warpspeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 516 posts, RR: 3 Posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9324 times:
We've heard that Airbus will use the A321NEO as its 757-class product offering.
What can Boeing best offer as a 757-200 replacement - a 737-9MAX ER, a new aircraft class (b/t the MAX -9 and the 787-8) or a shortened 787?
From the recent Flightglobal article about a 757 replacement study....
"The largest part of that [757-200 replacement] segment is going to be filled by the larger versions of the narrowbody [737 Max]," McNerney says. "But there's some product planning we have yet to do, and we'll announce that in due course."
The remarks echo McNerney's statement about a 757 replacement last May. Speaking to analysts at last year's Boeing "investor day", McNerney explained the company's focus was on replacing the "heart" of the narrowbody market formed by the 737-700 and -800.
At the time, Boeing was still considering an all-new narrowbody, and McNerney suggested it could stretch that aircraft for the 757 replacement market or develop a shortened version of the 787.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10652 posts, RR: 100 Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9225 times:
Short Term, 739MAX. For range, 738MAX. I expect to hear about higher MTOW versions of both for the range.
I see Boeing needing to focus on:
787 weight reduction and aerodynamic improvements
789 EIS
777X (rewing? Certainly due for a re-engine)
I could see a *light* version of the 787 a la the 720. But it would have to be something far more economical than the prior 783 proposal (lighter).
With the 738MAX and 739MAX, I simply do not see the pressing need for a new 757 replacement offering other than higher MTOW versions of the 737.
American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3320 posts, RR: 14 Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9113 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1): With the 738MAX and 739MAX, I simply do not see the pressing need for a new 757 replacement offering other than higher MTOW versions of the 737.
They would have to be approved at least for 180min ETOPS operations to be considered as a 757 replacement.
"Aimer jusqu'a l'impossible, c'est possible". Tina Arena.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8875 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1): I could see a *light* version of the 787 a la the 720. But it would have to be something far more economical than the prior 783 proposal (lighter).
So, we are now talking about a "B-787-7", with a range out to about 4500 nm, seating for some 220 pax and about 15-20 LD3s, a MTOW around 350,000 to 400,000 lbs, with derated GEnx-1B or Trent-1000 engines of around 50,000 lbs of thrust each. It would have a fuselarge lenght of about 150' to 160' long and a shorter wingspan of about 165'-175' with raked wingtips.
United727 From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 379 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8489 times:
Most likely a 783 or the up and coming 79x! I just hate comparing a version of the 73 wit the 75 as comfort (to me is a major issue). I would much rather see the smaller "Dreamlinette" or the new 797 follow in the footsteps of the 757.
Looking for the impossible way to save those dying breeds!!!!
LipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11201 posts, RR: 61 Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 8070 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
As there's nothing new here, and even the OP agreed with that, we are closing this thread.
Just a friendly reminder that all times, please use the SD button to advise us about potential subjects already discussed as we're always considering any new input as a very good reason for a new discussion.
Thanks
Felipe
Forum Moderator
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !