costs in bringing the 757 back with a lighter design and more efficient engines?

Massive, at this point essentially a whole new aircraft which Boeing does not have the resources available to build. At least not without cannibalizing models with far more potential.

And another thing, what more efficient engines? The 757 falls directly in a black hole of engine development. The lowest thrust 757s have about 37,000 lbs of thrust per engine while the most powerful LEAP-X and GTF models are in the low 30s, about 33,000 lbs. These more efficient 757 engines you speak of just do not exist. When it comes to more efficient engines, there isn't much between the 33,000 lb. PW1133G and the 57,000 lb GEnx.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 12108 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 1):
Boeing made a strategic mistake by not offering a 757NG.

They really didn't. Boeing could not find customers for new-build 757s. They had just finished a comprehensive long-range market study based on customer interaction whose final result did not include an aircraft in the 757's segment. There is no shortage of 757s now parked in the desert or leaving passenger service for the freight market. How can we come to any conclusion other than demand for a 757-like airplane just isn't that strong?

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 1):
Can anyone explain the costs in bringing the 757 back with a lighter design and more efficient engines?

Several billion - the same cost as starting from a clean-sheet, which is effectively what is required for a 757NG. It's not coming back, ever.

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
Airbus and Boeing's newest variants are replacing the 757 on several routes but the 757 filled a void these new airplanes cannoot fill, "it has a niche, spcecially on the U.S East Coast to non-hub European markets.

It found that market late in life because it was becoming less and less cost-effective in the U.S. domestic market but could compensate for higher operating costs by raking in higher revenues on thin TATL routes. I think we should also remember that the biggest pioneer of using the 757 TATL was CO, who was perpetually short on widebodies at the time. So can we say that the 757 was truly the most effective aircraft for the routes it served?

In addition to the continued evolution of the 737 and A320 series, we should consider that some 757 TATL routes may be overdue for up-gauging to 787-8s.


User currently offlinenotaxonrotax From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 396 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 12050 times:

Another "bring back the 757" thread--> yaaayyy!!

The line was closed because there were no customers!
Yes, it is THAT simple!

The "thing" performs great but it costs too much money in fuel!!
Yes, it is THAT simple!

To compete with "next generation" aircraft Boeing would have to change so much that it's not a 757 anymore!
797??

No Tax On Rotax



Als vader voorlicht, kan je merken dat hij achter ligt.
User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5327 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 11994 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 1):
Boeing made a strategic mistake by not offering a 757NG.

No, they would have made a strategic mistake by offering a 757NG.

The market for such a thing is maybe 250 frames over 10 years, if you assume generously.

Meanwhile, they are devoting their engineering and production capacity to something that sells more frames than that in a single year.

The next small TATL bird will be an evolution of the lighter narrowbodies, not a direct 757 replacement. And threads like this wildly blow the importance of the TATL P2P market out of proportion. It really isn't that huge, folks.


User currently offlinejimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 653 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 11871 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 1):
Boeing made a strategic mistake by not offering a 757NG.

The truth is that Boeing likely thinks of the original 757 as a strategic mistake from the very beginning. Its niche size is an accident of history thanks to Eastern. It's had an ok run, but remember it was a clean sheet project that was quite expensive to develop and sold only 1100 or so airframes.

If Boeing were to do it all over again, I have no doubt they would create lighter, clean sheet 150 passenger airframe. Or in other words, they would have created an A320 8 years earlier than Airbus.


User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 11754 times:

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 5):

Not to mention, a link to a "study" that costs $60 to print out. LOL!

I'll be so happy when all the 757 operators commit to getting rid of them, so these silly threads can stop popping up every, single, flippin' week.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30623 posts, RR: 84
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11703 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 1):
Boeing made a strategic mistake by not offering a 757NG.

If anybody made a "strategic mistake", it was the airlines. After all, they were the ones who stopped buying the 757-200 in favor of the A321-200* and they were the ones who did not push Boeing to create an updated model.

* - Which is a perfectly serviceable aircraft for so many of the missions the 757-200 was doing for those carriers.

[Edited 2011-12-10 16:36:23]

User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2424 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11633 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 6):
Boeing made a strategic mistake by not offering a 757NG.

No, they would have made a strategic mistake by offering a 757NG.

In hind sight, they kinda did. The 752LR. At that time though, nobody saw the writing on the wall that there would be a demand a 4500nm+ variant of the seven five. That being said, if the 757 line were still trickling out units today, you can't deny that a 757NG would be on the table utilizing todays technology.

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 5):
Another "bring back the 757" thread--> yaaayyy!!

We 757 fans know that it is at best a fantasy to see new 757's ever again, but it never hurts to dream.   



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2866 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11620 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Can, and don't flame me as I am "Mr Novice", but could Boeing create a way to restore 757's currently in service, economically, so airlines that require their unique, niche market specs can squeeze another decade or so out of them? Think of what Star Fleet did to the Enterprise between 1969 and 1979  

I LOVE 757's and don't want to stop flying them or watching slide into the sky!



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlinepnd100 From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 11406 times:

VC10er, I have enjoyed the questions you have asked so far. As long as you remember to conduct a search first, do your due diligence. Many times I've searched & not found the exact question or found that the topic needs an updated discussion. There are those who frown on this but if you do not like the topic, no one is asking you to read or post in it. If we do not ask, how will we learn?

User currently offlinedfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 11371 times:

Quoting pnd100 (Reply 2):
While I agree there is no like-for-like replacement, a combination of capacity / frequency can replace the service provided by a 757. Instead of a daily 180 passenger 752 (1,260 PPW) you can use a 5x weekly 763 with 259 seats (1,295 PPW).

You're assuming that passengers are willing to change their travel day to accomodate the airline. I, for one, don't work that way. If an airline doesn't fly the desired route on the day I want to fly, then I'm either on another carrier or booking with a connection.


User currently offlineRG787 From Brazil, joined Nov 2010, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11283 times:

It's just my thinking and I don't have anything to prove it's right or wrong, but I think a 757 like aircraft is going to come from a third manufacturer not today, but when all the 752 and 763 start going to the scrap man. Both Boeing and Airbus will be occupied developing new narrow bodies and the A350-787 and maybe 777, and I think this is going to be a gap in the market.

User currently offlinepnd100 From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11267 times:

Quoting dfambro (Reply 13):
You're assuming that passengers are willing to change their travel day to accomodate the airline. I, for one, don't work that way. If an airline doesn't fly the desired route on the day I want to fly, then I'm either on another carrier or booking with a connection.

Good point, there may be passengers who are wanting to travel on a particular day that go to another carrier. Certainly if I "had" to fly on "Thursday" this would be a factor. Usually that is reflective of a more premium demographic with business requirements.

However as we are talking about 757 routes I'm assuming we are talking about routes where this type of demand is not the highest because if it were, there would already be a daily 767/777/A330/A340 or higher on it. Premium demand on these types of 757 routes is not that significant. We are talking about tourist / VFR / FIT routes. On these routes, there may not be another airline flying or the percentage of people who will switch is small. A carrier can afford to leave weekends or Tue / Thu off the schedule.

[Edited 2011-12-10 20:02:55]

User currently offlinekiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8544 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11244 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think the 757 was/is a very unusual aircraft in that it has ended up in a specialist niche role very different from the one it was actually designed for. I have no doubt that either/both the A321 Neo and the 737-9Max can fill most of the role that the 757 was originally designed for, what they probably can't do is replace it in it's second life on thin medium haul routes principally from the Eastern Seaboard of the US to 'near' Europe. However, I don't think either manufacturer would intentionally design an aircraft specifically for the role. What proportion of the 1,000 plus 757s built are utilised in this niche? I suspect not enough of them to have made a worthwhile production run in their own right.


Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11196 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 4):
It found that market late in life because it was becoming less and less cost-effective in the U.S. domestic market but could compensate for higher operating costs by raking in higher revenues on thin TATL routes. I think we should also remember that the biggest pioneer of using the 757 TATL was CO, who was perpetually short on widebodies at the time. So can we say that the 757 was truly the most effective aircraft for the routes it served?

