Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Seems The New A321NEO Is A Good 757 Replacement?  
User currently offlineolddominion727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 378 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 22437 times:

With all of the hype around the new HA purchase of the A321NEO equipment to use as far as KOA-DEN... Is this a viable and quality replacement that everyone has been looking for against the 757? It's got a few dozen more seats than the 738/739's, and can possibly make it to Western EU from Canada and US. Is this going to be a new (quality) replacement for US, UA, DL, AA, or even AS, AC & BA? I know UA (former CO, AA & DL) had all but a blood oath with Boeing, but let's face it, if the A321NEO has the range and fuel savings it claims, I think loyalties will could change. We saw that to be proven when AA bought from Airbus and HA switched to almost an exclusive Airbus fleet (after eventually axing the 763)...and possible replacement for the 717's. I know we've tossed around the the A321NEO being a viable and valuable option against the 757 but we've never had any takers. Now we have one of the largest carriers in Polynesia ordering it and making a lot of nay sayers eat a lot of crow!! I think a lot of eyes are going to be watching HA's performance levels against their own.

130 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineclickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 22431 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

It is awesome that Airbus has created an alternative to the Boeing 757, with a first flight in (I'm guessing 2016?) it will surpass the B757, which made it's first flight in 1982.

Good on ya, Airbus   


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 22373 times:

AA and HA seem to think so. Which also goes to the point that Boeing dropped the ball.

There is a market for that type of plane, but the legacy is now 707->757->A321NEO



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinebluewave 707 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3152 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 22208 times:

The 737-900ER and the 737MAX-9 are supposed to fill the 757 too ...


"The best use of your life will be to so live your life, that the use of your life will outlive your life" -- D Severn
User currently offlineolddominion727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 22182 times:

@IK... with all do respect, I don't think Boeing did drop the ball. I think they tried by creating the 757-300. But the 300 doesn't seem to be utilized the way the way Boeing was hoping. it's not used to the EU and barely used to HI. Boeing should go back to the drawing board and create a Boeing 757-X (crossover between the 200 & 300) with the technology of the 738/9 MAX or rename it 737-1000MAX... but to do SOMETHING. There's a need for these thinner routes (non hub to hub routes) with more density/seating...

The only thing I don't know is if the A321NEO has the legs for an all coach 6hr flight holding 225 pax...Maybe for tour companies like Apple Vacations, Britania, Thompson, Condor... etc. using them from Western EU to the Middle East or the resort cities in Southern Spain, Azores, etc.


User currently offlineolddominion727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 22127 times:

@blue... with all do respect if the 739MAX was supposed to be the equivalent it would've been ordered to behave that way, on the same routes that will need to the equipment in the next 10 years. But the carriers are not buying it like that. So I wonder if they're playing a waiting game on those numbers too... Is the 739-MAX supposed to be able to make it from EWR-BER the way CO/UA has them now, or ORD-BHX the way AA did for a short time? Not sure. I hope the 739-MAX lives up to the expectations Boeing has. if not, Boeing will have really missed the boat in this market.

User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2182 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 22053 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
Which also goes to the point that Boeing dropped the ball.

Not Necessarily:

Quoting bluewave 707 (Reply 3):
The 737-900ER and the 737MAX-9 are supposed to fill the 757 too ...

  

If your basing your opinion of "Boeing dropping the ball" of the lack of replacement for the transatlantic routes then your missing the point. When the range figures for the MAX came out it was mentioned by a Boeing representative that the MAX will NOT replace the 757 transatlantic routes, which is only served by around 50 or so 757s, while the other routes can be covered. The A320NEO series will be more or less the same. The longest range 757 has a range of roughly 4100nm, the A321NEO from what I remember is no where near that.



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineolddominion727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 21953 times:

@817drealiner... I remember on a UA KOA-DEN flight... about 7 years ago, DEN, SLC & COS was closed due to snow and they diverted us to LNK. We obviously had the legs for it. We were flying on that thing for almost 9 hrs. I thought for sure their math was wrong for the amount of fuel we had. But we made it, and nobody seemed to bat an eye. Obviously that's not typical, but does that just show the 752 was severely under-used and how the 753 should've even been more advanced to handle HNL-ORD, HNL-DFW for instance? I am not a pilot or an aviation flight engineer and not claiming to be. I am just curious if the distance could have been increased on the 753 to do longer/thinner routes more profitably than being forced to use a 767?

User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1051 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 21779 times:

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 6):
If your basing your opinion of "Boeing dropping the ball" of the lack of replacement for the transatlantic routes then your missing the point. When the range figures for the MAX came out it was mentioned by a Boeing representative that the MAX will NOT replace the 757 transatlantic routes, which is only served by around 50 or so 757s, while the other routes can be covered. The A320NEO series will be more or less the same. The longest range 757 has a range of roughly 4100nm, the A321NEO from what I remember is no where near that.

Airbus's latest range figures on the A321neo is 3650nm and the 739Max is 3595. So the most recent company specs put them at 55nm apart in favor of the A321neo. Still very short of the 757.



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3546 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 21664 times:

The 321 NEO has no chance in heck of making KOA-DEN and it doesn't have near the range that the 757 does. While it may be able to perform some typical 757 missions such as Hawaii - west coast, it's by no means a catch-all replacement for the 757.


PHX based
User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 497 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 21663 times:

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 1):
It is awesome that Airbus has created an alternative to the Boeing 757, with a first flight in (I'm guessing 2016?) it will surpass the B757, which made it's first flight in 1982.

Surpass the 757?!? That's a laugh! I needed one today, so thank you for that!  

Can't carry the payload of a 757, can't carry anything as far as the 757, and even with the NEO, can't even reach the range of a basic 757. So please tell me how it will surpass the 757?

Long live the 757!


User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2182 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 21561 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 8):
Airbus's latest range figures on the A321neo is 3650nm and the 739Max is 3595. So the most recent company specs put them at 55nm apart in favor of the A321neo. Still very short of the 757.

Thanks, Just looked up the range figure for the A321NEO to confirm. 55nm is not that much of a difference, but still significant in any case.



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7180 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 21506 times:

The 73?MAX has the range to cover 757 routes but I highly doubt they can serve hot and high routes such as PHX-HNL


One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 21380 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
There is a market for that type of plane, but the legacy is now 707->757->A321NEO
Quoting bluewave 707 (Reply 3):
The 737-900ER and the 737MAX-9 are supposed to fill the 757 too ...

The A-321NEO and B-737-9MAX are far short of the B-757 capability, and not even on the same contenent for the capability of the B-707 or DC-8.

Quoting olddominion727 (Reply 4):
The only thing I don't know is if the A321NEO has the legs for an all coach 6hr flight holding 225 pax...

It doesn't. The distance between DEN and KOA is 2900 nm, about 6.5 hours at 450 KTAS. That is no winds, so the A-321NEO cannot make this distance west bound, esspecially in the winter months. The HA A-321NEOs will be doing HNL/KOA to LAX (2225 nm, 5 flying hours), and maybe to SFO (2080 nm, 4.5 hours).

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
With all of the hype around the new HA purchase of the A321NEO equipment to use as far as KOA-DEN... Is this a viable and quality replacement that everyone has been looking for against the 757? It's got a few dozen more seats than the 738/739's, and can possibly make it to Western EU from Canada and US.

All of Hawaii is an "island destination" and hold fuel requirements are for 2 hours of fuel at holding airspeeds. Yes, there are several airports in Hawaii, but that is how the FAA defines it for passenger carrier airplanes.

I also don't see the A-321NEO (or B-737-9MAX) having TATL range with full payloads. The B-737-8MAX will, and the A-320NEO might have it too, but not the bigger airplanes in those families.

The A-321NEO and B-737-9MAX will be 3500 nm airplanes, but not with full payloads. The A-321 is a 200 seat airplane, the proposed longer version will be heavier, and carry some 230 pax, but will have less range as it is heavier. The B-737-900ER 185-190 seat airplane, so I don't see where you can say it has "a few dozen more seats". In contrast, the B-752 is a 220-230 seat airplane with a range of more than 4000 nm, the bigger B-753 seats 250 and a range of 3600 nm. the -200 has a MTOW about 255,000 lbs and the -300 has a MTOW around 270,000 lbs.


User currently offlinedtw9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1154 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 21345 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
With all of the hype around the new HA purchase of the A321NEO equipment

What new purchase. They have a MOU with Airbus. If the A321NEO lives up to range promises they'll buy it,if not, they won't.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5311 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 21246 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
The A-321NEO and B-737-9MAX are far short of the B-757 capability, and not even on the same contenent for the capability of the B-707 or DC-8.

That's only true for the very longest-range 707 and DC-8 versions. The bulk of production was shorter-range versions which the current A321 and 737-900ER already outperform.

The A321neo will be able to do every 757 mission except TATL and long missions from short fields.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 21243 times:

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
Is this a viable and quality replacement that everyone has been looking for against the 757?

Not the one that everyone has been looking for. You mean the one people on this site have been looking for. The importance of a "real 757 replacement" is vastly inflated on this forum compared to reality, where it is really just a blip. You need to remember that Boeing didn't end production because they got bored. Of all the people in the world jumping up and down wishing for something to replace the 757, most of them are on this site and very few are actually in charge of an airline.

Quoting olddominion727 (Thread starter):
I know UA (former CO, AA & DL) had all but a blood oath with Boeing,

Hasn't been true since 1997.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
Which also goes to the point that Boeing dropped the ball.

It wasn't Boeing that stopped ordering 757s.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1358 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 21156 times:

The A321NEO may be able to do KOA-DEN, but I doubt it could do DEN-KOA - due to winds, ETOPS fuel requirements, and island holding fuel requirements.

AS uses their 737-800s from SEA, PDX, LAX, etc to Hawaii and a couple times of year the SEA and PDX flights have to stop in OAK for fuel before heading out to HNL. The range of a 737-800 is listed at 3,115 nautical miles on Boeing's website.

PDX-HNL is only 2262 nm, leaving the 737-800 with a 853 mile reserve or 72% of the stated range.

SEA-HNL is 74.7% of stated range and OAK-HNL is 67.2%.

So just based on ratios the A321NEO should be able to fly 2450 nm year round, and 2725 nm reliably, but with occasional fuel stops.


Anybody have a real simulation of reliable range for an A321NEO?


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6517 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks ago) and read 21060 times:

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 1):
It is awesome that Airbus has created an alternative to the Boeing 757, with a first flight in (I'm guessing 2016?) it will surpass the B757, which made it's first flight in 1982.

Good on ya, Airbus

The A321 wasn't designed to have more range than the 757 in the 90s, and the neo isn't designed to have more range either.

The A321 surpasses the 757 in CASM and the neo will surpass it even more.

In the 80s Airbus had no need for a 757 equivalent, it had the A300 for that. Boeing then responded with the 757/767 program.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5311 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks ago) and read 21014 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 19):
In the 80s Airbus had no need for a 757 equivalent, it had the A300 for that. Boeing then responded with the 757/767 program.

Both the A320 and the 757 were intended as 727 replacements. They just took different paths, chasing different priorities.

The A320 was intended to replicate the capability of a 727 almost exactly, just with more efficiency (although its range eventually got significantly longer). The 757 was intended to significantly grow the capability you could extract from a 727-like trip cost.


User currently offlineAsiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 20740 times:

Quoting dtw9 (Reply 14):
They have a MOU with Airbus. If the A321NEO lives up to range promises they'll buy it,if not, they won't.


The MoU will be firmed up long before the A321neo flies, but contractual clauses takes care of such things. As the A321 has been existing for many years, the error margin for the A321neo performance should be very small.

Still surprises me to see people using 757 as reference considering airlines was not even so interested in the plane that Boeing could keep the production going. Current offerings with MAX and Neo are far superior 757 for most missions.



SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
User currently offlinedtw9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1154 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 20701 times:

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 20):
. As the A321 has been existing for many years, the error margin for the A321neo performance should be very small.

Tell that to McDonnell-Douglas when the MD-11's SFC came in 7-8 percent higher than predicted for both P/W and GE engines.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4359 posts, RR: 19
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 20274 times:

West coast to the islands is a piece of cake, except with strong headwinds where even this NEO will have problems.


As for the North Atlantic, forget it.


