Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why didn't the 757-300, 767-400, 717 succeed?  
User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 318 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 21682 times:

What was the reason behind each plane and why didn't it succeed?

I know 9/11 killed the 753 & 764 production. Why did Boeing produce each one?
I know the 764 was originally designed to replace the L1011's and DC10'S. But, isn't that what
airlines are using the 763 for. What was the 753 designed for?

I know the 717 had some success. TWA & Airtran had a fleet of them?

Why didn't more airlines get them at the time?

92 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20375 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 21664 times:

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
What was the reason behind each plane and why didn't it succeed?

Just a general question, have you used any of the extensive archives here on a.net to begin as a basis for your aircraft questions? I don't want to quash curiosity or discussion, but there's a lot of data here which in lengthy previous discussions talks about these and other aircraft.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2990 posts, RR: 37
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 21598 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
I know the 717 had some success. TWA & Airtran had a fleet of them?

Why didn't more airlines get them at the time?

Cost, wrong market.
Most airlines were shedding the 100-125 seat flying to regional operators, and those that weren't were not in a rush to buy new planes at the time (NW, AA).

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
know 9/11 killed the 753 & 764 production. Why did Boeing produce each one?
I know the 764 was originally designed to replace the L1011's and DC10'S. But, isn't that what
airlines are using the 763 for. What was the 753 designed for?

The 764 was produced to satisfy requirements from Delta and Continental for an L1011 and Dc-10 replacement as you said. At one time Kenya Airways had some on order but converted them to 777s later. It was a quick and fairly cheap modification of the 767 as well as a way for Boeing to trial some new technologies like the raked wingtips.

Why more airlines didn't order it...
Well it was at a performance disadvantage vs the A330-200 which it competed with.
Many airlines had already moved to other aircraft as DC-10/L1011/A300 replacements

The 753, well it basically did ok order wise. It died along with the standard length 757. It had a limited market from the start, but was like the 764 a fairly cheap derivative to produce. Boeing also pinned alot of hopes on it being a good A300/310 replacement for intra-Europe airlines, but that never happened.



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 21551 times:

What was each one designed for should I say?
I know they we not flops but but not many orders?


User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 21339 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):


I'm new to the site so plz bare with me if I ask to many questions
or redundant ones. I'm still trying to navigate the site so I don't do that anymore.
I love airplanes and aviation in general.


User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6432 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 21156 times:

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
I know the 764 was originally designed to replace the L1011's and DC10'S. But, isn't that what
airlines are using the 763 for.

The 763 is a smaller aircraft than the L-1011 and DC-10, and DL and CO wanted an aircraft that was closer in size to the widebody trijets, with no exceptions or leeway whatsoever. The 772 at the same time was too large for that role.

Both airlines threatened to order A332s unless Boeing came up with an aircraft that would have been a direct L-1011 and DC-10 replacement in terms of size. At first, Boeing offered them a 771 proposal, however, that proposal was rejected due to its poor economics, thus the 764ER was born.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinemesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 2931 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 21010 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mia305 (Reply 4):
I'm new to the site so plz bare with me if I ask to many questions
or redundant ones. I'm still trying to navigate the site so I don't do that anymore.
I love airplanes and aviation in general.

Well let me be the first to say welcome to A.nut!! 



\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1300 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 20953 times:

As mentioned, the 753 was to an extent meant to replace the A300/310. Several reasons why that didn't happen. One was moving away from capacity and into frequency, another was the excessive boarding times owing to the single-aisle nature of the beast and cumbersome loading due to the very long lower-lobe compartments. It did score mild successes, particularly with European charter companies whom often operates using steps rather than airbridges, and if you can get 3 steps on a 753 you can get the peeps in and out pretty quick.

The 764 is a somewhat different story. Build to the specification of 2 airlines, sold to no one else. Boeing had some hopes for the type back when it was first being offered to the market, but it newer managed to sway anyone from ordering either a boggo 763 or, in most cases, an A330. A -400X was proposed but was taken up by KQ only; not enough for Boeing to launch the program.

[Edited 2013-03-07 12:24:44]


From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 20934 times:

I think it was a waste of time for Boeing to produce the 753 & 764 for
such small orders.

The 717 was a success and had more orders than both the
753 & 764 combined I believe.


