The drive behind it is clearly the popular transatlantic segment that carriers say the 739ER and A321neo can't match - US Airways is specifically mentioned.
The options that are available seem to be a redefinition or addition to the MAX (although it hasn't been fully defined yet anyway) or a re-entry of a 787-3 into the product line. I personally see the MAX option a bit of a stretch and think a redefined 787-3 with less capactiy and greater range might be favourable?
We could also see an Airbus response, expecially with US being a valuable Airbus customer, maybe an improved or -ER version of the A321neo (again a bit of stretch). Just gonna throw it out there - what about a new A330 model?
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2554 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 26585 times:
IMO, the A330/787 variant path is going to be a difficult one. The 757 needs to be replaced from the 737/A320 lines, to keep the weight to an absolute minimum.
If the 787 were to be used as a platform it would need to be stripped right back, perhaps integrating some of the design elements that come out of the -10 as a regional aircraft. It would still be too heavy though...
We'll see what happens. It's a pretty small market to go through a big development process for -- the A321/739ER do a pretty good job of replacing the 757 in most areas, especially in the NEO/MAX generation.
HPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3661 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 26495 times:
Shouldn't be an issue with the technology available. If it could be done in the 1980s, it can be done now. Obviously we are looking at a narrowbody most likely, regardless of the A.net hate for narrowbodies - the kinds of long, thin routes currently flown by the 757 in many cases could not support a widebody.
The bigger question is would Boeing want to start a new line for this plane, taking away from something that is already in the works? Or would they expand without pushing something out that is already running?
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3195 posts, RR: 10 Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 26489 times:
Nor Boeing or Airbus will pull a clean sheet to design a 757 replacement. The niche market doesn't justify it.
The articles hints at a 737MAX evolution. Though I don't know how much more range and payload can be stretched out of it.
Maybe a new wing/landing gear/engine combination, but the investment still seems heavy for such a small market. The gap between the 739/A321 and the 787/A330 isn't that wide.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1522 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 26480 times:
Personally I would like to see airbus stick the A321 wing on the A320 and max out the weights with the new GTFs hung under the wings, Boeing shoul do the same with the 73G/738. I dont think the 757 has done so well on its TATL adventures bucause of how big it was but how small it was, a smaller aircraft that could fly the route with lower CASM would reduce risk significantly.
murchmo From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 157 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 26379 times:
Boeing obviously wanted to do a clean sheet 737 replacement. What if this was the beginning of that? First offer the 757 capacity to replace that market then turn this hypothetical narrowbody into a smaller more direct brand new 737 replacement. Using all new tech and such learned from the 787. It's one of the only ways they could justify a whole new line and would also put them ahead of Airbus.
Asturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 1934 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 26371 times:
The B757 is a fine piece of engineering even compared to the 737 NGs. Perhaps the MAX can be engineered to match and exceed the 57, I guess one has to hope for that.
I probably can't praise the 757 enough, it's that fine. Boeing would do well with making a genuine replacement for it.
btblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 531 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 26182 times:
Isn't the MAX designed to be the last stage iteration of the 737 line before the introduction of Y3 with launch of the 737 replacement to be 2020 or so... just confused as to why would you launch a new type based on old tech... aka the 737.
If the MAX was to be developed further and as it has the same cross section at the 757, would/could it be possible they stick the 757 gear under it, allowing the stretch, the engine clearance for a GTF? Use of composites... creating a hybrid.
AirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1906 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 25969 times:
Quoting btblue (Reply 8): If the MAX was to be developed further and as it has the same cross section at the 757, would/could it be possible they stick the 757 gear under it, allowing the stretch, the engine clearance for a GTF? Use of composites... creating a hybrid.
Oh they could definitely do this, it's more whether the numbers add up when you consider the small number of transatlantic 757s in service. It's the same reason why there's no proper replacement for the short to medium haul widebodies.
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10452 posts, RR: 20 Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 25917 times:
Quoting Bthebest (Thread starter): Flight Global reports that Boeing have now confirmed they are specifcally studying a direct replacement for the 757 in the long-haul segment.
Boeing confirmed going back into the 2000s that they had VP level staffing for the NSA (737 replacement). They even named the executives in charge. My point is not to read too much into this.
Quoting Bthebest (Thread starter): We could also see an Airbus response, expecially with US being a valuable Airbus customer, maybe an improved or -ER version of the A321neo (again a bit of stretch).
Again, don't read too much into it - US was just used as an example of a customer who would be interested. The fact that a crucial Boeing customer wasn't named suggests to me that this just isn't that big a deal. Note for contrast that we do have reports of the largest 777 customer in the world being quite excited about the 777X program, and at least four other customers already expressing interest.
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 5): Personally I would like to see airbus stick the A321 wing on the A320 and max out the weights with the new GTFs hung under the wings,
Interesting. Airbus claims 3000 nm range for current A32x, an additional 500 nm for NEO+sharklets, and US still isn't happy.
I'm supposing they want solid 4000 nm all-winds range, so would sticking A321 wings on an A320 get it to that point?
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 5): Boeing shoul do the same with the 73G/738.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6871 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 25884 times:
Quoting francoflier (Reply 4): Nor Boeing or Airbus will pull a clean sheet to design a 757 replacement. The niche market doesn't justify it.
It's on heck of a niche market when you consider not only TATL routes but routes between North and South America as a well as between Europe and Africa. Not to mention that a plane like this would carry more pax than today's A321/739, with more cargo uplift, and likely at a much lower cost than even the NEO and MAX, on a lot of transcon routes.
garpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2303 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 25847 times:
Re-tool for the 757.
Put a raked wingtip on it, 777/787 style cockpit, sky interior, replace some components with carbon composites,strap a new engine to the wings and job's a good-un.
Of course, this is about as likely as any other possibility, ie: Low.
g500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 724 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 25729 times:
How about just re-opening the 757 assembly line again, wouldn't that be easier than all this "replacement" talk??? (major companies always trying to re-invent the wheel)
Quoting g500 (Reply 14): How about just re-opening the 757 assembly line again, wouldn't that be easier than all this "replacement" talk??? (major companies always trying to re-invent the wheel)
The tools are gone, the final assembly line is gone, the supply chain is gone. Forget about it.
scouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3254 posts, RR: 10 Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 25462 times:
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 5): Personally I would like to see airbus stick the A321 wing on the A320 and max out the weights with the new GTFs hung under the wings, Boeing shoul do the same with the 73G/738. I dont think the 757 has done so well on its TATL adventures bucause of how big it was but how small it was, a smaller aircraft that could fly the route with lower CASM would reduce risk significantly.
How differant are the A321 wings from the standard A320 ones - I thought that all 4 familt members had the same wings?
jfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2648 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 25109 times:
Goes to show you how out of touch a manufacturer can be with customers.
Why was it ever cancelled? Didn't anyone at Boeing see that airlines were finding new life for these aircraft to go long haul?
When it was cancelled, didn't they think to replace it with something instead of forcing people to make a 737/320 decision?
They had a unique product (that although old) was still unmatched by anything out there. Bad business decision and I am glad they are thinking about reversing course.
columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6798 posts, RR: 5 Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 25014 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21): They had a unique product (that although old) was still unmatched by anything out there. Bad business decision and I am glad they are thinking about reversing course.
It was the right decision at the time, also a sad one. It will be interesting what Boeing will do, a lighter 787 or a stretched 737Max, I believe the last one, maybe with a double boogie landing gear, a 707 with leapx twin engines so to speak
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
Bthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 416 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 24968 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 10): Again, don't read too much into it - US was just used as an example of a customer who would be interested.
I think it's a bit more than 'interested'. The article mentions that US complained outright that the A321neo wouldn't cut it, and based on the fact that they currently use 757s for that mission, its very relevant. With a possible US/AA merger, there could be an even bigger customer there.
On a more general note, I think a 757 replacement could have more of an application than just those mentioned so far. Small long-haul international start-ups, such as those in eastern Europe, South America and the Indian Sub-continent might find it appealing.
bevisisback From Netherlands, joined Oct 2009, 58 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 25679 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 15): The tools are gone, the final assembly line is gone, the supply chain is gone. Forget about it.
Yes...but the designs are still there. They would have to start a new assembly line for a new model anyway (unless they went down the MAX route) so you would think it would be more cost effective to start with an existing design and modernise/tweak it.
MAX might be what they go for but IMO I can't see how this would work with a 737.
tan flyr From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1847 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (1 year 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 25932 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21): Goes to show you how out of touch a manufacturer can be with customers.
Why was it ever cancelled? Didn't anyone at Boeing see that airlines were finding new life for these aircraft to go long haul?
IIRC, as Boeing was preparing to biuld the last 753's for CO & NW they inquired with every major 757 operator about any late orders or either type..and at a a great price as I recall also. NO takers...all were leaning at the time to 739's or some new technology for a narrowbody. Every operator in the world knew that they could order before the line was shut down.
Wasn't there some different codes on this Y1 and Y3 proposals kicked around..perhap indicating one of those was to be the 757 replacement?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26697 posts, RR: 83 Reply 30, posted (1 year 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 25761 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21): Goes to show you how out of touch a manufacturer can be with customers.
Why was it ever cancelled? Didn't anyone at Boeing see that airlines were finding new life for these aircraft to go long haul?
It was the customers who lacked vision, not Boeing.
Airlines just stopped buying the plane after January 2001. Boeing secured 31 orders that month (NW's 757-300 order being half of it) and then only 6 more the rest of the year. 2002 secured no orders and the only customers in 2003 were the Chinese, with FM taking 5 and MF taking 2.
I don't know what the 757 production rate was, but with no orders coming in, even if it was one plane a month, eventually you run out of airframes to build and at such a low production rate, your costs rise and so must your prices, which don't help generate interest.
Quoting Blueman87 (Reply 27): just reopen the 757 line solves half the problams
The other half of the problem is there is no 757 line to re-open.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10452 posts, RR: 20 Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 25685 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21): Goes to show you how out of touch a manufacturer can be with customers.
Why was it ever cancelled?
It was cancelled in 2004 since it had ZERO ORDERS even after Boeing offered sweetheart deals to FedEx and others to keep the line open.
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21): Bad business decision and I am glad they are thinking about reversing course.
Good business decision, and they are absolutely not not thinking about reversing course if that means restarting 757 production.
Quoting bevisisback (Reply 25): Yes...but the designs are still there. They would have to start a new assembly line for a new model anyway (unless they went down the MAX route) so you would think it would be more cost effective to start with an existing design and modernise/tweak it.
The designs are there, but so what? They date from 1978 or so and you would not build the same wings or use the same engines today as you would in 1978. Also fuse technology has moved on (the 737NG is a far more efficient fuse than the 757) and systems tech also has moved on. There isn't much if anything one would save from the 757 if starting over today.
Quoting Blueman87 (Reply 27): just reopen the 757 line solves half the problams
How do you solve the problem that the 757 production line no longer exists, and its space is taken up by a 737 production line, and all the surrounding land has been sold off?
The bulk of the Renton site that built the 757 is now a shopping mall, so if there was to be a new 757 type product, it could not be built there due to lack of space.
The next and perhaps final phase for Renton will be builting 737 MAX.
I will say it's likely the next all-new Boeing product won't be built in the Puget Sound area, so that Boeing can get out from under the union agreements it has.
CargoIT From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 23 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 24633 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 11): It's on heck of a niche market when you consider not only TATL routes but routes between North and South America as a well as between Europe and Africa. Not to mention that a plane like this would carry more pax than today's A321/739, with more cargo uplift, and likely at a much lower cost than even the NEO and MAX, on a lot of transcon routes.
The 767 is really more prevalent on many of the routes mentioned. With 67 nearing EOL it seems like there should be a market for an aircraft to fit between the 737/320 and 787/350. I hope it looks more like a 767 than a 757 though.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 34, posted (1 year 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 24582 times:
Quoting Bthebest (Reply 23): On a more general note, I think a 757 replacement could have more of an application than just those mentioned so far. Small long-haul international start-ups, such as those in eastern Europe, South America and the Indian Sub-continent might find it appealing.
If that were the case the 757 line might still be open, let's remember, that to some degree, Airbus killed the 757 market by producing an a/c - A321- with less range and payload as being more efficient, and most operators of the 757 outside of the USA who needed the range and payload abandoned the 757.
Airbus is now adding additional range and payload into the A321 in my view to take advantage of the niche market that exist in the USA, something which they initially thought was not needed. Economically it makes sense since they are just upgrading an existing product, hopefully the original which did so well in markets that did not need the extra's will still be available, hauling around extra bulk for range and payload which you do not need is inefficient.
traindoc From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 308 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (1 year 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 24240 times:
Remember, Boeing studied an all new 737 replacement and then at the last minute came out with the 737MAX instead. Thus, I would not put too much into this report. Where would they get the resources from? They are MAXed out with their current programs, i.e; the 787, the 748i, the 777X and the 737MAX.
bestwestern From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6431 posts, RR: 58 Reply 36, posted (1 year 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 24274 times:
Airlines just stopped buying the plane after January 2001. Boeing secured 31 orders that month (NW's 757-300 order being half of it) and then only 6 more the rest of the year. 2002 secured no orders and the only customers in 2003 were the Chinese, with FM taking 5 and MF taking 2.
Wonder if these newish Chinese 757s will find their way to Delta and United?
Xiamen have a small subfleet of 757 which will be superseded by the 787. I think their 757s are underused also.
Shanghai is now part of China Eastern, who have no 757s.
AngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 320 posts, RR: 0 Reply 38, posted (1 year 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 24298 times:
The current 757 works because they have no longer any major depreciation. A brand new 757 with the deprecation of a new plane and the economics of a 1978 plane will not work.
And I don't think there is a real business case for a direct replacement. US airlines will never buy the 757 replacement in the same quantities as they bought the 757 in the past. The NEO and MAX cover 90% percent of what the 757 is capable off and will do that at lower cost.
Outside the US, there is no real demand for such capabilities (the 737-900ER and A321NEO will do what the Chinese need so there is no market there).
Hmelawyer From United States of America, joined May 2011, 48 posts, RR: 0 Reply 39, posted (1 year 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 23982 times:
Quoting traindoc (Reply 35): Remember, Boeing studied an all new 737 replacement and then at the last minute came out with the 737MAX instead. Thus, I would not put too much into this report. Where would they get the resources from? They are MAXed out with their current programs, i.e; the 787, the 748i, the 777X and the 737MAX.
I think that the fact that they are in study mode will make the timing versus other programs work out fine, as I do not think this project would get rolling until the end of the decade. The 748i will be taken off the board as a development program probably by the end of this year. The 787 and MAX programs should end development by around 2017 (assuming 787-10 takes it out that long). That would leave them open to be working on a narrowbody project and the 777X at the end of this decade. I believe that this study will just be a part of the NSA project that will see a launch in the middle of the next decade (giving the MAX about 10 years on the market before EIS for the NSA).
bellancacf From United States of America, joined May 2011, 115 posts, RR: 0 Reply 42, posted (1 year 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 23415 times:
Does it look like it is going to turn out that the 787 production process will be fast, cheap, easy to modify ... add other good things? Would Boeing ever build another metal fuselage if it had a choice? Now that Boeing has climbed the steep, high learning curve for 787 production, can they readily turn that knowledge/experience to the production of a (clean sheet?) narrow-body?
What are the pros and cons of producing a stumpy widebody vs. a longer narrowbody for a 757 replacement?
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2466 posts, RR: 21 Reply 44, posted (1 year 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 22790 times:
Boeing just applied for a new series of patents related to the Sonic Cruiser... (Flightblogger),,, now throw that into the 'it's got to be a bigger 737 or smaller 787' mindset.. (the first I believe would have structural constraints and the latter would be inefficient without a smaller diameter fuselage)
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6871 posts, RR: 7 Reply 45, posted (1 year 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 22655 times:
Quoting AngMoh (Reply 38): And I don't think there is a real business case for a direct replacement. US airlines will never buy the 757 replacement in the same quantities as they bought the 757 in the past. The NEO and MAX cover 90% percent of what the 757 is capable off and will do that at lower cost.
It covers 90% of EXISTING routes because many potential routes can't be operated even with a 757. Airlines "abuse" a 767 for those routes. The 757 was part of a family: 757/767. And the 767 is also going away and neither Boeing nor Airbus have a replacement for that so called niche. The A330/A358/788 are simply too heavy and too large to be a good 762/763 replacement.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8739 posts, RR: 52 Reply 46, posted (1 year 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 21630 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21):
Why was it ever cancelled? Didn't anyone at Boeing see that airlines were finding new life for these aircraft to go long haul?
Airlines were finding a new life for airplanes that were being displaced by more efficient airplanes.
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21):
When it was cancelled, didn't they think to replace it with something instead of forcing people to make a 737/320 decision?
Airlines were the ones that decided they wanted the A320 and 737NG instead of the 757. The 739ER has a more than 10% fuel burn advantage over the 757 on routes where they compete. The 738 is slightly less, but still a significant difference. The 757 has capability to operate into shorter fields or on longer flights than the 737s, but it was too small of a market.
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21):
They had a unique product (that although old) was still unmatched by anything out there. Bad business decision and I am glad they are thinking about reversing course.
They had an overdesigned aircraft for the majority of routes it serves. For the vast majority of routes that the 757 operates, it is never near MTOW. That wasn't as big of a problem in the 1990s when fuel was cheap and airlines were purchasing significant quantities of them. However with tighter margins, the 757 is a tough airplane to make a profit with compared to the 738. The 757 has a lot of capacity and no CASM advantage to make up for it (actually it has a CASM disadvantage until a flight gets closer to 2000 nm). It opens up some markets that would otherwise not be viable with other airplanes, but I don't think we will ever see an airline want to make an airplane with the 757 capability the backbone of their fleet.
The 757 can operate routes no other airplanes can, but that is not a big market. It is a few hundred airplanes. That might warrant increasing MTOW with some 737-MAX adjustments, but not a new airframe.
Quoting par13del (Reply 34):
If that were the case the 757 line might still be open, let's remember, that to some degree, Airbus killed the 757 market by producing an a/c - A321- with less range and payload as being more efficient, and most operators of the 757 outside of the USA who needed the range and payload abandoned the 757.
I think what killed the 757 off was the 738/739 and A320/A321. Airbus pushed the payload and range of narrowbodies with the A320 having a significant payload advantage over the 733/734 and MD80. The increased range and payload proved valuable enough for Boeing to develop the 737NG. The NG cut into the majority of the 757 market and had much lower CASM. For the majority of routes operated by the 757, a 737-800 could operate it with a lower CASM. The larger 739s and A321s also further hurt the 757 for airlines interested in the capacity. '
The 737Classic and 757 were effectively replaced by a single airplane. The result was that Boeing lost the appeal of very short haul 737s and long haul 757s because the 737NG was not optimized for those routes. Boeing saw what was happening with the higher MTOW 737s and tried to market the 717 to the smaller segment that 737NG did not cover well, but that flopped. I would propose the same thing would happen with an attempt at a 757NG. Some operators would love it, but it is not a big enough segment to earn a profit in.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
mogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 47, posted (1 year 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 21401 times:
What about a "787-8 Combi" with 752 pax floor space plus cargo space at the rear 1/3rd of the main floor ? Or did some EU regulation kill any potential future combi concept ?
iFlyLOTs From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 380 posts, RR: 0 Reply 48, posted (1 year 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 21392 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 45): The A330/A358/788 are simply too heavy and too large to be a good 762/763 replacement.
I disagree. The 788/A330/A358 will cover the 763/764 just fine. But I do however agree that the 762 and the 757 are not being replaced by anything which does in fact leave quite a large hole to fill.
GCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1104 posts, RR: 1 Reply 49, posted (1 year 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 21135 times:
Quoting Bthebest (Reply 23): Quoting Revelation (Reply 10):Again, don't read too much into it - US was just used as an example of a customer who would be interested.
I think it's a bit more than 'interested'. The article mentions that US complained outright that the A321neo wouldn't cut it, and based on the fact that they currently use 757s for that mission, its very relevant.
I recall, however, when I read the article (or a linked article) that it also said that Airbus did not agree with US's assessment of the NEO range capability implying that Airbus thinks it will be able to do some (how much?) of the 757 TATL mission. There was also mention that EI is looking at MAX / NEO for TATL routes, which is interesting because, beyond a.net, I haven't seen much overt mention of TATL MAX / NEO planning (although EI are the obvious contender for operating these aircraft across the Atlantic - will we see multiple daily narrowbodies DUB-BOS?)
JHCRJ700 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 377 posts, RR: 0 Reply 52, posted (1 year 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 20524 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 31): It was cancelled in 2004 since it had ZERO ORDERS even after Boeing offered sweetheart deals to FedEx and others to keep the line open.
I think it's kinda funny that FedEx is picking up converted 75's now.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14321 posts, RR: 26 Reply 53, posted (1 year 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 20428 times:
Quoting Bthebest (Thread starter): Flight Global reports that Boeing have now confirmed they are specifcally studying a direct replacement for the 757 in the long-haul segment.
They'll study it and come up with the same conclusion everyone else does: it's a relatively small market and does not justify the compromises needed to truly fill it. Derivatives will have to do, and even those will present challenges.
Quoting Bthebest (Thread starter):
The options that are available seem to be a redefinition or addition to the MAX (although it hasn't been fully defined yet anyway
They won't very well be able to stretch it due to rotation angle issues. Engine dimension problems are likely an issue too.
Quoting Bthebest (Thread starter): think a redefined 787-3 with less capactiy and greater range might be favourable?
That would be very questionable economically. Plus, why not just take a 787-8 with more capacity and more range? Furthermore, and 787 variant will be constrained by 787 production issues which will take a while to get sorted out.
Quoting HPRamper (Reply 3): Shouldn't be an issue with the technology available. If it could be done in the 1980s, it can be done now.
With what engine? It would take significant modifications to get either the PW1000G or LEAP-X to the necessary thrust levels, and above that there isn't much new except the Trent 1000 and GENx.
Quoting HPRamper (Reply 3): The bigger question is would Boeing want to start a new line for this plane, taking away from something that is already in the works?
Of course they wouldn't want to do an all new design. They sold about 1000 757s. They could sell several times that many 737 replacements before the first flight.
Quoting g500 (Reply 14): How about just re-opening the 757 assembly line again, wouldn't that be easier than all this "replacement" talk???
The line wouldn't have closed in the first place if anyone had wanted them.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26697 posts, RR: 83 Reply 54, posted (1 year 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 20486 times:
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 47): What about a "787-8 Combi" with 752 pax floor space plus cargo space at the rear 1/3rd of the main floor ? Or did some EU regulation kill any potential future combi concept ?
It was the FAA, actually, that effectively ended new-build combis via regulations that came into play after the loss of SA 295.
SwissVA From Switzerland, joined Jan 2011, 24 posts, RR: 0 Reply 55, posted (1 year 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 20121 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21): Goes to show you how out of touch a manufacturer can be with customers.
Why was it ever cancelled? Didn't anyone at Boeing see that airlines were finding new life for these aircraft to go long haul?
When it was cancelled, didn't they think to replace it with something instead of forcing people to make a 737/320 decision?
They had a unique product (that although old) was still unmatched by anything out there. Bad business decision and I am glad they are thinking about reversing course.
I tend to agree with this.
Something I am seeing in the gulf region right now;
One example outside the transatlantic ops is Gulf Air, they are seriously downsizing capacity and quickly the A330's are becoming too large for the long haul operations. The 757 would have been perfect for their operations to asia and europe.
Recently they introduced the A321LR for similar operations, but the aircraft is not 100% optimised for the entire network.
Also Qatar could be a potential buyer for a 757 type of aircraft as they also have quite a few thin long routes served by A32S at the moment.
Saudi Arabian operates quite a few narrow body aircrafts to europe as well.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6871 posts, RR: 7 Reply 58, posted (1 year 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 19770 times:
Quoting iFlyLOTs (Reply 48): I disagree. The 788/A330/A358 will cover the 763/764 just fine.
The 764 maybe. The reason you still have plenty of 763ER's flying around (the 767 is still the king of the TATL market), is because there is no viable replacement for it yet. It's still a very competitive airplane for short and medium haul routes.
A 200 seat narrowbody with 4,000+nm range would cover most routes currently operated by 757's and 767's. That's anything but a niche market.
jmc1975 From Israel, joined Sep 2000, 3159 posts, RR: 17 Reply 59, posted (1 year 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 19628 times:
Boeing has ultimately dug its own grave for the long-term. The idea of a 737MAX and a stubby 787 is a complete joke! It's just evidence that the organization has fewer and fewer talented engineers who can design a plane from the ground-up. They have mainly migrated toward strictly having data monkeys who sit behind computers and run cost analysis and design optimization models, while losing sight of the core objectives if the business.
They needed to have a brand-new 737/757 replacement called the 797. It would have the same fuselage cross-section, an identical cockpit, 5 different fuselage lengths and 2 different wings. Here's what the 797 lineup would look like if Boeing knew what it was doing:
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4553 posts, RR: 17 Reply 60, posted (1 year 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 19369 times:
Quoting HPRamper (Reply 3): the kinds of long, thin routes currently flown by the 757 in many cases could not support a widebody
Only b/c of the aerodynamics and resulting fuel burn of the wider fuse. The 762 and 752 carry essentially the same pax load, remember. If fuel burn could be addressed on the 762 (i.e. weight taken out, even with range reduced to that of the 752), then maybe that's an option. Otherwise, you've gotta look at the mediocre 737 design (as opposed to the still-excellent 757 design).
glideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1542 posts, RR: 0 Reply 61, posted (1 year 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 19287 times:
Quoting jmc1975 (Reply 59): They needed to have a brand-new 737/757 replacement called the 797. It would have the same fuselage cross-section, an identical cockpit, 5 different fuselage lengths and 2 different wings.
Agreed, and it will be built in Charleston.
"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved"
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8739 posts, RR: 52 Reply 62, posted (1 year 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 19034 times:
Quoting jmc1975 (Reply 59): They have mainly migrated toward strictly having data monkeys who sit behind computers and run cost analysis and design optimization models, while losing sight of the core objectives if the business.
I agree that long term business plans are about earning profits and might not always make sense, but that statement comes across as an insult. As someone who has legitimately designed parts flying on airplanes and is a real engineer, I find a statement like that completely not applicable. It doesn't matter what the core objectives of the business are when I am designing an actuator. Hydraulic flow rates, material properties of steel, control system feedback, envelope requirements, fatigue testing, etc don't change based on any of that. Data monkeys don't design control systems or perform stress analysis. There are plenty of highly experienced and knowledgeable engineers earning on average $100,000 per year designing those airplanes that you fly on.
Quoting jmc1975 (Reply 59): They needed to have a brand-new 737/757 replacement called the 797. It would have the same fuselage cross-section, an identical cockpit, 5 different fuselage lengths and 2 different wings. Here's what the 797 lineup would look like if Boeing knew what it was doing:
757 replacements (larger wing, vertical stab plus double main landing gear):
757-200 >> 797-8
757-300 >> 797-9
This is what they should've done instead of all the needless head & butt scratching they're doing now.
I am glad it is that simple. I didn't realize that doing creating multiple airplanes that perfectly covered every segement of the market was the only route to profitability and long term viability.
For the record, Airbus is in a worse position than Boeing since they have an even larger gap between the A320 and A350 series airplanes. I am not saying that as an A vs B discussion, but rather pointing out the fact that it is a large uncovered segment. Boeing isn't necessarily losing orders because there is nothing offered. An airline has to decide between the A320 vs 737 or A350 vs 787. If a 797-8 or 797-9 only takes away an order that would have been a 737-9 or a 787-8 then Boeing gets nothing out of developing the model other than sinking in major development costs.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
LHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 1 Reply 63, posted (1 year 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 18965 times:
Quoting francoflier (Reply 4): The articles hints at a 737MAX evolution. Though I don't know how much more range and payload can be stretched out of it.
Maybe a new wing/landing gear/engine combination, but the investment still seems heavy for such a small market. The gap between the 739/A321 and the 787/A330 isn't that wide.
That's what I'm wondering. It seems like it would be a relatively massive investment for a niche product.
odwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 641 posts, RR: 3 Reply 65, posted (1 year 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 18714 times:
Quoting murchmo (Reply 6): Boeing obviously wanted to do a clean sheet 737 replacement. What if this was the beginning of that? First offer the 757 capacity to replace that market then turn this hypothetical narrowbody into a smaller more direct brand new 737 replacement. Using all new tech and such learned from the 787. It's one of the only ways they could justify a whole new line and would also put them ahead of Airbus.
I had not thought about that. Then, when you develop the 737 replacement...you derate engines, single bogey landing gear, change the wing and wingroot. yes, expensive... But you keep a derated version of the engines..and the fuselage and electronics.
You go for something between 752 and 753... perhaps you dont go quite as large as the 753?.. Keeps you from overengineering/overbuilding a plane that will eventually have to scale down to 149 pax.
LHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 1 Reply 66, posted (1 year 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 18675 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 62): For the record, Airbus is in a worse position than Boeing since they have an even larger gap between the A320 and A350 series airplanes. I am not saying that as an A vs B discussion, but rather pointing out the fact that it is a large uncovered segment. Boeing isn't necessarily losing orders because there is nothing offered. An airline has to decide between the A320 vs 737 or A350 vs 787. If a 797-8 or 797-9 only takes away an order that would have been a 737-9 or a 787-8 then Boeing gets nothing out of developing the model other than sinking in major development costs.
That's a very good point - perhaps Boeing already has the market research telling them that a clean-sheet design would only cannibalize sales they could have otherwise obtained with a 737MAX"-PLUS" 757 replacement. In that case, maybe the large costs of building such a plane would still be much less than doing a clean sheet.
iFlyLOTs From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 380 posts, RR: 0 Reply 67, posted (1 year 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 18586 times:
Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 64): They have a frame design and we have the sales mechanism.
So who builds it? I agree that it probably is a great aircraft for the job, but something that has been a major problem for the Russians is a lack of ability to mass produce commercial planes since the fall of the Soviet Union.
jmc1975 From Israel, joined Sep 2000, 3159 posts, RR: 17 Reply 68, posted (1 year 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 18550 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 62): There are plenty of highly experienced and knowledgeable engineers earning on average $100,000 per year designing those airplanes that you fly on.