Boeing should never have stopped the 757 production.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinetimpdx From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 19837 times:

Agree with MaxQ. If B is prepared for many years at low level 748 production, then they should have done the same for the 757. The program properly managed, heck, even moved to a Wichita or something, could have gotten several hundred more orders, not just TATL, but thin Latin America routes, hot and high destinations. A specialty airframe, but certainly one that would be selling even today at low to modest volumes.

Not that I have a love fest for the type, I would never want to do TATL on a NB, but I think there was a lost opportunity for Boeing.


User currently offlinemingocr83 From Costa Rica, joined Dec 2007, 67 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 19224 times:

Well Boeing can do the harm still. If they offer a 787-4...260-290 pax on a 4000nm range...15% less fuel consumption I bet that the A321 NEO case would be closed in a heartbeat...


A380, A320, A319, 757-200, 737-800, 737-700, E190
25 Post contains links and images lightsaber : Yes. Almost there on payload and 90% of the missions for payload at range. I worked on a proposal in 2001 for a 35k engine for the A321, so I doubt Ai
26 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Define "far short"... the 752 and the A321 were about 750 nm apart at identical payload. The A321neo is supposed to cut that gap roughly in half, if
27 BlueSky1976 : Where is this "aww not this sh*t again" mem when you need it? People just keep forgetting that using 757-200 on the transatlantic routes was NOT what
28 Post contains images lightsaber : Thank you. That helps the discussion. Basically, the 752 has 800nm more 'economic range' than the current (non-sharkleted) A321 while it will have a
29 CARST : Sorry, but that payload chart is totally misleading on the first look. I know all the charts look like this, but it would not be right to use it as a
30 gigneil : There are like, 50 total 757s flying Transatlantic. 50. That is ZERO market. None. Not at all. NS
31 Post contains images seabosdca : Boeing tried for two years to sell more 757s. They didn't sell a single one. If they had kept producing airplanes, they would have been white tails p
32 gigneil : I will say, I do think if the 757-300 had come earlier in the lifecycle, they might still be delivering them today. NS
33 Post contains images WingedMigrator : It's only as misleading as Boeing and Airbus's own figures, which I used to create this chart. I made no such argument. That goes for both aircraft,
34 Post contains images astuteman : Yes I suspect it does. It might be about 150Nm shy of making the return journey year-round though doing 95% of its missions at 75% of the cost? The -
35 seabosdca : My feeling is Boeing would have sold a *lot* more of them, and they might have lasted a couple of years longer, but I don't think they'd still be aro
36 gigneil : Perhaps, it has been a number of years. But I bet both DL and UA at this moment wish they could grab a few more. NS
37 packsonflight : The 753 was hit by a abudance of cheap second hand 752 after 9/11 It really made no sense to buy brand new 753 when you could pick up a few year old
38 EagleBoy : This is the salient point in all of this. Why add complexity to the A321NEO/B739MAX for such a niche market? Neither program needs that capability to
39 okapi : plus make for a very interesting conclusion to that thread, if ever needed. Fact is aircraft manufacturer's logics are close to airline management's
40 HAL : Those holding rules only apply if there is no other suitable alternate airport. With the number of airports available in Hawaii, that 'two hour' rule
41 art : Given that the GTF is "new" technology, can one expect incremental improvements exceeding those of the Leap-X (assuming Pratt chooses to make the inv
42 CARST : I know, that is why I wrote: I took this part of WingedMigrators' post as an argument to say the 739MAX/321NEO are on par with the 757, as you are ba
43 Post contains links and images lightsaber : But it wouldn't be 15% less fuel consumption than the 788, it would be more like 2% less. In other words, NOT WORTH IT! The 789 will be the dominant
44 airbazar : What's so funny about it? The A321 will outsell the 757 by a loooong shot. Is that not the primary goal of producing an airplane? In addition it make
45 ytz : What an odd thread and even stranger arguments? HA isn't buying the 321NEO to replace any 757s. They are buying the airplane to beef up West Coast ser
46 aerobalance : HA will be a feather in Airbus' cap. They'll be flying the 321NEO to the limit and doing it with a substantially lower capital outlay and lower opera
47 Aviaponcho : Hello For what I remember, A320NEO and A321NEO will have the same range. That is, i think, quite impressive, and shows the the A321 design is not so c
48 ytz : Conventional competition from the majors.
49 sweair : With the engine gen of the neo/max what would a theoretical payload range be of the 752? Close to 4500nm?
50 PC12Fan : True, but they weren't going out of thier way to promote an NG either. And yet it's still a top performer.[Edited 2013-01-11 09:31:38]
51 817Dreamliiner : If it gets the same 500nm increase like the 737MAX and A320 NEO it could possibly be somewhere in the region of 4600nm. How are you so sure about tha
52 TC957 : With hindsight, it's a great shame that Fed Ex didn't want their rumoured 90-odd new 757F's two or three years earlier than they asked for them, once
53 Post contains links Aviaponcho : Airbus http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...0_Family_market_leader-leaflet.pdf Page 7
54 ikramerica : Nope. The 757 and 767 as a team were 707/DC8 replacements and alternatives to the DC10 and L1011 and A300/310. While the 722A was discontinued at the
55 gigneil : I was referring directly to the post above mine and my previous one that were discussing the 757-300. NS
56 817Dreamliiner : Thanks for the link, im pretty sure the range figure for the A320neo was supposed to be 3800nm. Its interesting that according to that link the A319
57 DocLightning : Nor is it meant to be. 90+% of all 757 missions do not require a 757's performance. For example, UA flies them on SAN-SFO and LAX-SFO. It's way too m
58 bmacleod : Isn't the 737MAX with all-new engines supposed to be equivalent or better than the 757 both in range and passengers? As far as cargo needs yes, there
59 Planemaker : All the above points have been repeated... repeatedly, on these "757 replacement" type threads and yet the 757 "fan boys" still can't seem to underst
60 airbazar : In what way? It has been replaced the world over by more efficient narrowbody planes, except by airlines who couldn't afford to do so and need to squ
61 Max Q : There simply is no replacement for the 757. Nothing comes close to it's performance, today or what is planned in the future. If Boeing had persevered
62 BMI727 : Let's examine what Boeing was doing instead, shall we? During that period, the 2000-2003 or so range, Boeing was developing the later 777 variants wh
63 mingocr83 : Hey man, thanks for the clarification. I was comparing it to the 753 thus why you see 15% less. The rest you mentioned is correct, is heavier so the
64 Post contains images ukoverlander : Those Boeing people are so stupid. They should just recruit all their management from A-netters who clearly understand their business, economics and
65 ikramerica : Boeing was busy. So? How does that negate the reality that they didn't replace the 757? Oh, and they found the time for the niche 73GER and the half-
66 ytz : @ikramerica But why would they spend billions on NG'ing the 757 when they can now get most of the 757 replacement sales using 739s and now 7M9s? That
67 Post contains images Planemaker : I have come to understand that on these 757 type threads that there are many people that don't understand basic economics... let alone aircraft/airli
68 ikramerica : Ah yes, the standard internet insult. "You aren't on the inside so you must be an idiot." Brilliant! You are aware of how badly run Boeing has been o
69 packsonflight : I doubt it will ever be built. 6 months after Airbus launched the NEO Boeing said that the 737 NG 2% better than the NEO so no upgrade was needed, in
70 BMI727 : Boeing was busy with projects that have been considerably more successful than a revamped 757 would have been. That plane was basically already built
71 seabosdca : Why do you think Boeing should have wasted a line to build 150 aircraft over a decade instead of using that same line to build 1000+ 737s? Because 15
72 ytz : It's a long time for sure. But till then the Max 9 will suffice. Eventually though, Boeing will have to build a 752 replacement because global popula
73 ikramerica : The 739 can't be as large as the 752, let alone the 753 no matter how many times someone says the 737 can do most of the things the 757 can do.
74 DocLightning : If they were going to do a 757NG, the PW2000 and RB-211 is not exactly a good option given that EIS was in 1978 (or thereabouts). Probably a scaled-u
75 Planemaker : It doesn't change the facts that they are niche aircraft that don't have a business case.
76 817Dreamliiner : Well then answer this, how many 757-200's actually seat over 200 pax? Im sure there arent that many. Most would be in the region of 180-200 seat rang
77 Post contains images lightsaber : I wish everyone would realize that. If it costs money, something must pay for it or a competitor will drive an airline with noncompetitive airframes
78 Post contains links Planemaker : The A321NEO might not have a very long "replacement" production run... I was recently a bit surprised by this article that says, "EADS Innovation Wor
79 AADC10 : Boeing did drop the ball. They wanted to wait and create a clean sheet replacement for the 737 but the A320neo proved that there is a market for a re
80 gigneil : Not even close in range. The MAX will have less range than the A321NEO. NS
81 Post contains images mffoda : The A321neo will have a range of 3650nm according to the most recent Airbus release... "Not even CLOSE"... The A321neo =3650nm, The 739Max = 3595nm..
82 gigneil : To the 757, not the A321NEO. And 55 miles is almost an entire days flight from Westray to Papa Westray. NS
83 Wingtips56 : I don't really think the AA order was a wake-up call. They need a major fleet replacement faster than either Boeing or Airbus can deliver alone, so th
84 mffoda : No... To the MAX, not the 757... But your Papa Westray point is cute...
85 ukoverlander : [quote=ikramerica,reply=68]Ah yes, the standard internet insult. "You aren't on the inside so you must be an idiot." Brilliant! Now, now Ikramerica...
86 JayBird : There's no talk about the 321neo replacing the 717s .. the 321neo is not a good replacement for interisland routes. The neighbor island service thriv
87 lightsaber : development in a decade. OK. When the enough tech will be here to replace the GTF too. Agreed. I think planes will island hop, but only one or two fl
88 mariner : I'm scratching my head. How did this thread turn into a war between an aircraft that Boeing isn't making and an aircraft that Arbus hasn't built yet?
89 FI642 : There will never really be a 752 replacement. She was amazing and still is.
90 ytz : I would think that the better choice would be a bunch of ATR72s or Q400s. Any sort of turbofan would be vast overkill for 200nm routes. They could al
91 strfyr51 : 55NM significant? Are you sure? that's an alternate of LAX to BUR SFO-OAK or SCK, Not Much over the 737-900 I think Boeing is making a case to keep t
92 Max Q : I think the 767 was pretty close.
93 connies4ever : Air Pacific in the early 90s operated 73Gs (I think might have been the -800) NAN-HNL (and then on to YVR). NAN-HNL is 2748 nm, so easily enough range
94 sweair : Imo it´s not a 757 replacement that will be built but a new class of aircraft, bigger and more capable than A321/739 and still more efficient on long
95 Polot : Most of their competitors have been dropping widebody flights in favor of narrowbodies between the mainland and Hawaii for years now, and there have
96 Post contains images Planemaker : No new NB of any size will be forthcoming for, at the very least, another decade. And there won't be an aircraft built just for the "niche" between A
97 sweair : That is your opinion, keep that in mind, you don´t know more than me. Stop being so stuck up please, we all have different opinions lets just respec
98 packsonflight : I agree with you. If Airbus dicthes the 358 they would leave a big enough gap in the production lineup to warrant a new model. that could be a simple
99 Planemaker : It isn't a matter of opinion... nor "respect". It is a fact that A & B will not be producing an all-new NB for at least another decade. Please do
100 Viscount724 : FJ still operates the 738 NAN-HNL once a week. CO also operated the 738 on NAN-HNL for a while but dropped the route a year or so ago.
101 sweair : I am not talking NB, I am talking about an all new size class. Stop thinking 100% 757 replacement, it will be something else, not an enlarged NB. 757
102 Post contains links Planemaker : First, I'm precisely NOT thinking 100% 757 replacement. There's obviously zero economic basis for such a program. Second, just look at the facts for
103 sweair : Yeah $40 oil and Bernankenomics.. Have fun in lala land!
104 Aircellist : I was wondering exactly the same... Yet, we should know better... Every time the numbers 757 and 321 are mentioned in the same topic, it turns out th
105 Planemaker : You demand "respect" for your "opinion" that has been posited with no basis of fact and then turn around and show no respect for an opinion that is s
106 ncfc99 : I agree, we all have different opinions, lets RESPECT that. Oh wait.............
107 JayBird : Turboprops have not worked in Hawaii in the past for interisland travel. Given the choice Hawaii prefers jets. The other issue is baggage. Whatever t
108 Post contains images gigneil : I'm the one that made the original point, so I think I know what I meant I meant the 737MAX isn't even close to the range of the 757, much like the A
109 art : If the A321NEO can perform 90% of the missions the B757 is used for at much lower cost, it's not a perfect replacement but I would say it is a good re
110 Post contains images WingedMigrator : It is indeed, and certainly more than a 752 could ever do with a reasonable payload. Heck, even the A321neo can do 4150 nm with no payload. Once agai
111 gigneil : Wow I was way off on that one, wasn't I? What was I thinking? NS
112 sweair : What killed the 757 was 9-11 and the economical downturn around 2001 and the lack of upgrade to a 1978 dated fame. Had it been upgraded as the 737 was
113 Post contains images lightsaber : Agreed. Due to the short routes, the ATR would be the more economical choice (lower purchase cost). But some passengers like jets and HA has done wel
114 papatango : What will Boeing do when Delta either places a order for new A321's or picks up some used ones?
115 DocLightning : The 707-320B could carry ~140 in a mixed-class configuration and 189 in all-Y configuration. The 767 seats 181 in three-class configuration and up to
116 817Dreamliiner : Delta have Ordered 100 737-900ER's from Boeing already, I doubt they'll need any A321s for now...
117 sweair : You make the same mistake as all others, a derivative of the 752 will expand beyond TATL, it will be more capable. As the smallest WB worth buying in
118 papatango : As James Bond said never say never!
119 817Dreamliiner : I didnt say they would never order them...
120 Planemaker : 9/11 did not "kill" the 757. The 757 was already "a dead man walking" before 9/11. An "upgrade" would have made no difference because airlines had al
121 DocLightning : I think the 753 would have been more popular had it been introduced earlier in the 757 program. It's a good DC-10 short-to-midhaul replacement and pr
122 AngMoh : If there is no need for the capability, does it matter? Same for the Concorde: great capability, but the cost made this capability worthless and it h
123 SonomaFlyer : Boeing and Airbus have their hands full with their current engineering projects. The a/c you envision has a narrow market and would require a clean s
124 Post contains images WingedMigrator : That's the whole problem, finding an efficient medium-body cross section between 3-3 and 2-4-2. The 767 was an attempt, but has not been emulated sin
125 Valcory : The RB 211 were not FADEC. The PW 2037/2040 were FADEC actually one of the very first engines on commercial airplanes with FADEC. long live the 757 I
126 astuteman : The 757 tanks enough fuel to have a max fuel range about 450Nm better than the NEO (for a P+W powered plane - the difference being about 300Nm for th
127 lightsaber : That needs to be discussed as for any mission less than 3000nm, the A321NEO will be very competitive. I'm also hearing of airframe improvements. e.g.
128 ytz : For BA, the pax that used to take the Concorde fly the A318!
129 Max Q : I know, that was my point !
130 Max Q : The 762 was pretty close, and with it's fairly narrow fuselage unable to take LD3's side by side and its range performance it wasn't that different i
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The New Ksgu Is Taking Shape! posted Mon Apr 5 2010 09:00:06 by MrSkyGuy
Any Word On How The New Mokulele Is Doing? posted Thu May 28 2009 21:48:26 by Ridgid727
The New Spirit Is Here posted Sat Feb 17 2007 09:58:10 by N587NK
Any Reviews Of The New F Class On DL 757's? posted Sun Oct 1 2006 08:30:58 by Avi8tir
The New Concorde - Is There A Future? posted Wed Aug 24 2005 03:20:09 by Blasphemystic
SWA At HOU After The New Terminal Is Built posted Sun May 12 2002 06:11:03 by Atcboy73
Where Is The New Interior AA 757 - March posted Sat Feb 28 2009 11:42:46 by N62NA
Is The New Net On DAL, UAL,&AA That Good? posted Sat Jun 16 2001 10:49:32 by DeltaBoy777
Is Swiss Having Second Thoughts On The New Logo? posted Tue Sep 11 2012 22:55:09 by Independence76
AA 757 Lands At The New Quito Airport posted Mon Jul 2 2012 17:24:20 by SCL767