Which begs the question: just how many 757s are deployed TATL ? I don't think the number is all that big, compared to the production run of >1,000.

I'd think an A321neo or a 737-900ER could do BOS/JFK to Western Europe. Range of the beast should be >3,500 nm with a decent pax load. Not sure how much freight it could carry though. Might be really good for going into MAN/BHX/NCL/CWL/EDI etc.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12903 posts, RR: 100
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 11064 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

"Markets & Research- A321Neo, 737-900 Are No 757 "

I keep seeing that meme here on a.net and it is driving me nuts.
There are only 3 things that made the 757 unique:
1. Range (TATL). Initially it was the only TCON narrowbody and is the only high payload TATL narrowbody.
2. Short field performance.
3. 189 pax (approx) size

My comments:
1. Right now the A321NEO and certainly the 739MAX will fall short on TATL range. However... there is much interest in a lower cost per flight TATL narrowbody. I believe we'll see a 738MAX TATL and probably an A320NEO on TATL. Not the EIS versions... but eventually. However, the TATL market is a relatively small fraction of the 752 fleet.
2. The lastest 737NG with the short-field package changes the game. See Boeing's performance charts:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/737sec3.pdf
3. The A321NEO or 739ER are 'close enough' unless one needs the range *or* the short field performance.

Now, for certain short field performance, the 739MAX/A321NEO will never compete. But it isn't as if smaller lengths of these aircraft couldn't replace.

I'm not for increased frequency as much as market fragmentation. For example, DL is flying the 752 to ATL for connections. For many routes, say LAX-Florida, smaller gauge aircraft that are more efficient than today's aircraft should allow more p2p connections. I've watched that start to happen over my lifetime. I see it continuing.

Quoting pnd100 (Reply 2):
While I agree there is no like-for-like replacement, a combination of capacity / frequency can replace the service provided by a 757. Instead of a daily 180 passenger 752 (1,260 PPW) you can use a 5x weekly 763 with 259 seats (1,295 PPW).

Change your example to a smaller plane with increased frequency or fragmentation and I agree. Oh, some will upgage (the short haul version of SQ's SIN-ZRH/CDG). Most will add frequency or fragmentation.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 10957 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 18):
I believe we'll see a 738MAX TATL and probably an A320NEO on TATL.

I'm not arguing, I'm musing:

But to what benefit? Even in a normal airline configuration, which is doable most likely on many routes, would the financial success be there?

I doubt we'll see fragmentation to the point where United is going to be flying A320s or 737-8s from EWR to every secondary city in Europe - it just doesn't seem to make much sense on the surface. I don't believe that downgrading the current markets served with the 757 to a smaller plane will make driving sense?

Perhaps, and maybe just perhaps, they could get yield to a few key secondary markets with a typical configuration - or even an all business config or a half business half economy config similar to Dedicate. But again - those have to be HIGH yield markets. I'm not sure there's a lot within the range of EWR or JFK that make a ton of sense.

NS


User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10766 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 1):
Boeing made a strategic mistake by not offering a 757NG.

I'm am going to be the Nth person to quote this with a question for the knowledgeable folks around here. The 757 was made at Renton, right? And that manufacturing space is now popping out 737s at a rapid pace, no? Or was it mothballed and sold?


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2756 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10561 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 18):
Right now the A321NEO and certainly the 739MAX will fall short on TATL range. However... there is much interest in a lower cost per flight TATL narrowbody. I believe we'll see a 738MAX TATL and probably an A320NEO on TATL. Not the EIS versions... but eventually. However, the TATL market is a relatively small fraction of the 752 fleet.

Exactly. There aren't more than 50 or so 752s flying TATL at the moment. Would a 737MAX TATL sell in enough numbers to justify its development? Or would it just sell much like the 764 (30 to DL, 20 to UA/CO and that's it)?



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6126 posts, RR: 34
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10471 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 21):
Exactly. There aren't more than 50 or so 752s flying TATL at the moment.