Plenty is a relative term. This was actually explained to me by a retired Boeing engineer who said that we are entering a generation where people that legitimately know how to design an airplane from the ground-up, are becoming far fewer and farther in between. The emerging 'engineers' simply know how to manipulate the design software and that's it.
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 62): If a 797-8 or 797-9 only takes away an order that would have been a 737-9 or a 787-8 then Boeing gets nothing out of developing the model other than sinking in major development costs.
And that's where the problem lies...not investing in your product long-term to have the best product out there will eventually come around to bite you. This is an example of where the role of data monkeys in many organizations have run rabid. The vision for the core business has been lost. Bye-bye Miss American Pie..the levy is dry...and the music has died.
iahmark From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 30 posts, RR: 0 Reply 71, posted (1 year 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 17924 times:
Well FWIW this should be the test bed for the real “new” 737- a.k.a. the B797
What they need to do is offer the 737MAX or preferably its replacement with 2 different wings ala embraer, (E170/175 and E190/195).
Optimize the smaller wing for 120 thru 160 passenger capacities (700MAX and 800MAX or RS) and the bigger wing for 180 thru 220 passengers (900MAX and 1000MAX or RS).
They can design/build the big one first –the 220 passenger capacity as a new line and trickle down to the smaller versions after the 737/max has run its course.
If not the still can use the 2 wing set up on the 737MAX,; of course the 900ER will have to be stretched a bit and with the new wing so it would have enough capacity and clearance, also it would have to be renamed -1000ER, basically a 9/10 of B757.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 58): The reason you still have plenty of 763ER's flying around (the 767 is still the king of the TATL market), is because there is no viable replacement for it yet. It's still a very competitive airplane for short and medium haul routes.
I was at Boeing during the initial design studies of the 7E7-8 and 7E7-9 and they were sized, capacity-wise, around the 767-300ER and 767-400ER. The significant majority of customers wanted larger aircraft and they were scaled up to the 767-400ER/A330-200 and A330-300/A340-300/777-200, respectively.
If airlines need to replace old 767-300ERs, they can buy new ones. With winglets, engine PiPs, and the cheaper production cost (which translates into cheaper sales prices), the RoI is as good as it has ever been for an operator.
Bthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 416 posts, RR: 0 Reply 74, posted (1 year 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 17494 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 62): Airbus is in a worse position than Boeing since they have an even larger gap between the A320 and A350 series airplanes.
Could this be an opportunity for them then? Start work on an A330 replacement where the bottom range covers the 757/762 with the top end starting to threaten the 787?
kgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 3648 posts, RR: 1 Reply 75, posted (1 year 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 17095 times:
Quoting iFlyLOTs (Reply 67): So who builds it? I agree that it probably is a great aircraft for the job, but something that has been a major problem for the Russians is a lack of ability to mass produce commercial planes since the fall of the Soviet Union.
I can think of state governments who would be willing to subsidize a production line if the tooling could be brought here. For their part, Tupolev could still market to customers already on their books (i.e. UR and WZ ) . Otherwise, patents stay with Tupolev -- production would be in the US.
ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 4652 posts, RR: 1 Reply 76, posted (1 year 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 16899 times:
Boeing was looking to a completely new narrowbody in the 2006-2008 time frame that would probably have run in size from the 737-700 to the 757-200, with the largest varient having 752 performance in terms of range and payload.
The problems with the 787 and the 747-8 got Boeing bogged down, and Airbus wasn't signaling that it was working on a new narrowbody, or even working on improvements with the A320 line.
So, Boeing kept cranking out 737NGs while trying to get the 747-8 and the 787 programs back on track.
With Airbus deciding to update the A320 line with the Neo, Boeing had two options: build a new airplane that would come out several years after the Neo came out or update the 737 line with no true 757 replacement.
It appears that keeping up with Airbus was more important, even if that left the 737-900 MAX as somewhat short of a true 752 replacement.
rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2851 posts, RR: 7 Reply 77, posted (1 year 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 16618 times:
I have to wonder about the big picture with multiple examples over the last, 40, no, 50 years. Airlines urge growing prototypes upward, yet fall back to needing something smaller. Supposedly it's an answer to greater demand, yet time after time, the market picks up a smaller airliner.
*727 grows from originally BAC-111 and Carevelle size. Fine, but then airlines need a smaller plane --> 737.
[727s begin to replace too-large 707s, DC-8s, and 720s on transcontinental routes]
*Medium-range Jumbo Twin" grows in size to become the DC-10 and L1011. Airlines start asking for 757s and 767s for same mission 10 years later. An offshoot of this is the use of greater-range DC-10s instead of 747s, again smaller than what they asked for/ordered to begin with.
*757 is supposed to be a 727 replacement. It grows... airlines need an expanded smaller plane --> 737-300 etc.
*777 as originally entered lies between the 767 and 747. It's grown, replacing 747s on many routes, leaving a gap at the medium sizes. Enter the 7E7...
*7E7 is envisioned in different sizes to be a medium sized medium-long range 767 (and 757) replacement. It grows. 787-3 is a nonviable smaller version. 787-8 and 787-9 are ordered, airlines upgrading to 787-9 and hypothetical -10 (edging in on 777), leaving no 767 or 757 replacement.
And at the smaller sizes...
*737s and DC-9 grow (as does the F28/70), leaving a need for jets smaller than 100 pax. Enter the regional jet, in MASSIVE quantities.
*Regional jets grow to >70 pax. Nobody replacing 50pax range. Speculation on the need for something that size, and probably back to turboprops.
There are a few exceptions. Of those, the "shrinks" of basic designs are seldom very successful (747SP, 757-100, A318, 737-600).
Stop listening to the airlines. Second guess them.
Also, regarding the 757 replacement, I don't get how 1000 of anything is not successful. Particularly if it's an offshoot of something already being done (like a 787 or 737).
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26697 posts, RR: 83 Reply 78, posted (1 year 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 16534 times:
Quoting rampart (Reply 77): Also, regarding the 757 replacement, I don't get how 1000 of anything is not successful.
If Boeing knew they could sell 1000 757 replacements at 10% margins, they'd do it.
The trick is, of those 1000 757s that Boeing sold, a significant number of them have been replaced by the A321-200 with more scheduled for replacement by the A321-200neo.
And of those that have not been replaced by the A321 family, like CO, UA and DL - they're adding (or are rumored to add) 737-900ERs and 737-9s for the role.
So the actual market for a 200-250 seat (in one or two classes of service) narrowbody with 4000nm nominal range is far closer to 100 airframes than it is for 1000.
rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2851 posts, RR: 7 Reply 79, posted (1 year 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 16134 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 78): with more scheduled for replacement by the A321-200neo.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 78): they're adding (or are rumored to add) 737-900ERs and 737-9s for the role.
...or if a better-suited airplane is offered instead, airlines might go for or renogiate orders for it. I still think this is a continuation of a 737 replacement that's been pushed back. Maybe the 757 replacement becomes the first to appear of that family, rather than what everyone expected.
Blueman87 From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 535 posts, RR: 0 Reply 80, posted (1 year 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 15920 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 31): How do you solve the problem that the 757 production line no longer exists, and its space is taken up by a 737 production line, and all the surrounding land has been sold off?
build them with the 767 line like 767 then 757 then 767 in order like that
817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 1403 posts, RR: 1 Reply 81, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 15475 times:
I think a Stretched 737MAX10 and A321neo (call it the A322 maybe?) with higher fuel capacity with longer wings should do it and also for the fun of it, make both wider so its twin aisle capable?
Blast Reality, Burst it into shreds! Banishment, This World!
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10668 posts, RR: 100 Reply 82, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 14876 times:
The 757 needs to be replaced. It is too heavy versus the up and coming competitors.
Quoting qf002 (Reply 2): The 757 needs to be replaced from the 737/A320 lines, to keep the weight to an absolute minimum.
It also needs part commonality to keep maintenance expenses in line.
Quoting francoflier (Reply 4): Nor Boeing or Airbus will pull a clean sheet to design a 757 replacement. The niche market doesn't justify it.
It will have to be a stretch.
Quoting francoflier (Reply 4): The articles hints at a 737MAX evolution. Though I don't know how much more range and payload can be stretched out of it.
I hear of a MTOW boost as well as many little aerodynamic improvements. I'm curious if the winglets will be updated.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 10): US was just used as an example of a customer who would be interested.
They are *very* interested and willing to buy from anyone for a more fuel efficient 752 replacement.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 10): Interesting. Airbus claims 3000 nm range for current A32x, an additional 500 nm for NEO+sharklets, and US still isn't happy.
3900nm is the minimum. The base version is looking to be 3500nm to 3600nm. If (and only if) Pratt exceeds fuel burn by 4% (which they should keep in reserve, but that is a long discussion), that gives almost 3800nm (once diversion, loiter times are dropped). The plane would still need more fuel (or better sharklets).
Quoting g500 (Reply 14):
How about just re-opening the 757 assembly line again, wouldn't that be easier than all this "replacement" talk??? (major companies always trying to re-invent the wheel)
Too Heavy
Too expensive to maintain (vs. 737)
No interest.
Look at the resale values of 757s. Any airline that wants more can buy them cheap. Look, Allergiant isn't known for paying top dollar for aircraft and they are buying 757s...
IMHO, half the 757 market will be taken over by the 738MAX/A320NEO (A320 length). Quite a bit more by the 739MAX/A321MAX. What's left? TATL. Not a huge market that Airbus is working to have a version of the A321NEO capable of by 2020. Can they do it?
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2466 posts, RR: 21 Reply 83, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 14690 times:
Quoting Blueman87 (Reply 80): build them with the 767 line like 767 then 757 then 767 in order like that
because of a different body diameter, they could not be assembled on 767 tools, The 757 manufacturing has passed into history and nothing will bring it back.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 78): So the actual market for a 200-250 seat (in one or two classes of service) narrowbody with 4000nm nominal range is far closer to 100 airframes than it is for 1000
You may be correct if they do a MAX version however if they bring in the Sonic Cruiser in one or two sizes, the market would change substantially... It would pull from both the A321 and from the BBJ as well.
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8492 posts, RR: 43 Reply 84, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 14130 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 83): You may be correct if they do a MAX version however if they bring in the Sonic Cruiser in one or two sizes, the market would change substantially... It would pull from both the A321 and from the BBJ as well.
Even a shortened 787 would change it substantially, no?
Twin aisles, cargo, bit more range than just a 757MAX. And without the cost/risk of building a new wing, installing new engines, new empennage. . .
If the 757 didn't do so well because a 737 is 80-90% of what a 757 is, then make the new 200-250 seater less of a 737.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
eaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 956 posts, RR: 0 Reply 85, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 13847 times:
Quoting ckfred (Reply 76): So, Boeing kept cranking out 737NGs while trying to get the 747-8 and the 787 programs back on track.
Boeing spent 6-7 billion dollars on the B747-8. They definitely should have spent that money on a B737 and B757 replacement in one aircraft. Then Boeing would have a first move advantage on Airbus. I seriously doubt that the B747-8 will ever make sense financially for Boeing.
ebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 86, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 13182 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21): Goes to show you how out of touch a manufacturer can be with customers.
Why was it ever cancelled? Didn't anyone at Boeing see that airlines were finding new life for these aircraft to go long haul?
When it was cancelled, didn't they think to replace it with something instead of forcing people to make a 737/320 decision?
They had a unique product (that although old) was still unmatched by anything out there. Bad business decision and I am glad they are thinking about reversing course.
The demand for the airplane declined and orders dried up. Now several years later there's a new demand. Boeing could not have seen that all those years ago. I rather like the idea of a new version of the 757 but as others have said, all the tooling and such are gone. Rather than rebuild that, design an airliner that is head and shoulders above the 757 in those areas most important: fuel efficiency, passenger appeal, ease of maintenance, reliability, and competitive cost. It can be done. The technology is there, as others on this site have said.
TWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 755 posts, RR: 1 Reply 87, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 13157 times:
How about something in the area of a 762, or a 762 with GEnx engines or updated engines. A plane with 5000nm range that carries 180-210 pax is something that seems to be all the rage right now, but no one can make.
There's nothing like the smell of Jet-A in the morning. It smells like... VICTORY!!!
dfwrevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 88, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 12580 times:
Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 86): The demand for the airplane declined and orders dried up. Now several years later there's a new demand.
It's relatively easy to find used 757s. No one is really rushing to snatch them up.
Quoting eaa3 (Reply 85): Boeing spent 6-7 billion dollars on the B747-8. They definitely should have spent that money on a B737 and B757 replacement in one aircraft.
Why "definitely?" Boeing studied a range of new small aircraft options including minor updates to clean-sheet designs. The technology to justify an all-new replacement doesn't exist. It makes no sense to spend money for the sake of spending money.
Quoting eaa3 (Reply 85): I seriously doubt that the B747-8 will ever make sense financially for Boeing.
On the contrary, they will be reaping high-yielding aftermarket support to the aircraft for decades.
Quoting JHCRJ700 (Reply 52): I think it's kinda funny that FedEx is picking up converted 75's now.
It makes perfect sense that they went used. They are buying/converting the airframes at less cost than Boeing would have offered for new-builds and their low utilization rate means they will last a very long time.
Quoting jmc1975 (Reply 68): This was actually explained to me by a retired Boeing engineer who said that we are entering a generation where people that legitimately know how to design an airplane from the ground-up, are becoming far fewer and farther in between.
Wow, and old timer who thinks kids these days aren't as good as he was. Shocking
Quoting jmc1975 (Reply 68): And that's where the problem lies...not investing in your product long-term to have the best product out there will eventually come around to bite you.
It's nothing short of absurd to suggest that Boeing isn't investing in their products. They have invested tens of billions in their products over the last decade and have an ambitious road map for improvements in the coming decade. Again, you really can't be serious that none of this matters if they don't plan a direct replacement for what was arguably their weakest commercial success of the last 50 years.
Quoting iFlyLOTs (Reply 48): I disagree. The 788/A330/A358 will cover the 763/764 just fine. But I do however agree that the 762 and the 757 are not being replaced by anything which does in fact leave quite a large hole to fill.
That they will. For routes over 3,000 nm, it's reasonable to assume a lower-density configuration that results in a 787-8 seating maybe 20-30% more than a 757-200. That makes a feasible replacement for much of the "thin" TATL routes currently flown by the 757.
As far as being "too much airplane," Boeing's approach should be two-fold. Part 1 - maintain continuous improvements to the weight, aerodynamics, and manufacturing cost of the aircraft. Boeing is already doing this. Over time, this will make the 787 more economical across all distances. Part 2 - apply a paper de-rate for operators looking specifically for medium-haul routes and discount the aircraft accordingly.
TWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 755 posts, RR: 1 Reply 91, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 12369 times:
Quoting jmc1975 (Reply 68): This was actually explained to me by a retired Boeing engineer who said that we are entering a generation where people that legitimately know how to design an airplane from the ground-up, are becoming far fewer and farther in between
I'm 19 and I couldn't agree more. The saying "they don't build them like they used to" rely does apply here. These "younger" engineers don't know how to revolutionize technology, just to evolve. Look at the 737 for example, it has been in production for 40+ years, and will be in production for at least another 20. We could and should make the next new clean design to replace it. We have the technology. Not to bash the 737, I am a Boeing fanboy, but a plane that has been in production for almost 50 years? Come on people...