User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20375 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 20889 times:

Quoting mia305 (Reply 8):
I think it was a waste of time for Boeing to produce the 753 & 764 for
such small orders.

If it kept customers 'if the family', so to speak, and caused no losses for Boeing to do so, why not build them? Neither model cannibalized sales from other Boeing planes.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineVC10DC10 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1035 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 20895 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 7):
a boggo 763

What is a "boggo" 763?

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 2):
it was at a performance disadvantage vs the A330-200

This is the first I've heard of this; I'm not saying you're wrong, but I know very little about the rather obscure 764. Do you have any sources that discuss the 764 versus the 332?


User currently offlinemesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 2931 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 20810 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting VC10DC10 (Reply 10):
Do you have any sources that discuss the 764 versus the 332?

I read on this site a few months ago in a thread regarding DL that both the a332 and the 764 are very close in performance. I don't know for sure which outperforms the other, but I know at least is vey happy with both.



\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 20774 times:

If the 753 was a replacement for the A300/310 I'm suprised
AA didn't order some to replace some of their A300's.

I know that AA use a mix of planes now to fill its shoes. Maybe it wouldve
worked for them.


User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6432 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 20726 times:

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 11):
I read on this site a few months ago in a thread regarding DL that both the a332 and the 764 are very close in performance. I don't know for sure which outperforms the other, but I know at least is vey happy with both.

The 764 has somewhat lower operating costs and CASM, however, the A332 has more range and cargo capacity. Even though the A332 can theoretically make more money due to its larger cargo capacity, keep in mind that the 764 has a larger J cabin and the lost cargo profits are made up by the larger premium cabin. The 764s fly lots of high-yielding transatlantic routes, while the A332s (and A330s in general) fly more international leisure routes.

[Edited 2013-03-07 12:58:43]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2122 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 20702 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 7):
As mentioned, the 753 was to an extent meant to replace the A300/310. Several reasons why that didn't happen. One was moving away from capacity and into frequency, another was the excessive boarding times owing to the single-aisle nature of the beast and cumbersome loading due to the very long lower-lobe compartments. It did score mild successes, particularly with European charter companies whom often operates using steps rather than airbridges, and if you can get 3 steps on a 753 you can get the peeps in and out pretty quick.

I would add another reason: timing. The 753 just came far too late in the 757's life cycle. If it had been offered in the early 90s you probably would have see a lot more of them (most likely at the expense of 752 order though). They are perfect for high traffic, lower yield routes such as Northeast-Florida or to LAS.

Timing also burned the 764 pretty bad as well, too little too late.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 20680 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 2):
Well (the 767-400ER) was at a performance disadvantage vs the A330-200 which it competed with.
Quoting VC10DC10 (Reply 10):
This is the first I've heard of this; I'm not saying you're wrong, but I know very little about the rather obscure 764. Do you have any sources that discuss the 764 versus the 332?

Range was the primary disadvantage. The 767-400ERX sought to address this via an MTOW boost and an additional 8,000 liters of fuel capacity via a tail tank to increase nominal range by over 500nm.


Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 13):
The 764 has somewhat lower operating costs and CASM, however, the A332 has more range and cargo capacity.

Passenger and cargo capacity both slightly favored the 767-400ER. With identical hard product, DL's 764s seat 246 vs. 239 on the A332 and total hold capacity for the 764 is 139m3 vs. 132m3 for the A332.

[Edited 2013-03-07 13:04:10]

User currently offlinehoMsar From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1153 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 20562 times:

One thing not mentioned yet in this thread is that the 717 was really the MD-95, a McDonnell Douglas design that was supposed to be the next generation of their DC-9 family. It was designed to replace DC-9-30s (and 737-200s and whatever else in that size category), and McD had nothing else in their lineup smaler than an MD-80 at the time.

Boeing thought they could capture the 100-seat market with that plane, so they rebranded it as the 717 when they merged with MD back in the 90s (in fact, thanks to the regional jet craze of the day, the first press release for the rebranding called it the 717-200 regional jet).

The 100-seat market turned out to be a no-man's land for a while. Boeing's and Airbus's other offerings (737-600 and A318) weren't selling because they were too heavy, and many major airlines couldn't put 100-seaters at regional carriers. Within a few years, the 717 faced competition from the Embraer jets, and there was simply no market for a standalone 100-120-seat jet. As NorthStar said, the best potential customers in the US were NW and AA. NW decided to stick with their DC-9s, and AA stuck with the F-100 instead. The end result was that the few orders the plane got dried up, and Boeing didn't really have much incentive to keep the line alive since they were doing more than well enough selling 737s.