According to Innovata there were 80 757 flights that were over 3500 sm last week (BTW, JFK-LHR is 3451 sm). Of course, not all were TATL (eg. MIA-LPB) but at the very least we can say that only 40 aircraft were needed for that range bracket.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 10127 times:

Quoting jimbobjoe (Reply 7):
The truth is that Boeing likely thinks of the original 757 as a strategic mistake from the very beginning. Its niche size is an accident of history thanks to Eastern. It's had an ok run, but remember it was a clean sheet project that was quite expensive to develop and sold only 1100 or so airframes.

1,100 airframes hardly qualifies for classification as a "mistake". The 757 had its time and it did a great job. No, the 739 and A321 don't fill its niche, but then the article is by someone who's making comparisons from an armchair and somehow didn't do the further research to see if there's a demand from airlines for a 757 replacement. On the flip side, I suspect the 797 will be a blend of capacities to fill the 739, A321 and 757 seat capacities with two or three different sub-types.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineJHCRJ700 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 10009 times:

Quoting dfambro (Reply 13):
You're assuming that passengers are willing to change their travel day to accomodate the airline. I, for one, don't work that way. If an airline doesn't fly the desired route on the day I want to fly, then I'm either on another carrier or booking with a connection

Same here. I fly when I need to fly and if mr first choice airline doesn't go when I need them to I'm on another carrier it's that easy. I think that the vast majority of people in today's, need it when I want it, society are like this.

That being said, I too am a big 75 fan. She's my favorite bird currently in the friendly skies. But Boeing isn't going to start producing neo versions or anything like that. The market is too small and really outside of the US there aren't too many in large operation (yes I know about the European operators but I'm comparing them to the large number of 75's in operation over here). The 75 will undoubtedly live on in cargo operation for many years and there are still some years left before they start getting phased out in large numbers by passenger operators. So my advice to all you fellow 75 lovers out there is to enjoy them while you can and savor ever flight on one. If you guys are anything like me I always go out of my way to fly on one of the old gals.



RUSH
25 Post contains images EPA001 : Yeah, even in aviation sometimes developments can surprise anyone, including the airlines and aircraft manufacturers. That would be something right?
26 TJCAB : um, when was the 321 supposed to be the replacement for the 757. my understanding was that the 321 is a higher capacity version of the A320, which is
27 Post contains images pnd100 : Agreed. My example of going to a 5x weekly 763 was just one way of servicing the route. I assumed that the range required was too much for the 737 /
28 Post contains images jcos15 : "Another "bring back the 757" thread--> yaaayyy!!" Well, this is my first ever post here on a.net, so it's new to me. I signed up to hopefully shar
29 HOMSAr : The problem here (and one of the things that I think drives lots of these discussions) is that you can't make a specific distinction between types an
30 JHCRJ700 : Welcome to the forums. Very nice first post! This is an interesting point that you make here. At the time there were a lot of newer birds still aroun
31 Post contains images lightsaber : That almost condenses my 3 points to two. However, I believe the far lower per-trip costs of a 3500sm 737MAX/A3210NEO will grow the market. How many
32 Post contains images BMI727 : It is the norm when rehashing old questions with the same answers for the thousandth time. At the time, 737s and 727s could not do the almost the sam
33 dfwrevolution : It crossed the 1,000 unit threshold by which we apparently judge success/failure, but it sold about 40% fewer units than the 727 it was designed to r
34 BMI727 : The 757 was a plane largely designed for the American market, which was a tradeoff Boeing had to make considering the technology of the era. Airlines
35 2travel2know2 : Neither aircraft could do it. Thinking of UA, an ETOPS B737-700 with a 110+ passenger, 2 class configuration maybe OK to fly between NYC/BOS and SNN/
36 Post contains links notaxonrotax : Welcome to the site! Thank you for your suggestion but I think I will make up my own mind of where and when I post. It is however the "norm" to first
37 highflier92660 : Doesn't anyone think that somewhere in a corner office at Boeing there aren't a small group of designers attempting to create a composite narrow-body
38 Giancavia : No way matey! 757's were my first memory of aviation. Flight on a Monarch one. Watching Monarch and Britannia 757's fly out of Luton every day. The u
39 BMI727 : I hope not. They should be sitting there trying to create a composite narrowbody 160-210 passenger airliner to cruise at Mach .78-.80 and fly 3700-38
40 JoeCanuck : It will be possible to mod the NEO and MAX to make them reliable TATL transports. What will decide whether or not these long range models are made, wi
41 ckfred : The problem goes back to Eastern wanting something bigger than a 727-200, which was the original intent for the 757. Boeing went along in order to get
42 incitatus : The motivation for this article is nothing short of silly. I am still waiting for a decent 707 replacement.
43 Post contains images kgaiflyer : You mean like the Tupolev 204? It even looks like a 757.
44 Extra300 : IMO there is a gap between the largest single aisles and the smallest widebodies. The 332 is a lot bigger than 321, both in range and pax capacity. Th
45 Post contains images faro : Contrary to Mark Twain's predicament, reports of the 757's death seem to be greatly under-stated, at least amongst the a.nutters of the world. How ma
46 MoltenRock : The worst change NWA made was replacing their DC10 service with those blasted 753s. Flying from the west coast, weekly, as I was back then, the biz cl
47 notaxonrotax : Welcome to my respected user list. I thought I was direct, but there is always a superlative! Catch you on the next 757-thread......in 2 weeks time?
48 planemaker : For the 752 there were a total of 528 flights between 2000 and 2500 sm. BTW, the 752's top five range rankings were: 800 - 899 sm - 305 flts 1700 - 1
49 gigneil : There seems to be an obsession with comparing aircraft arbitrarily. Like the 787 can't compete with the 777 or A340 it competes only with the A330. O
50 Post contains images faro : That seems like a good average ...for some strange reason, I can't say I don't enjoy these threads though. Like one critic's assessment of a memorabl
51 notaxonrotax : Oh, I hear you! I am here, right? It's just funny that twice a month somebody wakes up with the same brilliant business idea; and an internet connect
52 ebj1248650 : At the time it was designed and built, the 757 appeared to be exactly what the airlines wanted and they loved the power because it could operate well
53 SEPilot : They had no engine for it, and the market is not big enough to justify developing one just for the 757.
54 jimbobjoe : Boeing was disappointed by its sales for the first 3-4 years. The sales were so slow at the time that they were afraid it would never be a profitable
55 HOMSAr : Which must be why Delta didn't just buy 100 of them to replace the 757. Oh wait...they did.
56 747400sp : Also, something to remember, is when the 757 first came out, airlines was fling L1011s, DC10s and in some cases 747s, on route that was more or less,
57 lightsaber : No argument there. My focus is that the lower cost per flight of a TATL 738MAX would open routes. Is this fleet wide? For domestic routes, the 739MAX
58 planemaker : Yes, fleet wide.
59 Centre : At 1216 orders for the A321 (with more to come, 1994-present) versus 1050 for the 757 (1982-2004) should turn the table around. What can the A321 do/
60 Rheinwaldner : Or 10 weekly A320NEO or 12 weekly A319NEO. Because even the CASM of the A319NEO probably still beats the CASM of the 757... And, while comparing the
61 chieft : The B757 is a great aircraft for charter operators. Having up to 235 seats you can operate routes with an endurance of aprox. 7 hours. Neither the A32
62 overcast : Strange, but I always thought the 757 Cross Section was the same as all Boeing Narrow bodies (707,727,737, and 757). You should be praising the A32X
63 chieft : Well, that was always my impression, at least compared to the B737. A32X cabins are wider and the figures tell us more: Cabin width: B737: 3,53m B757
64 seabosdca : An A321 is substantially cheaper to fly, both on fuel and on maintenance, than a 752. From a performance standpoint, there is no mission an A321 can
65 Post contains images chieft : seabosdca, please have a look on reply 63
66 MoltenRock : According to AA, the current generation A321s are 15% more fuel efficient than the 767 and 12% more efficient than their 757s, with NEOs an additiona
67 ukoverlander : Speaking purely as a passenger in this context, I love the 757 - if I'm flying within the US or Europe. I'd take the 757 over the 737 any day of the w
68 chieft : When it comes to economics, the fuel bill is only one piece of the picture. Lease rates and purchase prices for B757 are pretty low, so if you have a
69 Post contains links and images lightsaber : The 757 is overbuilt for most missions. It costs about $3k more per typical A321 mission to fly than the A321 (1000nm). The bulk of those 150 could b
70 LAXDESI : I thought it would be interesting to update the numbers from your link for the current fuel prices for 1,000nm trip(keeping all other numbers the sam
71 MoltenRock : Thanks for the link. The article I read must have swapped fuel reduction with CASM, which now makes more sense to me. When I first read it, I was qui
72 Viscount724 : 757 horizontal cross-section is exactly the same as all other Boeing narrowbodies since the 707. The vertical cross-section is a little taller, meani
73 Post contains images lightsaber : Huh... I did the math in my head and came out with 18% lower CASM while your numbers are only 17% lower. What will also change is, if anyone went int
74 notaxonrotax : Not to high-jack the thread......nor to start a whole new thread--> one walks a thin line: I know B757 flies TATL quite a bit. But what IS the exac
75 LAXDESI : PTY-GIG is 2,855nm as per GC. B73G has a range of about 3,400nm, B738 a range of about 3,100nm, and B739 a range of about 2,700nm and 3,200nm with au
76 notaxonrotax : Thank you LAXdesi. Realistically, you won't see the the B739 on a route like that. It's close shave..... Amazing endurance for that size of plane! No
77 pnd100 : Exactly, any combination of capacity or frequency adjustment can work. As mentioned, I had assumed that the route was not within the range of the A32
78 Post contains links 2travel2know2 : From www.gcmap.com - CM longest flights, in Nautical miles: PTY (9°04'17"N 79°23'00"W) MVD (34°50'18"S 56°01'51"W) 154.4° (SE) 2941 nm PTY (9°0
79 Centre : Haven't got the chance to go over the whole thread, but haven't seen any talk of fleet commonality that the A321 provides with the other A320 family m
80 GymClassHero : If this seems the case, I have a feeling the used 757s will be around for a very long time, and I bet after-market mods will be very popular, especial
81 Post contains images lightsaber : I was only ignoring such cost savings as I tend to think about the major 757 operators: US, UA, DL, and AA whom all have such large subfleets that an
82 Post contains images Centre :
83 GymClassHero : lightsaber - Yeah, I see the 757 becoming the big cargo workhorse for the next several decades. In that sector, it can sure haul ass like no other air
84 lightsaber : If you mean allegiant air, I agree. They have this ability to make money off low utilization aircraft purchased at low costs in a business model I'm
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...
CO EWR-LAS, 737-900, No Monitors, No Movie posted Mon Feb 9 2009 09:02:28 by NYC-AIR
Boeing 737-900 No Longer In Production? posted Thu May 1 2008 08:44:47 by Speedmarque
When Are XL Due To Get First 737-900? posted Fri Sep 28 2007 13:33:38 by Orion737
Why No Winglets For 737-900? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 05:55:25 by UncGSO
73G/8/900+772+744=LY New Fleet; No 757, Nor 767?! posted Tue Mar 20 2001 09:49:24 by Toda,Reisinger
Goodbye 757, Hello 737-900 posted Sat Feb 26 2000 20:20:29 by Koolguy40
737-900 = 757-200 posted Tue Mar 16 1999 22:07:59 by FAUnited7
737-900 or 757-300 posted Sun Feb 14 1999 03:56:38 by United777
Lion Air 737-900 Overrun Balikpapan. posted Mon Oct 24 2011 02:20:29 by clydenairways
Why Are No Russian Airliners In The Desert? posted Wed Nov 24 2010 04:50:59 by Aviatorcraig