There's nothing like the smell of Jet-A in the morning. It smells like... VICTORY!!!
bestwestern From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6431 posts, RR: 58 Reply 92, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 12216 times:
After the 787/A380 launch disaster both Boeing and Airbus are scared of screwing up their cashcow.
For Airbus, the A380 was a new market segment, and for Boeing the 767 was losing significant share to the 330.
Touching the 737/320 takes a brave leap of faith that if got wrong will bankrupt the company.
That's why the 737 still works after 50 years.. A clean sheet design gets minimal efficiency benefits over a reheat. A clean sheet design will need huge efficiency benefits to get the go ahead.
Boeing would be crazy to do anything else at this stage.
pliersinsight From United States of America, joined May 2008, 446 posts, RR: 0 Reply 93, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 12185 times:
Quoting Asturias (Reply 7): I probably can't praise the 757 enough, it's that fine. Boeing would do well with making a genuine replacement for it.
With a limited market and a few used 75s around, why not a factory or aftermarket reconditioning program such as Nextant did with the Beechjet 400A to make the 400XT? Lower price than new, better than new, better economy and performance, new interiors, ect.
Why not come up with some simple design improvements and apply them to some cleaned up and gutted frames. The economics might work.......
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5481 posts, RR: 34 Reply 94, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 11928 times:
Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 91): I'm 19 and I couldn't agree more. The saying "they don't build them like they used to" rely does apply here. These "younger" engineers don't know how to revolutionize technology, just to evolve. Look at the 737 for example, it has been in production for 40+ years, and will be in production for at least another 20. We could and should make the next new clean design to replace it. We have the technology. Not to bash the 737, I am a Boeing fanboy, but a plane that has been in production for almost 50 years? Come on people...
What do you think this is...
Doesn't look much different than a 737 or A320 but fact is that the above is Northrop Grumman's "SELECT," a design for NASA N+3 (EIS 2030). That tube and wing "form factors" have been in production for almost 50 years doesn't mean that the technology is not "revolutionary."
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
I don't mean tube and wing, its been the staple of aviation for 100+ years. And that's only a concept for now, so a lot could change between now and then. There are plenty of things to be revolutionary about than just tube and wing. There is propulsion (i.e. propfan), mass produced biofuel, etc...
There's nothing like the smell of Jet-A in the morning. It smells like... VICTORY!!!
Boeing also needed the factory space to increase 737 production.
In the over 4 years between the last significant 757 order (from NW for 16 aircraft in January 2001) and delivery of the last 757 in April 2005, only 14 more 757 orders were received.
Delta777Jet From Germany, joined Jun 2000, 1130 posts, RR: 3 Reply 97, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 11253 times:
How about a B-757-8NG
- Old design (just a bit streched (something between -200 and -300).
- Lighter material ( which are now available which wasn't available 25 years ago.
- Improved wings (winglets)
- Longer Range (for routes like ORD-MXP, NYC-SOF etc.)
- New Fuel Efficient Engines (737MAX or 32SNEO engines)
- Updated Flight Deck (787 Style but basic 757/763 Cockpit)
AA , UA(CO), DL and US would be happy to have a replacement and we could see further routes which just don't justify
a 767 nor 787 !
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8492 posts, RR: 43 Reply 98, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 11245 times:
Quoting jmc1975 (Reply 68): This was actually explained to me by a retired Boeing engineer who said that we are entering a generation where people that legitimately know how to design an airplane from the ground-up, are becoming far fewer and farther in between. The emerging 'engineers' simply know how to manipulate the design software and that's it.
Does the 787 not count?
Build from the ground up, with different materials among many other advances. And who says that major advances can't be incorporated into older designs in a refresh like the 737 went through and is going through again?
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
txjim From United States of America, joined May 2008, 197 posts, RR: 0 Reply 100, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10987 times:
Quoting bevisisback (Reply 25): Yes...but the designs are still there. They would have to start a new assembly line for a new model anyway (unless they went down the MAX route) so you would think it would be more cost effective to start with an existing design and modernise/tweak it.
I don't know how Boeing handles product line shutdowns but in mine, we would have the following problems:
- All system labs, integration labs, etc... would have been cleaned out and reassigned. Likely all equipment is scrapped.
- Obsolescence tracking would have stop upon shutdown. Big startup effort to correct
- No doubt the design files are based on older CAD packages. Conversion costs will be incurred (and assumes the !*@#^# drafting group has not changed drawing standards which requires all drawings to be updated!)
The problems are certainly not insurmountable but must be added to overall startup costs.
bestwestern From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6431 posts, RR: 58 Reply 101, posted (1 year 3 weeks ago) and read 10743 times:
Numbers for illustration purposes only.
Let's say $500m to restart production.
We then have to add in the opportunity cost of slowing the 737 fleet to fit in two 757s a month. The price tag difference between the 739 and a 752 is let's say $10m.
Let's take a healthy 20% profit margin on each unit sold, or $2m more than a 739.
Boeing would have to sell 250 757s to make this worthwhile.
All numbers are probably somewhat wide of the mark, but just as an illustration as to how the 757 restart will not make sense.
Unless of course the 737oeo orders dry up, and Boeing has spare production slots, but that won't happen.
From a company perspective, The 757 production would be a total distraction to the company just when the 787 is beginning to get on track. Any delay to the 757 production would be a disaster to company reputation and revenue stream as the MAX production would be delayed.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8739 posts, RR: 52 Reply 103, posted (1 year 3 weeks ago) and read 10583 times:
Quoting jmc1975 (Reply 68): Plenty is a relative term. This was actually explained to me by a retired Boeing engineer who said that we are entering a generation where people that legitimately know how to design an airplane from the ground-up, are becoming far fewer and farther in between. The emerging 'engineers' simply know how to manipulate the design software and that's it.
Plenty = 24,000!!! There are 24,000 Engineers and Engineering Techs in Washington.
I can agree a lot of that happened on the 787, but the 747-8 was designed the good old way and the MAX and 777X are headed that way too.
Don't forget that the macroscopic work of what type of plane, size, engines, gear, etc are decided by a select few in the product development group. The majority of the design engineers are in design groups in very specific disciplines that have nothing to do with the high level "airplane design" and configurations proposed on A.net. The vast majority of engineers will spend significant parts of their career focused on very specific parts. There are career engineers that work exclusively on flight control actuation or fuel pumps or electrical wiring, etc. That has nothing to do with how the product development group comes up with specific configurations or corporate strategy.
Just as a side note, the emerging 'engineers' as you call them are some of the brightest coming out of college in the country. The Boeing acceptance rate for internships coming out of college is less than 10%. It's easier to get into Harvard or MIT than get an internship at Boeing.
Quoting txjim (Reply 100): - No doubt the design files are based on older CAD packages. Conversion costs will be incurred (and assumes the !*@#^# drafting group has not changed drawing standards which requires all drawings to be updated!)
CAD? Haha, you must be joking? Most of the detail drawings for the 757 are on Mylar and were drawn by hand. It was well before CAD.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Bananaboy From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 1558 posts, RR: 26 Reply 104, posted (1 year 3 weeks ago) and read 10413 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 58): the 767 is still the king of the TATL market
I wonder if it still is? According to this excellent analysis by BrusselsSouth, it was "king" only by a very small number as of the winter just gone. Perhaps the figures for (northern) summer 2012 may show a decline?
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 105, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9702 times:
I maintain that Boeing made a big mistake in shutting down the 757 production line.
Certainly, there was a temporary lull in orders but they should have persevered. It was too late already when the Airlines started to realise how invaluable this Aircraft is on TATL routes to smaller cities (an operation refined to perfection by Continental)
Many more orders would be forthcoming and especially for an improved NG version with a little more range, 4500NM was proposed with a version featuring a stabiliser fuel tank.
A new cockpit, engine, cabin improvements and more composite structure would have seen this unique Aircraft in production for many more years.
Look at the continuous success of the B767 as an example, still an economic Aircraft and still being built. What many people don't realise is the 757 is a more modern design than the 767.
People say 'there was no business case' to keep the line open yet Boeing has 'hung on' with other Aircraft in it's line up.
The 737 was a sales disaster for a while and the 747 line has been on life support more than once. Why they gave up on the 757 is beyond me.
A little patience would have seen many more orders after a temporary lull. Now there is nothing to replace it, everything else is too small / not capable enough or too big / too much airplane.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5085 posts, RR: 48 Reply 106, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9693 times:
How would A320 NEO with 3,900nm range(when fully mature) compare to B752 with 3,900nm range? Using SeatGuru and applying the US seat pitch of Atlantic B752(60" Envoy and 32" pitch economy) to A320NEO, one gets the following number of seats:
The A320 ends up with 48 less Y seats. Assuming 70% load factor and average one way trans-atlantic Y fare of $350, B752 generates additional revenue of $12,000.
A320 NEO at design range is expected to be about 30% MTOW lighter than B752, and accounting for more fuel efficient engines, one can expect trip fuel savings in the range of $14,000-$15,000. On a trip basis, A320 NEO may end up generating higher operating profits than B752.
It seems to me that A320 NEO(or B738 MAX) can be a suitable replacement for B752.
boilerla From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 261 posts, RR: 0 Reply 107, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9171 times:
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 106): It seems to me that A320 NEO(or B738 MAX) can be a suitable replacement for B752.
Except neither Boeing nor Airbus are claiming true 3900nm, 752 TATL range. Both have claimed that they can replace the 752 on "most missions", but they don't really specify much beyond that.
Both are claiming around a 500nm "on paper" improvement--but that's not enough to do TATL missions especially in the winter, except for the basic NYC-LHR and NYC-DUB. Especially not the kinds of missions the 752 can do at its limits, like EWR-CDG or EWR-TXL. Even on shorter missions you'll likely have to take payload penalties on a 738max or A320neo in the winter--which will erode things way beyond the advantage the 752 already has with cargo mixed in, which you didn't really account for.
I think really, Boeing isn't just targeting the 752. They are looking at something to bridge the gap between the 788 and the 739MAX. Airlines may want something 752/762 sized, but capable of TATL and long transcons. If it were a derivative 739/738 build, that could sell 500-750 frames I'd say--close to the original 752's total order book--and at a smaller cost.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5481 posts, RR: 34 Reply 108, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9017 times:
Quoting bestwestern (Reply 92): That's why the 737 still works after 50 years.. A clean sheet design gets minimal efficiency benefits over a reheat. A clean sheet design will need huge efficiency benefits to get the go ahead.
NASA has funded the MIT/Pratt N 3 team an additional $4.6 million to carry out a Phase 2 study because the conventional materials and fabrication version, D8.1, could still achieve ~50% improvement (over the 738) with an EIS of 2020. The advanced D8.5 version could achieve a 70% improvement with an EIS of 2025.
Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 95): And that's only a concept for now, so a lot could change between now and then.
It isn't "only" a concept. It is the result of detailed design studies of state of the art technologies that would be ready for EIS in 2025.
Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 95): There are plenty of things to be revolutionary about than just tube and wing. There is propulsion (i.e. propfan), mass produced biofuel, etc...
Propfan is not revolutionary, biofuel is not revolutionary.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 105): Certainly, there was a temporary lull in orders but they should have persevered. It was too late already when the Airlines started to realise how invaluable this Aircraft is on TATL routes to smaller cities (an operation refined to perfection by Continental)
There are more than enough 757s to serve all TATL routes for the next 20 years. Even if the 757 was available today airlines wouldn't order them because there are more than enough in service.
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 106): A320 NEO at design range is expected to be about 30% MTOW lighter than B752, and accounting for more fuel efficient engines, one can expect trip fuel savings in the range of $14,000-$15,000. On a trip basis, A320 NEO may end up generating higher operating profits than B752.
It's not just about fuel savings. Don't forget to include the lower weight related cost savings for the NEO (landing fees, ATC, etc.) and lower maintenance costs.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 109, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8732 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 108):
There are more than enough 757s to serve all TATL routes for the next 20 years. Even if the 757 was available today airlines wouldn't order them because there are more than enough in service.
Incorrect, a new version with improved economics and range would sell very well, besides many of the current 757's are getting long in the tooth and need replacing.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1550 posts, RR: 0 Reply 110, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8576 times:
One option is to start the NSA with a larger 757 like model, working out all problems before selling the NSA as a 737 replacement, no one is waiting for the NSA right now so it will give Boeing time.
In this I mean a true 752 replacement not the compromised 739ER. Larger wings and engines, same new cross section and sections of the NSA, bigger MLG. Make it a module design easy to reuse in other applications. Say this could replace the 757, 762 and some of the current 332, middle range and up to 220 paying seats TATL without diversion in headwind.
Then go and make the NSA with the same systems, smaller engines, wings and MLG, same cross section and sections where possible. NSA probably will not be sized smaller than the current 737-700 anyway, since the 600 was a poor seller.
bestwestern From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6431 posts, RR: 58 Reply 111, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8587 times:
Profitable long thin routes that can't be operated by a neomax and are too small for a 787 is a tiny market. I for one can't see how Boeing can make money on this, without a market of a minimum 500 aircraft, which would then deserve its own production line at five a month. This ain't going to happen. Period. The upfront costs are huge, and the business case is highly dependent on just two airlines.
From the US hubs to Europe, only United have the connection potential. DL struggles with profitability on thin Long Haul in winter - shannon for example - whilst CO can do it from EWR.
For secondary cities in the us to eurohubs, BA don't have the slots in Heathrow and FRA is similarly restricted - only AMS and CDG have some sort of capacity for this type of route.
So, how many are UA and AFKL going to buy... 15 each?
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5481 posts, RR: 34 Reply 113, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8453 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 109): Incorrect, a new version with improved economics and range would sell very well, besides many of the current 757's are getting long in the tooth and need replacing.
Incorrect, one only has to look at the number of TATL routes flown and look at the number of 757s in service.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
Bthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 416 posts, RR: 0 Reply 114, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8430 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 112): Such an airliner, would perfect for ZB.
and LS, BY, MT, DE. I would say there's quite a market in Europe and Central Asia and as mentioned the Middle East. Do a variant with some 762/3 legs as well and it could be a market hit.
btblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 531 posts, RR: 4 Reply 115, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8341 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 113): Quoting Max Q (Reply 109):
Incorrect, a new version with improved economics and range would sell very well, besides many of the current 757's are getting long in the tooth and need replacing.
Incorrect, one only has to look at the number of TATL routes flown and look at the number of 757s in service.
How about a version that can take a fair size amount of cargo in the hold, loading system using cans to speed up the process... eat into the bottom end of the market that the 767 sits in (for those routes with low load factors)... if the 737 can do what the 75 can, then why not develop a 757 that can do what a 767 can?
They have the 200 and 300 frame to play with. Clearance for engines... capacity and then above the 300 you'll have the 787... Just arguing the case up, as others have argued the case up for the 739 as a replacement...
Daysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 800 posts, RR: 1 Reply 116, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7760 times:
As I’ve just posted over in the UA order thread, the A321 NEO has had a recent ~200nm range bump making it capable of 3750nm fully loaded. It is perfect to replace the 752 as it stands on 90%+ of missions, and as the design matures the range is only going to get better. It’s also worth bearing in mind that it’s able to do this while burning at least 20% less fuel than the 752.
There is no need for Boeing to produce a dedicated 757 replacement, Airbus already has.
bestwestern From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6431 posts, RR: 58 Reply 117, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7483 times:
You can't just look at the 752 trans Atlantic missions, and hey presto - that's the number of new boeings needed.
Taking a chance of say ATL SNN using a fully depreciated 752 is something DL may try, but they certainly will not acquire a new aircraft for a marginal seasonal route like that. Nor can the route pay the depreciation charges of such a route.
The size of the market is a proportion of the amount served by 752 today that cannot be flown by the neomax.
That is way too small for a whole new aircraft type. It's like the A345 or 772LR being a separate aircraft.
These long thin routes have limited cargo and premium demand usually.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10452 posts, RR: 20 Reply 118, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7384 times:
Quoting JHCRJ700 (Reply 52): I think it's kinda funny that FedEx is picking up converted 75's now.
Yes, me too. UPS ordered a bunch of factory built 757PFs. FedEx never bit, but is now picking through the industry cast-offs to find what it needs, and is ending up with a mixed-dengine fleet.
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 56): Put the 767-200ER on a diet, give it new engines. Add winglets - a whole new wing sounds excessive.
767's fatal flaw is its cross section: not quite big enough to be optimal for cargo.
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 70): How about an Al-Li 762 with the GenX2B engines?
Not worth the investment.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 73): I was at Boeing during the initial design studies of the 7E7-8 and 7E7-9 and they were sized, capacity-wise, around the 767-300ER and 767-400ER. The significant majority of customers wanted larger aircraft and they were scaled up to the 767-400ER/A330-200 and A330-300/A340-300/777-200, respectively.
Yes, many don't seem to pick up on this.
Quoting ckfred (Reply 76): Boeing was looking to a completely new narrowbody in the 2006-2008 time frame that would probably have run in size from the 737-700 to the 757-200, with the largest varient having 752 performance in terms of range and payload.
The problems with the 787 and the 747-8 got Boeing bogged down, and Airbus wasn't signaling that it was working on a new narrowbody, or even working on improvements with the A320 line.
So, Boeing kept cranking out 737NGs while trying to get the 747-8 and the 787 programs back on track.
With Airbus deciding to update the A320 line with the Neo, Boeing had two options: build a new airplane that would come out several years after the Neo came out or update the 737 line with no true 757 replacement.
It appears that keeping up with Airbus was more important, even if that left the 737-900 MAX as somewhat short of a true 752 replacement.
Indeed. The hope was that the timely completion of the 787 would provide the resources and technologies needed for NSA by the end of the decade. Instead we get the MAX in 2017.
Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 88): It's nothing short of absurd to suggest that Boeing isn't investing in their products.
That's not what the suggestion was, it was that the lack of investment in all-new aircraft was leading to atrophy in the ability to do all-new aircraft.
The bottom line is that times have changed. The engineers of the 70s who did the 757/767 presumably had the ability to cut their teeth on 707, 727, 737, 747 and countless military programs, and were surrounded by others who had done the same, plus holdovers from the piston era. There's no way to recreate that enviornment today. The end goals are different too. In the old era, they were trying to figure out what worked well and what didn't, and found a way to tolerate a goodly number of crashes along the way to figure that out. These days that is pretty well known, and it's all about delivering the relative near-perfection that the current customers demand in terms of efficiency, reliability, maintainability, safety, etc.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 105): Many more orders would be forthcoming and especially for an improved NG version with a little more range, 4500NM was proposed with a version featuring a stabiliser fuel tank.
Many? We're having a hard time finding customers for a few dozen, and that'd be after one did a clean-sheet aircraft costing well north of $10B!
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11359 posts, RR: 50 Reply 119, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7385 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 109): Incorrect, a new version with improved economics and range would sell very well, besides many of the current 757's are getting long in the tooth and need replacing.
1 - this is your opinion
2 - define "sell very well", give us a number
3 - many 757s have been and are being replaced by A320s and 737s.
I can see Boeing trying to max out the MAX (MAX squared?) to provide near 757 performance, but I cannot see any way in the World they're going to do a new build for such a niche market.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6871 posts, RR: 7 Reply 120, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7327 times:
Quoting planemaker (Reply 108): There are more than enough 757s to serve all TATL routes for the next 20 years. Even if the 757 was available today airlines wouldn't order them because there are more than enough in service.
Replace "757" with any other model and your statement still applies. So why bother coming up with new models? It's a good thing manufacturers don't think like that and are always looking to improve on existing products and create new markets.
Quoting bestwestern (Reply 111): Profitable long thin routes that can't be operated by a neomax and are too small for a 787 is a tiny market.
Again, you're limiting yourself to the current time and existing routes. There's a huge gap between the "neomax" and the 787 and an even bigger one to the A358. The 788 is so expensive at the short end of the range spectrum that airlines are chosing to fly the "really old" 767 instead. LAN is an example of an airline that has recently ordered new 767's.
You're also not thinking about the possibility of brand new markets being created by a plane with such capability. Just like the 787 is opening up new very long and thin routes (BOS-NRT, IAH-AKL), a long haul narrowbody would do the same. Routes that you're not even thinking about now would be started. It would also expand the reach of LCCs. Imagine the possibilities when all the large LCC can order a plane that offers commonality with the rest of their fleet and can fly TATL routes, or N.America-S.America.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10452 posts, RR: 20 Reply 121, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7287 times:
Quoting scbriml (Reply 119): I can see Boeing trying to max out the MAX (MAX squared?) to provide near 757 performance, but I cannot see any way in the World they're going to do a new build for such a niche market.
Agreed that there won't be an all-new aircraft, and will take it a step further and say MAX won't ever equal NEO in the longer range missions, for reasons that have been discussed countless times here.
Bottom line of all of this is Boeing's 757 replacement study will result in a deck of PowerPoints that will end up saying "You can't win them all".
Quoting airbazar (Reply 120): LAN is an example of an airline that has recently ordered new 767's.
You really want to hang your hat on that being the wave of the future?
Quoting airbazar (Reply 120): You're also not thinking about the possibility of brand new markets being created by a plane with such capability. Just like the 787 is opening up new very long and thin routes (BOS-NRT, IAH-AKL), a long haul narrowbody would do the same.
787 has 800+ orders not because of the new routes it will open, but because it's a great 767/A330 replacement. Sure, some percentage will go to new routes, but the thing that makes the whole program financially viable is the 767/A330 replacement market.
bestwestern From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6431 posts, RR: 58 Reply 122, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7173 times:
There are markets like EWR NTE for example, but they will be flown by the 752 thats currently operating EWR SNN, which by 2020 will be operated by a 787.
Long haul low cost doesn't work. Aircraft depreciation per pax per day just is just too high. The day of stewart stansted is not going to happen.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 123, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7138 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 10): I'm supposing they want solid 4000 nm all-winds range, so would sticking A321 wings on an A320 get it to that point?
Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 18): How differant are the A321 wings from the standard A320 ones - I thought that all 4 familt members had the same wings?
Quoting N757ST (Reply 19): All the a320 series have the same wing.
Correct, all of the A-32X series uses the same wing, the only real difference is the flap/slat system, and even that is minor.
The B-757 was cancelled because no one was ordering it. Boeing could reintroduce an updated version, possibly calling it a B-757NG or B-757MAX in two different versions, a B-758 B-759.
It would be the replacement airplane for not only the B-757-200/-300, but also the B-767-200/ER, A-310-200/-300, or A-300-600R. It could also be built in a freighter version. A newer or updated engine is needed in the 35000-45000 lb class as the PW-2043 and RB-211-535E4B engines are dated now, and might have to much FSFC.
The pax version(s) should seat 200-280, and carry about 2200-2400 cu ft of cargo to a range out to about 4500 nm. But it would need a SFC much better than the B-752 and a CASM that competes with the B-737-8MAX.
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 70): How about an Al-Li 762 with the GenX2B engines?
The engine is the problem, the airframe can be designed and built out of Al-Li or composits, but there is not a new engine in the thrust range needed. The most powerful Leap-1A and PW-1133G engines tops out at about 33,000 lbs and are designed for the A-321NEO. That is not enough power for a 4500 nm airplane with a MTOW of about 285,000 lbs. (for the IGW or ER version). To meet this type of weight and range a new and longer wing is needed. The B-752/3 has a wingspan just under 125', the new airplane should have a wing about as wide as the B-767 wing of 156', but that width should include raked wingtips, not the wingspan of the B-767-400ER (170' including the raked wingtips).
txjim From United States of America, joined May 2008, 197 posts, RR: 0 Reply 124, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7066 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 105): I maintain that Boeing made a big mistake in shutting down the 757 production line.
Certainly, there was a temporary lull in orders but they should have persevered. It was too late already when the Airlines started to realise how invaluable this Aircraft is on TATL routes to smaller cities (an operation refined to perfection by Continental)
Maintaining a production line is not a simple matter of waiting for orders. I mentioned labs and obsolescense above, there's also continuous drawing updates, a reasonable staff of sustaining engineers, subcontract managers, compliance people, etc... I suspect that it's a minimum of 40 heads to keep the line open in addition to the floor space, IT demands and all other necessary support services. It's not unreasonable to expect a $20 million annual sustaining budget.
Things are expensive in the Aerospace (and Military) world.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8739 posts, RR: 52 Reply 125, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6858 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 109):
Incorrect, a new version with improved economics and range would sell very well, besides many of the current 757's are getting long in the tooth and need replacing.
I know others have already picked apart your statement, but if you add up all the 757s in ETOPS configuration, it is about 200 airplanes (most UA, AA and DL 757s are not in ETOPS configuration). I would assume that only the ETOPS airplanes are operating routes that are beyond the 737NG and A320 range and payload capabilities.
That is definitely a market, but when you look at the 737 MAX being able to get that many orders from a single airline, I don't see any business case for a refreshed 757. It would limp along at low production rates. Leasing companies would hate it and charge very high leasing rates because it would not be able to be resold on the used market (similar to how Boeing had to finance most 717s in house because leasing companies would not touch it). The low build rate would drive up manufacturing costs so it would be significantly more expensive than the 737 on top of being less economical on the majority of routes that it flies.
In short, outside of the 200 or so planes that really need its performance, the business case for an airline buying a 757NG is horrible. The corporate goal of Boeing is not to build as many airplanes as possible. Its corporate goal is to earn the largest profits possible. Filling every niche market is not a way to earn larger profits. It drives up production costs, development costs and the result is very few additional airplanes sold.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
bellancacf From United States of America, joined May 2011, 115 posts, RR: 0 Reply 126, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6807 times:
Well, is Boeing ever going to do a carbon fiber narrow body or aren't they?
dfwrevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 127, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6713 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 118): That's not what the suggestion was, it was that the lack of investment in all-new aircraft was leading to atrophy in the ability to do all-new aircraft.
Boeing's pace of all-new aircraft has been highly consistent for the last 30 years:
777 EIS to 787 Launch: 8.8 years
767 EIS to 777 Launch: 8.1 years
747 EIS to 767 Launch: 8.5 years
That is a standard deviation of about four months from program to program. That is to say nothing of all the major/minor updates to existing products that absolutely contribute to program management and engineering proficiency. The difference between a clean-sheet program and a major update on par with the 737NG, 777-X, and 747-8 is arbitrary. There are sometimes more challenges to these programs as they have to work within more constraints than a clean-sheet effort.
The reason Boeing stumbled with the 787 was not because of too much lag-time between all-new programs. It was because they took a new, relatively hands-off approach to subcontracting work that would have traditionally been performed in-house. That was a management-driven choice taken because it was perceived as less financial risk, not because Boeing couldn't have done the work themselves.
Quoting bellancacf (Reply 126): Well, is Boeing ever going to do a carbon fiber narrow body or aren't they?
When synthetic fibers offer a compelling value proposition for the short-haul mission, I'm sure they will. At present time, they don't appear to be any better than aluminum alloys.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5481 posts, RR: 34 Reply 128, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6707 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 120): Replace "757" with any other model and your statement still applies. So why bother coming up with new models? It's a good thing manufacturers don't think like that and are always looking to improve on existing products and create new markets.
First, no it doesn't. Second, your post does not pertain to anything I have posted.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
bellancacf From United States of America, joined May 2011, 115 posts, RR: 0 Reply 130, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6549 times:
Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 127): When synthetic fibers offer a compelling value proposition for the short-haul mission, I'm sure they will. At present time, they don't appear to be any better than aluminum alloys.
But narrowbodies are not necessarily short haul (e.g., 757), even if what you say is true. Where do you suppose the break-even point is between short&Al vs. long&CF?
Isn't Boeing betting (787) that CF is better than Al for the long haul? Would CF be _worse_ than Al for short haul? Say you had a long-range CF narrowbody; then you could adapt it for short haul, couldn't you?
The engine is the problem, the airframe can be designed and built out of Al-Li or composits, but there is not a new engine in the thrust range needed.
The GenX 2b on the 748 has a max thrust only 2000 lbs higher than the 762er. The 747 and 767 have a long history of sharing engines from the same families. The diameter is actually a few inches smaller than the cf6 used on the 767, so fitting should be, relatively, straight forward. It is heavier but the efficiency improvements should make up for that and weight savings from the fuse could at least make it a wash.
The 762er is already 60000lbs lighter than the 788. At least a few more pounds could be scavenged with Al-Li. Two aisles are always better than 1 for long haul. The range is right where Boeing is looking and, probably as important as anything else, it's still in production.
What Boeing is looking for is a 762NG. Keep it simple, Al-Li and Gen-X.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10668 posts, RR: 100 Reply 133, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6347 times:
Quoting bestwestern (Reply 101): We then have to add in the opportunity cost of slowing the 737 fleet to fit in two 757s a month. The price tag difference between the 739 and a 752 is let's say $10m.
Far higher opportunity cost. The 757 line is now the P-8 ITAR line. Shutting down that line would have huge penalties. An ITAR line has very restricted access and thus isn't compatible with commercial aircraft sales.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 105): I maintain that Boeing made a big mistake in shutting down the 757 production line.
Why do you think the P-8 order was a mistake too? They are related. Boeing had zero economic choice in shutting down the 757 line. Boeing was * aggressive* in trying to sell the 757. Pratt and RR certainly didn't want the line shut.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-drive-to-rescue-757-sales-163596/
"Boeing's other major unsolicited push is with FedEx, with an offer of a large batch of standard-configuration 757-200 Package Freighters built to FedEx specification. The US freight carrier concluded a similar deal in the 1980s for the last 15 727s from the Renton production line."
They tried to sell to China, Russia, FedEx, UPS, *anyone*! For passenger duty, the 738 has far better economics.
Quoting scbriml (Reply 119): 3 - many 757s have been and are being replaced by A320s and 737s.
I fail to see how a restarted 757 line will be able to compete with the A321NEO or MAX. There will be too few missions where the 757 would have an advantage.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8739 posts, RR: 52 Reply 134, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6302 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 133):
Far higher opportunity cost. The 757 line is now the P-8 ITAR line. Shutting down that line would have huge penalties. An ITAR line has very restricted access and thus isn't compatible with commercial aircraft sales.
The 757 final assembly production line is now the second 737 production line. The third 737 production line which is the P-8 line was for 757 wing production. The space that was used for 757 fuselage production is now a shopping mall.
The 757 production system is dead and never coming back. Renton is now exclusively 737 and P-8. Since they sold off or repurposed all the land that was involved with 757 production, Renton is exclusively a 737 production site.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4906 posts, RR: 9 Reply 135, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6285 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 133): I fail to see how a restarted 757 line will be able to compete with the A321NEO or MAX. There will be too few missions where the 757 would have an advantage.
Then you miss the point. They need an aircraft that does not compete with the NEO/MAX. Neither of those birds is adequate for the niche the 757 fills. Of course they do 90% of what a 757 does but the issue is the 10% that no other aircraft matches. The debate is whether there is market enough for Boeing to build an aircraft for the role that the 757 is in that no other aircraft meets not whether a NEO or MAX can replace majority of what a 757 does.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6871 posts, RR: 7 Reply 136, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6261 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 121): You really want to hang your hat on that being the wave of the future?
No, I'm hanging my hat on 1700+ 757/767's still in service today because there is no viable replacement for it and although some will eventually be replaced by 787's on long haul routes, I have a feeling that the 767 and 757 will be around for a very long time because there is no better airplane for medium haul routes in the 180-220 seat category.
rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2851 posts, RR: 7 Reply 137, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6238 times:
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 135): the issue is the 10% that no other aircraft matches. The debate is whether there is market enough for Boeing to build an aircraft for the role that the 757 is in that no other aircraft meets not whether a NEO or MAX can replace majority of what a 757 does.
I think what people are missing is that the 737Max (or more likely, its successor) can be in flux. At its upper end, it could stand to lose 10% of its market (so, 600 frames?), be able to cede sales to a better-suited, possibly better priced larger aircraft to address that gap. Add to that the 10% "that no other aircraft matches", and then we're probably over 1000 frames, which again is nothing to sneeze at.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8739 posts, RR: 52 Reply 138, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6226 times:
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 135): The debate is whether there is market enough for Boeing to build an aircraft for the role that the 757 is in that no other aircraft meets not whether a NEO or MAX can replace majority of what a 757 does.
When the 757 was developed, the only other airplane that was competing against it in the Boeing lineup was half the size 128,000lbs MTOW 737-200 vs 255,000lbs MTOW 757. The 757 had a large market once the 767 was stretched and stopped competing side by side against it.
The 737 classic closed that gap to 150,000lbs vs 255,000lbs, but that was still a sizeable gap and this is when 757 sales soared. However the 737NG closed that gap to only 187,000lbs vs 255,000lbs. That shrunk the amount of market that was left to the 757. The MAX is expected to get about another 7,000lbs or so which further eats into the market that is left to the 757. The market that the airplane covers has been steadily shrinking by the growing 737s. The market that is left is hard to be considered to be viable especially with the A321NEO looking to be in the 210,000MTOW range.
There is a market between the 200,000lbs MTOW narrowbodies and 500,000lbs MTOW widebodies. This is where the 757 and 767 were. However is the market big enough? Would Boeing be interested in it since the alternatives are the 787 and 737MAX? Is there a chance that a third manufacturer like Bombardier try to market a 350,000lbs MTOW airplane?
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
crucianpilot From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 139, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6177 times:
My problem with the 737 is payload. They took an a/c and stretched the heck out of it. In doing so, they opened up a variety of issues. Although fuel efficient as heck, looking at the use of the 738 and 739 at Continental/United, there have been many instances of unnecessary fuel stops, weight restricted routes, performance limitations due to the cities served, etc.. All issues that due not occur when a 757 is used. Boeing made all these so called improvements at a price. Had they used the 757 as a starting point for an improved a/c, then it would have been different. I look at the Vref speeds on the 738 and 739 and cringe at how we haven't bent metal on one of these a/c more frequently. Constantly operating into airports on the edge of the performance envelope is inviting problems. How beneficial are all these fuel burn advantages when the a/c can't carry the bags on a flight and those bags now have to be flown on another flight. Cost advantage gone.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26697 posts, RR: 83 Reply 141, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6133 times:
Quoting crucianpilot (Reply 139): Although fuel efficient as heck, looking at the use of the 738 and 739 at Continental/United, there have been many instances of unnecessary fuel stops, weight restricted routes, performance limitations due to the cities served, etc..
Much of which should be eliminated with the greater range of the 737-8 and 737-9.
Quoting rampart (Reply 137): At its upper end, it could stand to lose 10% of its market (so, 600 frames?), be able to cede sales to a better-suited, possibly better priced larger aircraft to address that gap.
The only carriers still operating sizable 757 fleets are the US majors and that is because they have lacked the capital to replace them and they're able to fly TATL, which WN and B6 can't follow.
Now that they have the capital, instead of pushing Boeing or Airbus to launch a new model that is a direct replacement, they're buying 737-900ERs, 737-9s, A321-200s and A321-200neos. They'll hold on to the 757 frames with the lowest cycles and hours and get another couple of decades of service out of them.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5010 posts, RR: 29 Reply 142, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6126 times:
That's a whole lot of ifs to throw a ton of resources and a few billion dollars at. If Boeing does anything in thee near future, it will be a derivative of a current model.
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11359 posts, RR: 50 Reply 143, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6146 times:
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 135): The debate is whether there is market enough for Boeing to build an aircraft for the role that the 757 is in that no other aircraft meets not whether a NEO or MAX can replace majority of what a 757 does.
Of those 1,050 757s built, how many are flying those routes that occupy the top-right 10% of the 757s payload-range envelope? IMHO certainly not enough to even begin to justify an all-new plane. Even if you throw in replacing those 762/A310/A300/DC-10s left flying pax, I don't think the number comes close enough to make it worthwhile.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10668 posts, RR: 100 Reply 144, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6150 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 134): The space that was used for 757 fuselage production is now a shopping mall.
Ouch. Do they at least serve Beer in a can?
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 134): The third 737 production line which is the P-8 line was for 757 wing production.
Interesting. I hadn't realized the 757 occupied so much real estate. Thank you.
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 135): Then you miss the point. They need an aircraft that does not compete with the NEO/MAX. Neither of those birds is adequate for the niche the 757 fills. Of course they do 90% of what a 757 does but the issue is the 10% that no other aircraft matches.
I think if you realize what I implied I get the point. The remaining 10% must be done more profitably than with the MAX/NEO. For short fields, replace the 752 with the 738MAX or A320/A321NEO. While a few seats will go empty, those will be the lowest yield passengers and an airline should be able to make more profit per flight. For TATL, I see (eventually) a 738MAX and A321NEO plying the route. Exactly what other missions are left out where the few passengers left behind will pay for a 757 (or replacement's) muti-billion dollar development?
Quoting Max Q (Reply 140): Point is you create your own market
Just because there are, for arguments sake 200 757's operating oceanic routes today does not mean this market could not be expanded.
Exactly. A lower cost per flight airframe opens up markets. I see tremendous fragmentation on TATL length missions (don't forget the mid-east hubs, among others). Customers like frequency but they *love* fragmentation. There are plenty of opportunities on the US side. (e.g., fewer RJs at EWR for UA and more TATL, IAD, CLT, BOS (B6?),etc.
If a little more range is provided, I see tremendous opportunity from MCO, FLL, and MIA to Europe. But that would take a true 757 replacement with more range than the other options being discussed.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 140): Otoh, with a new, more capable 757 you can keep it's current market niche and develop new ones.
I agree with that. But 'capability' increases costs on shorter missions. The 'new 757' will have to have a lower cost per flight than the 788 for all its missions and an advantage in CASM versus the 737/A320. I believe it is too thin of a sector for the multi-billion dollar investment.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5481 posts, RR: 34 Reply 145, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6086 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 141): The only carriers still operating sizable 757 fleets are the US majors and that is because they have lacked the capital to replace them and they're able to fly TATL, which WN and B6 can't follow.
Now that they have the capital, instead of pushing Boeing or Airbus to launch a new model that is a direct replacement, they're buying 737-900ERs, 737-9s, A321-200s and A321-200neos. They'll hold on to the 757 frames with the lowest cycles and hours and get another couple of decades of service out of them.
I don't think your post will make any difference... unfortunately. Those that go on and on about the viability continued 757 production completely ignore economics... from the manufacturer's viewpoint to the operator's viewpoint.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4906 posts, RR: 9 Reply 148, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5914 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 144): For TATL, I see (eventually) a 738MAX and A321NEO plying the route. Exactly what other missions are left out where the few passengers left behind will pay for a 757 (or replacement's) muti-billion dollar development?
Exactly the question that Boeing is looking to answer. The thought of a 738MAX and 321NEO plying the routes is based on somewhat loosely founded conjecture. If the payload/range deficit can be addressed in hypothetical future variants of the 738/321...then yes...I can agree with your assessment, with a slight nod going toward the 321NEO.
jmc1975 From Israel, joined Sep 2000, 3159 posts, RR: 17 Reply 149, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5848 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 103):
Just as a side note, the emerging 'engineers' as you call them are some of the brightest coming out of college in the country. The Boeing acceptance rate for internships coming out of college is less than 10%. It's easier to get into Harvard or MIT than get an internship at Boeing.
yada-yada-yada....just because they know how to manipulate software doesn't mean they are creative enough to be revolutionary engineers.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8739 posts, RR: 52 Reply 150, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5803 times:
Quoting jmc1975 (Reply 149): yada-yada-yada....just because they know how to manipulate software doesn't mean they are creative enough to be revolutionary engineers.
So do you believe the reason why there isn't a larger narrowbody/smaller widebody in production/development is because they don't have enough talented engineers to do so?
I really don't believe that the reason for the lack of a narrowbody in production with transatlantic range is because the engineering is not revolutionary enough. I believe it is because the market dried up and it is a narrow niche that isn't large enough to justify the investment in an all new platform capable of doing that. But maybe I am just another one of those young untalented engineers that only knows how to manipulate software.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14321 posts, RR: 26 Reply 151, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5768 times:
Quoting jmc1975 (Reply 149): yada-yada-yada....just because they know how to manipulate software doesn't mean they are creative enough to be revolutionary engineers.
Horseshit. Having more tools means having to know more tools. Not to mention that someone has to make the tools too.
Consequently, an individual engineer has that much more power and responsibility than they've had before. Of course, for you I'm sure "engineering" these days means dragging this file into that program and looking at results. Things that were not long ago considered cutting edge stuff are basically toys now that can be more or less replicated in a couple of weeks.
Don't fool yourself, what you ran into was an old timer who probably has a hard time keeping up with technology. Kinda sucks for him. The problem isn't that younger people only know how to work in software, it's that old farts don't know how to work in software. It's those old, antiquated ways that companies should fear, not use of new tools and techniques.
Nobody contends that doctors are becoming dumber as time goes on. Then again, if you really want to, I bet you could find someone who still believes in bloodletting.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8739 posts, RR: 52 Reply 152, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5760 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 151): Consequently, an individual engineer has that much more power and responsibility than they've had before. Of course, for you I'm sure "engineering" these days means dragging this file into that program and looking at results. Things that were not long ago considered cutting edge stuff are basically toys now that can be more or less replicated in a couple of weeks.
Also the cost of developing an airplane keeps going up. The regulations keep getting tougher. Safety keeps getting better, but it comes at a cost. Far more analysis is done now than was ever done before.
There were 7 fatal crashes & hull losses within the first 5 years of the 727 program. If you look at the last 5 major developmental programs (MD11, A330, A340, 737NG and 777) there was one fatal hull loss within the first 5 years of service for those programs combined.
The costs of developing new airplanes now at the higher safety standards is astronomical. It isn't like the 1960s when airplane programs could become profitable after only a hundred or so airplanes were built.
It's not a lack of innovation for why so fewer airplanes are developed, it is because it is so much more complex and expensive. It would simply cost too much money to run development programs at the frequency that once was common.
A new 757 sized plane would be too expensive to develop profitably, so a less than optimized 737 or 787 might do a better job of capturing the market.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2466 posts, RR: 21 Reply 153, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5724 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 133): The 757 line is now the P-8 ITAR line. Shutting down that line would have huge penalties. An ITAR line has very restricted access and thus isn't compatible with commercial aircraft sales
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 134): The 757 final assembly production line is now the second 737 production line. The third 737 production line which is the P-8 line was for 757 wing production. The space that was used for 757 fuselage production is now a shopping mall.
Unless things have changed drastically since I was last in the 757/737 FAL buildings, The P-8 ITAR line is in the 4-20 building complex with the 737 wing line. The double FAL buildings at one time contained 2 757 lines in one and 2 737 i the other As the 757 wound down a third 737 line was set in one of the 757 lines. The last 757 line remained vacant after the last a/p. and may become a 737 line.
Yes the 10-50 complex where the 757 sections were built is long gone and the land sold.
So rather than whining about it's short life, we should be looking at what is in the future.
For some reason nobody is taking the Sonic Cruiser version 2 seriously... why?
SSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 434 posts, RR: 0 Reply 155, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5411 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 142): That's a whole lot of ifs to throw a ton of resources and a few billion dollars at. If Boeing does anything in thee near future, it will be a derivative of a current model.
I'm still rooting for them to start up a new narrowbody with the target being the rather small 757 ETOPS market-- maybe sized for 200 passengers in an international lie-flat/Y+/Y configuration with galleys. To some extent an economical aircraft in that segment would expand the market. And then bridge that new infrastructure to a 737-700/800 replacement, by shortening the fuselage and introducing a second wing, but having much of the manufacturing and supply bugged out at relatively slow production rates. Ideally this would eventually be Boeing's one aircraft sized smaller than the 787.
They do have the problem of managing a transition from the 737 to its replacement at some point-- all while trying not to seriously cut back deliveries.
AngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 320 posts, RR: 0 Reply 156, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5336 times:
Quoting SSTeve (Reply 155): I'm still rooting for them to start up a new narrowbody with the target being the rather small 757 ETOPS market-- maybe sized for 200 passengers in an international lie-flat/Y+/Y configuration with galleys.
Isn't that called a 767 or 787-8 (apart from the narrowbody part)?
A 200 seat narrowbody with lie-flat as well as Y+ will be awfully long. A 757-200 with such config will seat maybe 150 max. The Delta 757-200 in Altlantic config seats 166 without lie-flat. A 767-300 which such config seats 180-200.
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 157, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5242 times:
757s across the atlantic are there so airlines can figure out what to do with their 757s that they no longer have to fly where 737-900s and A321s can.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5010 posts, RR: 29 Reply 158, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5166 times:
Quoting SSTeve (Reply 155): I'm still rooting for them to start up a new narrowbody with the target being the rather small 757 ETOPS market-- maybe sized for 200 passengers in an international lie-flat/Y+/Y configuration with galleys.
That sounds like a 762, minus the narrow body part. Wiki shows it 181 in 3 class configuration, 224 in two class. It's a lot heavier than the 739 MAX but a lot lighter than the 788.
Lose some weight, hang GenX2B's off of the wings, and voila. No design worries, no new production line, R&D long ago paid for. Sell the USAF on the GenX's and it gets even cheaper.
rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2063 posts, RR: 6 Reply 159, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5157 times:
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 135): Then you miss the point. They need an aircraft that does not compete with the NEO/MAX. Neither of those birds is adequate for the niche the 757 fills.
Most niches don't justify much effort. E.g. the effort Boeing has put into the "748 niche" would have brought a much larger reward, if it would have been spend for almost any other Boeing product.
The 757 lost 99% of its appeal once the A320/737NG duopoly was established. During the period while these three aircraft have been available, the market has spoken a crushing verdict. Check it by yourself, but my guess is, that the 757 probably sold ten times less than the other two.
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 135): Of course they do 90% of what a 757 does but the issue is the 10% that no other aircraft matches. The debate is whether there is market enough for Boeing to build an aircraft for the role that the 757 is in that no other aircraft meets not whether a NEO or MAX can replace majority of what a 757 does.
A new aircraft? Boeing tries to get away by just updating their cash cows (737 and 777), so the niche of all niches shall deserve a new design? Any $ that is spent to serve the 737/777-market better, would pay back a hundred times more probably. I think planemaker meant this.
Quoting baje427 (Reply 146): I am wondering how much more efficient would the 757 be with a new power plant added composites etc ?
Marginally. The incentive for engine OEM's to build a new engines just for this unique thrust class is probably not there.
Hmelawyer From United States of America, joined May 2011, 48 posts, RR: 0 Reply 160, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4795 times:
While I think all can agree that it is a niche market (how big or small the niche may be is debatable), even niche markets are a market to be served. While it probably would not be a good use of resources to design a plane that only serves this market, it seems to be a fairly good use of resources to ensure that your next narrowbody development program can serve this market. I truly feel that this is where this project and study will head. A 797 that replaces the 737MAX, has a variant capable of serving this niche, and creates some new markets not currently served. The pattern of a new airplane's main variants replacing a previous model, having one or more variant cater to niche markets, and attempting to stimulate new markets can be seen in the history of many model developments.
frmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1501 posts, RR: 1 Reply 161, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4769 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 151): I bet you could find someone who still believes in bloodletting.
This has been a great thread, including the post quoted. But let me insert of Public Service Bulletin type note. If you are male, eat lots of legumes, beef, or certain veggies you may have too much iron in your system. Give Blood. It is very much needed, Blood Banks, and very sick people very much believe in bloodletting. LOL
My preference might be for Boeing to figure out how to greatly reduce the cost of building a smaller 767 to the point that it could economically become not only a 757 competitor but with a CASM to profitably do the Allantic.
[Edited 2012-05-02 10:26:11]
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26697 posts, RR: 83 Reply 162, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4780 times:
Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 161): My preference might be for Boeing to figure out how to greatly reduce the cost of building a smaller 767 to the point that it could economically become a 757 competitor.
The new 767 FAL is said to have reduced production costs by 30% and now that the line rate is increasing, that should lower costs even more. It's clearly helped Boeing land new orders for the freighter and passenger models so perhaps going forward that trend will continue.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10668 posts, RR: 100 Reply 163, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4761 times:
" FedEx probably pays about $10 million each, a couple of million dollars more than an owner might get in a sale to a passenger carrier, said Douglas Runte, managing director at Piper Jaffray & Co."
The plane is not in high demand. Hence why Allergiant has switched to buying the type over MD-80s. (Their model requires low aircraft purchase pricing.)
Quoting Stitch (Reply 141): The only carriers still operating sizable 757 fleets are the US majors and that is because they have lacked the capital to replace them and they're able to fly TATL, which WN and B6 can't follow.
And a greater fraction of the missions will be displaced once we have the NEO and MAX. Who predicted 738 flights to Hawaii? I didn't. Now AS 738s have pushed AA 757s off the routes.
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 148): The thought of a 738MAX and 321NEO plying the routes is based on somewhat loosely founded conjecture. If the payload/range deficit can be addressed in hypothetical future variants of the 738/321...then yes...I can agree with your assessment, with a slight nod going toward the 321NEO.
What do you mean loosely founded conjecture?
1. The proposed ranges of 3750nm is just shy of the 3900nm for TATL
2. I have friends in the industry working for Airbus/Pratt to make it happen. It is a question of when, not if.
3. Boeing will not leave a market alone.
If Boeing and Airbus do not develop a TATL capable narrowbody, they know they will conceed that market to the Bombardier CS100. That isn't going to happen. It will not be difficult to make the CS100 TATL capable. It certainly has the MTOW growth potential for even further missions: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...nalysis-a318-and-cseries-go-h.html
US airways has been talking on and off with Airbus about a TATL A321 since the late 1990s!
Once there is a 738MAX capable of TATL travel it will push 752s off the routes just as it did domestically, to Hawaii, etc. If the A320 meets the growth in range we're hearing rumors about... It will participate in that push off TATL routes too. At that point it becomes a race to see who will sell a 757 to FedEx the fastest.
If FedEx holds to plans to retire 20 727s in 2014, they will need to buy a further subfleet of 20 to 30 soon. (Last I looked they were short 35 757s for just the 727 plus they will require some for growth.)
Quoting kanban (Reply 153): For some reason nobody is taking the Sonic Cruiser version 2 seriously... why?
I worked thrust proposals for the initial sonic cruiser. The required thrust did not match Boeing's claims on fuel burn. The reality is that higher cruise speeds result in a lower TSFC than current aircraft too. Due to shock wave losses, pushing the speed up a bit costs. Boeing figured out how to cut losses on the airframe side. No engine maker has a great solution on the power-plant side.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 159): The 757 lost 99% of its appeal once the A320/737NG duopoly was established. During the period while these three aircraft have been available, the market has spoken a crushing verdict.
So true. I'm waiting for someone to explain exactly what markets a longer range 738MAX or A321NEO couldn't fill. I do not worry about a few seats. If it is short field performance, the CS100 will fill the niche.
I'd like to be proven wrong. I'm all for new aircraft development. (I am in aerospace R&D and flight test is fun!) But where is the business case?
Quoting gigneil (Reply 157):
757s across the atlantic are there so airlines can figure out what to do with their 757s that they no longer have to fly where 737-900s and A321s can.
Let me rephrase. The 757 on TATL is profitable while it isn't on many domestic missions. Its fuel burn and maintenance are just far too high to compete with the 737 and A320 family. Once there is a version of those planes with 752 range... a large niche will be closed.
Could a new 757 be designed with a market? Sure. CFRP wing, new engines, better aerodynamics, etc.
For example, everyone is getting excited that the new Boeing winglets will cut fuel burn a further 1.5%. New airfoil cross sections have been flown on UAVs that cut fuel burn 7% (for commercial airliner speeds). The issue is the new flap systems. (They airfoils would stall in commercial use.) My employer has figured out three new flap systems to try that all passed wind tunnel testing. Its time to prove them in the air. (Including *all* known failure modes.)
Before someone asks "why aren't these on commercial aircraft," the answer is simple, the safety has to be proven. Thankfully, UAVs are cheap.
But I'm not seeing a large enough niche between the MAX and 788 for now. Eventually there will be business case. Short term the 752s will be replaced by MAX and NEO.
CargoIT From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 23 posts, RR: 0 Reply 164, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4611 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 164): If Boeing and Airbus do not develop a TATL capable narrowbody, they know they will conceed that market to the Bombardier CS100. That isn't going to happen. It will not be difficult to make the CS100 TATL capable. It certainly has the MTOW growth potential for even further missions:
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10452 posts, RR: 20 Reply 166, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4536 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 136): No, I'm hanging my hat on 1700 757/767's still in service today because there is no viable replacement for it and although some will eventually be replaced by 787's on long haul routes, I have a feeling that the 767 and 757 will be around for a very long time because there is no better airplane for medium haul routes in the 180-220 seat category.
As above, most customers asked for the 767 replacement to be larger:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 73): I was at Boeing during the initial design studies of the 7E7-8 and 7E7-9 and they were sized, capacity-wise, around the 767-300ER and 767-400ER. The significant majority of customers wanted larger aircraft and they were scaled up to the 767-400ER/A330-200 and A330-300/A340-300/777-200, respectively.
And, as above, countless places, most medium haul 757s have already been replaced with 737s and A32Xs.
So, there may not be any "better airplane for medium haul routes in the 180-220 seat category", but if that's what the market wanted, that's what be getting built, but there's no way the market is asking for 1700 aircraft of that size in the near future (let's say next decade or so).
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10668 posts, RR: 100 Reply 167, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4459 times:
But the 737-700ER compromises short haul economics to obtain TATL range. It is going to have poor resale a la the 747SP when its long haul days are over. If it isn't being used on very long missions, there is far more profit potential in a 738. The A319LR has done well. Partially as the added equipment can be removed and thus returning its short haul economics.
The CS100 has several benefits:
1. Far lower cost per flight.
2. Far better short field performance than either the 737-700ER or A319LR.
3. Thanks to the cross section, the same number of J seats as the A318.
4. Better CASM than the 737-700ER/A319LR.
The only question will be resale value. The cost of taking a TATL CS100 and making it a short haul plane will really just be the cost of the seats and other interior modifications so I'm talking actual aircraft resale value.
I speculate the cost per flight of the A319LR is hindering its uptake. There is a reason the market is drifting to longer narrowbody lengths: there is little cost per flight benefit with the shorter variations.
Now, the TATL CS100 will only be competitive if the 'parent airline' also buys the CS300. We have several candidates coming up for fleet replacement: LH and US come to mind. QR... maybe. Lower CASM opens up routes. In particular if combined with lower per flight costs. (The whole 787 business case...)
Customers like frequency. They love fragmentation. Certain airports are just 'ripe' for expansion on TATL: BER, MUC, IAD, BOS, CHL, and if they have the range MCO/FLL/MIA.
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 165): A point to make is not only is it enough to make the 321 and 737 have enough range,
they need a useful payload.
True. If they have the range of the 752, they will have enough payload to make a profit on similar missions.
crucianpilot From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 168, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3978 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 141): Much of which should be eliminated with the greater range of the 737-8 and 737-9.
If you look at my post, those are the a/c I was referring to. So no, that is not eliminated because the 738 and 739 are the a/c I was referring to. 739 limited many times on transcons, and the 738 flying to hawaii and having to limit pax or payload for the mission. Both can be easily flown by a 757 with no restrictions.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26697 posts, RR: 83 Reply 169, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3951 times:
Quoting crucianpilot (Reply 168): If you look at my post, those are the a/c I was referring to. So no, that is not eliminated because the 738 and 739 are the a/c I was referring to.
The 737-8 and 737-9 are the "MAX" versions of the 737-800 and 737-900ER. Based on Boeing's latest projections, the 737-8 range should be around 3700nm and the 737-9 would be around 3500nm - both about 500nm more than the 737-800 and 737-900ER.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10668 posts, RR: 100 Reply 170, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3804 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 169): Based on Boeing's latest projections, the 737-8 range should be around 3700nm and the 737-9 would be around 3500nm - both about 500nm more than the 737-800 and 737-900ER.
Does that include the added 1.5% with the new winglets? For another 50nm range for the 737-9 (or as I like to write, 739MAX) improves the Hawaii economics.
Quoting crucianpilot (Reply 168): Both can be easily flown by a 757 with no restrictions.
Current 738NG will still make more profit. While AS might have to limit payload, yield is too poor to pay for the added 700 gallons per hour of fuel. With the projected fuel burn reduction for the MAX, the days of the 752 are numbered.
Some cost comparisons that are becoming a little out of date (737 maintenance costs have been further reduced while fuel has climbed):
crucianpilot From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 172, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3593 times:
Speaking from operating experience, the numbers published from manufacturers are never close to the actual performance numbers of the a/c on the line. We are constantly leaving behind payload or passengers on these flights due to performance issues. So if you know have to use another flight to complete the mission, the fuel efficiency advantage is now lost. That is something you never had to worry about with a 75. The 753 is even better suited for those routes with its higher casm. That is how we compete with 320s on the lucrative northeast to florida runs. A 73 would not be able to beat the airbus on those routes.
crucianpilot From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 174, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3449 times:
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10668 posts, RR: 100 Reply 175, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3364 times:
Quoting crucianpilot (Reply 172): The 753 is even better suited for those routes with its higher casm.
I could see the 753 being well suited. But there are so few of them.
The 738MAX (or more properly, 737-8) will close the gap. The performance concerns will go away for anything but TATL. I strongly suspect Boeing/GE will figure out a way to make that happen.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 171): Yes, I added another 50nm to the numbers Boeing have released.
Thank you. That makes the 739MAX economics Ok, but looking for future improvements. With 3700nm range, only 200nm more is needed for 'near-TATL' to either open up new routes or economize on current 752 routes.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10668 posts, RR: 100 Reply 179, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3067 times:
Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 178): What are the estimated pax counts and baggage payloads at 3500nm for 739Max? Using all belly tanks, no?
I'm not certain. I would assume still 177 pax from the 739ER for the739MAX (vs. 190 for the 752). The 739MAX is a half step size down from the 752. Heck, the A321NEO is about 6 fewer seats than the 752 too.
But as noted:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 177): Less seats can increases the Average Sales Price per seat (per the Law of Supply and Demand).
Not to mention at a lower CASM the overall profit per mission goes up. Airlines should care about the profit, not the quantity of passengers.
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 176): What about the payload deficit? The 738max will carry less pax?
Definitely. Pick a number inclusive of 146 to 162 for the 738MAX. (I'm being too lazy to figure out the exact comparison to the 752.) It doesn't matter. The profit per flight of the 738MAX will exceed the 752. If the 738MAX drives down RASM... Its possible the 738MAX would make a profit and the 752 a loss. The more seats for sale, the greater the number that are sold off cheaply.
There is no reason 7X weekly couldn't be augmented with one or two extra weekly flights. The total cost would be less and RASM might be higher (it really takes 5X+ a week for the additional flight to boost RASM). But RASM isn't just boosted by frequency, as Stitch noted, it is supply and demand. Each market pair has its own curve (that is often seasonal too).
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6517 posts, RR: 11 Reply 180, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2962 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 109): Incorrect, a new version with improved economics and range would sell very well, besides many of the current 757's are getting long in the tooth and need replacing.
Delta.. currently the largest 757 operator in the world and who should theoretically be #1 on Boeing's list of potential buyers currently has more 75Es than they know what to do with. Remember, JFK-LAX/SFO didn't go all 75E until not too long ago in the the past. They are CURRENTLY converting all 75As (PMNW ETOPS 757s with World Business Class J seats) to a domestic configuration..they don't need them.
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 125): (most UA, AA and DL 757s are not in ETOPS configuration)
The ETOPS a/c include the PMNW 757s dubbed 75As, former TWA/AA 757s dubbed 75Es, 4 former ATA 757s dubbed 75Vs and of course the 753s. That's it. Pre merger, all DL had were the 4 75Vs (of course prior to getting the AA 757s in 2008.
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 125): I would assume that only the ETOPS airplanes are operating routes that are beyond the 737NG and A320 range and payload capabilities.
I would say yes and no but it comes down to payload more than range; at least with DL ex ATL IMO. - For the record; i'm with the movement that thinks the 75 is a great airplane no doubt but it is too much airplane for what it's used for. Within the 48 corners of the lower 48, the 738 can handle it (a few exceptions of course like airfield, etc.) That is a HUGE market by itself. The largest and busiest in the world in fact..
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 133): I fail to see how a restarted 757 line will be able to compete with the A321NEO or MAX
It can't
Quoting crucianpilot (Reply 139): My problem with the 737 is payload. They took an a/c and stretched the heck out of it. In doing so, they opened up a variety of issues. Although fuel efficient as heck, looking at the use of the 738 and 739 at Continental/United, there have been many instances of unnecessary fuel stops, weight restricted routes, performance limitations due to the cities served, etc.. All issues that due not occur when a 757 is used. Boeing made all these so called improvements at a price. Had they used the 757 as a starting point for an improved a/c, then it would have been different. I look at the Vref speeds on the 738 and 739 and cringe at how we haven't bent metal on one of these a/c more frequently. Constantly operating into airports on the edge of the performance envelope is inviting problems. How beneficial are all these fuel burn advantages when the a/c can't carry the bags on a flight and those bags now have to be flown on another flight. Cost advantage gone.
Can you specifically cite some routes you're talking about? Within the continental United States, I can't think of many. JFK-PDX is an issue for DL during certain times of the year and even then they just go ahead and cap coach to 140 vs 144. Thus not having to deal with constant payload issues on day of departure. ATL-BSB...that's a problem child.
Quoting SSTeve (Reply 155): I'm still rooting for them to start up a new narrowbody with the target being the rather small 757 ETOPS market-- maybe sized for 200 passengers in an international lie-flat/Y+/Y configuration with galleys.
Are you sure you mean 200 seats? Delta's 763s with flatbed seats and E+ seats a total of 208 passengers. For that to work on a narrowbody, it will have to be very long. On the 75Es it's 174 and they get away with that many because the J seats are recliners.
[Edited 2012-05-04 01:26:25]
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
aerohottie From Australia, joined Mar 2004, 735 posts, RR: 3 Reply 181, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2884 times:
I've always been excited with the prospect of a long-range single aisle aircraft ala 707/DC8 dimensions but with today's technologies, twin engines and materials...
Let the NEO/MAX and whatever replaces them to look after the sub 4000nm segment, but develop the 757 replacement to be a true single aisle long range aircraft with 7000nm+ range.
The 757 replacement doesn't need to be all things and for all missions... I strongly believe airlines would jump at an aircraft with between 150-250 seat capacity with long-haul range.
crucianpilot From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 182, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2857 times:
On the 739, specifically SAN-EWR several times a year, SEA-EWR. On the 738, IAH-ANC seems to have issues all year long. Internationally, any high hot alt airport in central and south america back to either EWR or IAH pose problems as far as payload on the 738. Even the 737-700 have issues out of Bogota and Quito back to IAH. These are easy missions for the 757.
odwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 641 posts, RR: 3 Reply 183, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2656 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 179): I'm not certain. I would assume still 177 pax from the 739ER for the739MAX (vs. 190 for the 752). The 739MAX is a half step size down from the 752. Heck, the A321NEO is about 6 fewer seats than the 752 too.
If you do 177 seats, can you fit their luggage? You are taking away some capacity in the belly hold by using aux tanks no? Would think a TALT pax on holiday carries more luggage than one on a small 800nm flight. Can you still accomodate them?
crucianpilot From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 184, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2577 times:
And there lies the problem with the a/c, all those seats mean more bags with no place to put them. Never a problem on the 757, everyone's bags get on and go with them. I see this all the time on Central america, south america , hawaii flights with the 738 and 739. End up having to send bags on another carrier.
2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 1999 posts, RR: 1 Reply 185, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2572 times:
Is there a chart somewhere to compare what the B757 was to what the B767 still in production is, so to check if brand-new B767 could be used by airlines to replace routes currently flown with B757?
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10668 posts, RR: 100 Reply 186, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2561 times:
Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 183): If you do 177 seats, can you fit their luggage? You are taking away some capacity in the belly hold by using aux tanks no?
That could be a constraint. Time for more bag fees.
The 739 will have an issue with bags. The 738MAX? Should do fine. The current 738 has payload limits (weight). The 739 is going to be very volume limited. People are packing lighter. Not by choice, but by cost.
This is one reason AA kept the A300 flying to the Caribbean, bags. They managed the switch to the 738. Ideal? No. But the added costs of the 757 exceed its added capabilities. For the next decade, the MAX and NEO will be its replacement. It couldn't be too bad.
WN is going to fly 738s to Hawaii once they have ETOPs certification. That is with a bag flying free! I fail to see how a WN 738 is going to be more cargo restricted than an Allergiant 752.
Quoting crucianpilot (Reply 182): On the 738, IAH-ANC seems to have issues all year long. Internationally, any high hot alt airport in central and south america back to either EWR or IAH pose problems as far as payload on the 738.
This will be fixed by the new engines. The CFM-56 is simply too pushed to have decent hot/high performance. Heck, I *know* Boeing shopped around for another 2k of thrust for the 739ER/738, but the realities of engine development time and cost kept them loyal the GE exclusive (it wasn't required for the 739ER and the 738's exclusive expired in 2008).
I fully expect the LEAP to not only provide more thrust, but to have 1k or 2k lbf as reserve thrust for hot/high. So while the current airframes have issues, it is nothing that an improved power to weight ratio will not correct.
The NEO will also gain thrust. 35k. That will really help the A321NEO's hot/high performance. Yes, I read the releases at 33k. That is not the design point. There have been releases that have slipped on the LEAP-X for the A320 being at 35k too. So do not judge the new engines hot/high on the old engines performance.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, RR: 8 Reply 187, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2560 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 175): With 3700nm range, only 200nm more is needed for 'near-TATL' to either open up new routes or economize on current 752 routes.
Not splitting hairs, but in the real world, the 757 does have days TATL where it has to make fuel stops. A320 / 737 has days when it struggles transcon in the USA, so getting a 737-8 or 9 or A32X to close to TATL range is that really worth it?
757 reach TATL now seems to be the defining line for range in terms of TATL route that folks would want to perform with a NB, anything less may be a non-starter, for this niche market I would say all or nothing, match the range.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10668 posts, RR: 100 Reply 189, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2453 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 187): the 757 does have days TATL where it has to make fuel stops. A320 / 737 has days when it struggles transcon in the USA, so getting a 737-8 or 9 or A32X to close to TATL range is that really worth it?
Yes. The cost per flight would be that much lower. That is like asking is it worth flying the 757 TATL. Since that has been going on since 1993, I think we're safe to say its worth it. The 738MAX should have a CASM a full cent per seat mile lower than the 752. That 1 cent is generally the threshold that makes competition a challenge.
Very worth it. While there will be fuel stops, this brings the CASM below the 757 and 767. In other words, the existing TATL carriers wither change equipment or have a few city pairs go to the competition.
Put another example, earlier A320s with 162 seats were not able to reliably do TCON for B6. They still did it as the revenue exceeded the costs/customer impact of the fuel stops despite competitors proving competing flights on the 757 or other long haul.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 188): Perhaps a thrust-bump option like GE offers on the GE90-11xB for high temperatures at lower altitudes?
Perhaps, or more high altitude thrust a la the T700. Now the 'wear and tear' would cost $500 per added takeoff, but that is better than leaving 6 to 12 passengers behind...
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8739 posts, RR: 52 Reply 190, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2439 times:
Another question that does not seem to come up is, do the majority of airlines want the 737MAX or A320NEO to have more range? I would guess that the vast majority of 737 and A320 operators do not want more range at the expensive of the added weight necessary to increase MTOW. With the average 737 and A320 flight just under 2 hours, I imagine most airlines are not interested in more range. They want a lighter more fuel efficient airplane and not one with more payload.
It is a quandary that hurts the niche of the 757. Most operators do not want an airplane in that range. Airbus or Boeing can sell a few more airplanes by increasing range for a few select airlines, but the majority of the customers will not be happy because they are getting worse fuel burn since the airplane is sized to a higher MTOW than they typically need.
If I was a European operator of the A320 or 737, I would not want Boeing and Airbus to push the airplane to have transatlantic range since my flights average only 500 miles and I care about short turns and short flights.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
CargoIT From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 23 posts, RR: 0 Reply 191, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2396 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 179): Pick a number inclusive of 146 to 162 for the 738MAX. (I'm being too lazy to figure out the exact comparison to the 752.) It doesn't matter. The profit per flight of the 738MAX will exceed the 752. If the 738MAX drives down RASM... Its possible the 738MAX would make a profit and the 752 a loss. The more seats for sale, the greater the number that are sold off cheaply.
I think that if an airline tried to outfit a 738 with a first class section that's similar to what's offered on WBs, they'd be lucky to get 146 seats onboard.
The economic question isn't really 737 vs 757. It's 737 vs A333, 764, 787...
The higer the CASM is for the
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6871 posts, RR: 7 Reply 192, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2290 times:
Quoting CargoIT (Reply 191): The economic question isn't really 737 vs 757. It's 737 vs A333, 764, 787...
The higer the CASM is for the
No because you can only fly A333, 764, 787 if you have enough passengers to get a decent LF. If you don't then the 737 will be a cheaper option. So comparing operating costs of a 737 with that of a much larger plane is wrong, IMHO.
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 190): Another question that does not seem to come up is, do the majority of airlines want the 737MAX or A320NEO to have more range? I would guess that the vast majority of 737 and A320 operators do not want more range at the expensive of the added weight necessary to increase MTOW.
No they don't which is why Boeing developed 2 completely different planes in the same family (757/767), but yet they share enough in common to take advantage of economies of scale across the fleet.
A "757 like" airplane by itself will not sell, period. It has to be part of a larger family, most likely a future narrowbody family. I don't believe that either the NEO or the MAX could be enhanced enough to come up with a longhaul narrowbody. But I have no doubt that an all new narrowbody design could incorporate a stretch version capable of flying TATL routes. Heck, just throw a longer wing span on the A321NEO and that would probably do it. Easier said than done
CargoIT From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 23 posts, RR: 0 Reply 193, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2226 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 192): No because you can only fly A333, 764, 787 if you have enough passengers to get a decent LF. If you don't then the 737 will be a cheaper option. So comparing operating costs of a 737 with that of a much larger plane is wrong, IMHO.
For most city pairs that might justify a long range NB flight there is an option of some kind of conneciton. I think if existing NBs such as the 319LR could be operated with a CASM near that of a WB, the skys over the Atlantic would be full of them.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1550 posts, RR: 0 Reply 194, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2159 times:
How much could you reuse from a 757 replacement in the NSA? If they have the same cross section and systems?
Engines would differ, the wing would be larger and the wing box and landing gear. If they would bring the NSA in the size of the 752 first and then go to 737 replacement with the same systems and barrels, the RnD cost would be shared by two families.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10668 posts, RR: 100 Reply 195, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2036 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 190): Another question that does not seem to come up is, do the majority of airlines want the 737MAX or A320NEO to have more range? I would guess that the vast majority of 737 and A320 operators do not want more range at the expensive of the added weight necessary to increase MTOW.
I would say no. They want efficiency. So with will buy aircraft without the expense of the new range. They're buying for efficiency. The airlines will also desire to fit in the same gate space and such which limits long haul changes (e.g., no outward spiroid winglets that increase wingspan.) As long as the changes do not compromise efficiency at a moderate mission length, say 600nm, it will increase sales.
The advantage of the MAX and NEO is the weight increase is not of the level of the 757s weight that eventually did it in. We're talking a few hundred pounds that will mostly be part of the winglet or engine change anyway.
But there is enough interest it will change the sales. Thus the kits will happen. Analogous to the 739ER, just with more range.
Part of the issue for Boeing and Airbus is by sticking with a re-engine, they must push for more range to stay competitive. I fully expect the C-series to start taking more of the 1 hour missions. This is just a factor of sticking with the older (heavier) wings.
Quoting CargoIT (Reply 191): The economic question isn't really 737 vs 757. It's 737 vs A333, 764, 787...
The 737MAX or NEO going TATL isn't likely to be selected by an airline that already has widebodies for a city pair unless it is to add high premium frequency. Analogous to the added flight HKG-LHR. There isn't nearly the demand as during peak transit times (best sleeping), but there is demand.
For new markets, the 757 is the comparison. Look at the routes the 757 opened (EWR-TXL, BDL-AMS). That was because there was enough demand, just not enough to pay the higher cost per flight of a widebody. If the MAX and NEO are capable of TATL at a far lower cost per flight, it will open up new city pairs. How many is a function of the final range. To truly open up TATL, that takes 4200nm+ and if you notice, I do not speculate on that range being achieved. So it will be a limited market opening.
But lets take another route structure: QR. We can be certain QR will use the NEO to open up more European routes. The NEO is economical as it fits into their short range route structure as well as opens up new markets.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 192): I don't believe that either the NEO or the MAX could be enhanced enough to come up with a longhaul narrowbody.
Please define long-haul. It was once West coast US to Hawaii. Now that is within 737NG range. It was once mid-east to Europe, now that is with the A319ER and soon the NEO. What we will see is an expansion of the narrowbody envelope. In particular by the LCCs. However, due to crew costs, they might choose to limit their flights within 5 hours block time (a la FlyDubai) to keep the crews at home every night to avoid hotel costs.
The NEO and MAX can be enhanced enough for TATL. It is a question of which length and CASM. Not at EIS, but later, we will see an A321NEO at 3900nm range. It is a question of when not if.
Or were you refering to a new longhaul type? (This thread's topic.) That I agree. There will be a tremendous weight increase that will hurt short haul competition.
Quoting sweair (Reply 194): How much could you reuse from a 757 replacement in the NSA? If they have the same cross section and systems?
Not much. It would be more economical to borrow 737 parts with a new CFRP wing and keel.
TSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2870 posts, RR: 5 Reply 196, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1899 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 195): Quoting sweair (Reply 194):
How much could you reuse from a 757 replacement in the NSA? If they have the same cross section and systems?
Not much. It would be more economical to borrow 737 parts with a new CFRP wing and keel.
Agreed. According to Boeing's website, which lists the dimensions of all modern Boeing aircraft, the 727, 737, and 757 all share the same basic fuselage dimensions- 12'4" wide by 13'2" tall.
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1550 posts, RR: 0 Reply 197, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1744 times:
Here is an idea, they start with building the NSA in the form of a 757 replacement, 797-10, then when its mature they start marketing the NSA as 797-8 and 797-9. Sharing systems, cross section, fuselage barrels, but different sized wing box, wings, engines and landing gear.
Say they could cover the market from 737-700 to 737-900 with the smaller wing, wing box and smaller engines, 150-190 passengers and the 797-10 would be a stretch up between 752 and 753 with the range about 4500nm.
A cross section that makes a dense 2-2-2 layout possible for short haul or a very comfortable 3-3 for long haul.
That would leave the 737-600 market behind and cover (150-195)+(195-220) seats short haul and long and thin routes up to where a filled 787-8 makes more sense
797/787/777/(747) 3-4 families compared to 5 today. Is it possible to build wings and other parts more modular that can serve different sized planes? 10000 lbf higher thrust should be possible in the same engine family? Maybe the wing and wing box is the biggest hurdle?
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 416 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2159 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2554 posts, 
From France, joined Oct 2001, 3195 posts, 
From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 1934 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2303 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6798 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2009, 58 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5901 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6431 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 320 posts, 
From Finland, joined Feb 2001, 443 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2011, 24 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8492 posts, 
From Israel, joined Sep 2000, 3159 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 641 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5010 posts, 
From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 1403 posts, 
From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5481 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1550 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 800 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Jul 2011, 405 posts, 
That isn't going to happen. 
At least if Wikipedia is correct... 
From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 1999 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