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlineATA L1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1378 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 20374 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 5):
The 763 is a smaller aircraft than the L-1011 and DC-10, and DL and CO wanted an aircraft that was closer in size to the widebody trijets, with no exceptions or leeway whatsoever. The 772 at the same time was too large for that role.

Yuup and remember when the 764 came on line with DL, in a similiar configuration to the Tristar -1 which it replaced it was still 15 passengers short 287 vs 302. Of course with lower operating cost  



Treat others as you expect to be treated!
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6432 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 20313 times:

Quoting ATA L1011 (Reply 17):
Yuup and remember when the 764 came on line with DL, in a similiar configuration to the Tristar -1 which it replaced it was still 15 passengers short 287 vs 302. Of course with lower operating cost

Basically, the 764ER gave up a bit of passengers for a bit more cargo capacity (the 764ER has more cargo capacity than the L-1011).



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineSpaceshipDC10 From Canada, joined Jan 2013, 1617 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 20281 times:

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
I know the 717 had some success. TWA & Airtran had a fleet of them?

The MD-95 was in fact launched with just one airline order for 50 plus 50 options. The airline was Valujet and we know what happened to it.


http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi.../1995%20-%203046.html?search=MD-95



KEEP LOOKING UP as in Space Fan News
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1345 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 20232 times:

The production of the B 757-300 was cancelled when the production of the 757 was cancelled.
Not all ordered 753 were produced. Boeing made some deal with Icelandair for the two not jet delivered.
I do not know if more orders were cancelled by Boeing.
Today every 753 produced is in service with the airline (excluding mergers) which bought it, not one on the second hand market.
Still more than with the 752 there is no air plane in planing by any manufacturer replacing it.
It can be that the decision to stop production was premature and they could have sold more of them.
Perhaps Boeing saw an overlap with the than planned 787-3, nobody expected than the delay in the program.


User currently offlineDeltaB717 From Australia, joined Jun 2012, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 20158 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't think it's fair to say they weren't a success. As AeroWesty says, if a company (Boeing) can rework an existing product (B757 and B767) to suit specific needs of key (and quite large, overall) customers at minimal cost to itself, and can thereby KEEP that customer into the future, then that sounds like success to me. To an extent the B717, as a development of the DC-9/MD80/MD90 series and with 156 produced, is a similar story.

User currently offlinehoMsar From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1153 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 20072 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 20):
Today every 753 produced is in service with the airline (excluding mergers) which bought it, not one on the second hand market.

That's not true. The ATA 757-300s went to Continental when the former went bankrupt.



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 20075 times:

The 753 and 764 were arguably offered too late in the respective 757 and 767 program lives. Had they been offered earlier, no doubt orders would have been greater. Having said that, I'm sure Boeing was hoping for more than 55 and 38 orders respectively.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 20):
Boeing made some deal with Icelandair for the two not jet delivered.

Icelandair ordered 2 and took delivery of 1 753. So only one was cancelled.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 20):
Today every 753 produced is in service with the airline (excluding mergers) which bought it, not one on the second hand market.

Not quite. The 12 753's delivered to ATA were picked up by CO.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 19):
The MD-95 was in fact launched with just one airline order for 50 plus 50 options. The airline was Valujet and we know what happened to it.

Prior to that, a heated order battle was had between the MD-95 and the 736 from SAS. The 736 won that order. That was a blow to MDD who thought they had the inside track at SAS with their large M80 fleet.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1345 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 20028 times:

Quoting hoMsar (Reply 22):
That's not true. The ATA 757-300s went to Continental when the former went bankrupt.

Ok I missed those four. The airlines using them seem to like them.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2122 posts, RR: 1
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 20976 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 24):
Ok I missed those four. The airlines using them seem to like them.

Not to sound pedantic or anything, but it was actually 12. ATA sold 8 of them to CO in ~2005, and CO picked up the remaining 4 after ATA went bankrupt and shut down.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24814 posts, RR: 22
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 20924 times:

Quoting mia305 (Reply 8):
The 717 was a success and had more orders than both the
753 & 764 combined I believe.

Far more, 155 717s compared to 38 764s and 55 753s.

Two other Boeing models with less than successful commecial results should also be mentioned...the 747SP with only 45 sold and the 737-600 with 69 sold. The 753 and 736 were fairly minimal changes from the models on which they were based but the 747SP and 764 required major changes and may not have recovered their development costs.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 13):
keep in mind that the 764 has a larger J cabin

The size of the J cabin is entirely up to the operator.


User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 21310 times:

If Boeing wanted to could they restart the 753 production with
greater success now than before?


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24814 posts, RR: 22
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 21263 times:

Quoting mia305 (Reply 27):
If Boeing wanted to could they restart the 753 production with
greater success now than before?

No, demand would be zero and I believe Boeing destroyed the 757 tooling after production ended.


User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20375 posts, RR: 62
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 21279 times:

Quoting mia305 (Reply 27):
If Boeing wanted to could they restart the 753 production with
greater success now than before?

No, all of the tooling and rigs to build a 757 of any type have been destroyed.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 21290 times:

Didn't the MD90 suffer the same fate for the same reasons
as the 753 & 764?

A little off topic but similar to the question.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4116 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 21309 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 26):
747SP

The 747SP had only a few missions that it could actually fly because of the limited payload to make any money on and only a few airlines were targeted for it, such as PA, SA and Saudi.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1345 posts, RR: 2
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 21246 times:

Does anybody know how many B 757-300 were cancelled by Boeing when they shut down production?
Production lists I have found do not mention any non build orders.
I still think there were two on order from Icelandair, but it could be one order one option.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2122 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 21135 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 33):
Does anybody know how many B 757-300 were cancelled by Boeing when they shut down production?
Production lists I have found do not mention any non build orders.
I still think there were two on order from Icelandair, but it could be one order one option.

I'm pretty sure none where cancelled by Boeing. IIRC Boeing went around with a "final call" so to speak telling airlines that without anymore orders they were shutting down the line after they finished the current backlog. If I also remember correctly, NW management later expressed regret in not taking up their 753 options when Boeing gave them the final chance, but I could be wrong.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1345 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 21082 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 34):
I'm pretty sure none where cancelled by Boeing. IIRC Boeing went around with a "final call" so to speak telling airlines that without anymore orders they were shutting down the line after they finished the current backlog. If I also remember correctly, NW management later expressed regret in not taking up their 753 options when Boeing gave them the final chance, but I could be wrong.

At least one order by Icelandair was definitely cancelled by Boeing. It was done with a friendly agreement, but it was done.


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9289 posts, RR: 14
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 20877 times:

Quoting VC10DC10 (Reply 10):
This is the first I've heard of this; I'm not saying you're wrong, but I know very little about the rather obscure 764. Do you have any sources that discuss the 764 versus the 332?

Depend on a bunch of factors. the 764s holds more but the 332 can fly longer. Not really the PW powered birds like DL but the CF6 332s at QF use to do(still do?) LAX-AKL pretty easy. 764 wouldn't come close.

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 11):
I read on this site a few months ago in a thread regarding DL that both the a332 and the 764 are very close in performance. I don't know for sure which outperforms the other, but I know at least is vey happy with both.

764 is more C heavy but the 332 can fly 12+ hour flights. 764 would have been swimming long before 12 hours.
Both are good at what they do

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 13):
The 764s fly lots of high-yielding transatlantic routes, while the A332s (and A330s in general) fly more international leisure routes.

For now. Once the Airbus get lie-flats it is very likely they will start showing up at LHR and GRU.

also the A330 fleet sees a fair amount of NRT flying which the 764 sees none.



yep.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4363 posts, RR: 19
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 20833 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 36):

764 is more C heavy but the 332 can fly 12+ hour flights. 764 would have been swimming long before 12 hours.

That is not true. I have flown more than a few flights on the 764 over 12 hours.


One of them was EWR-HNL in the winter with very strong headwinds which was over 12 and a half hours.


No question the 332 can fly a lot further but the -400 does pretty well, it is a very good aircraft and a delight to fly.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1501 posts, RR: 8
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 20791 times:

What the 764 lacked from the beginning was power.

User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4363 posts, RR: 19
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 20628 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 38):
What the 764 lacked from the beginning was power.

This is not true either, it has plenty of power, if you compare power to weight ratios for other commercial jet Aircraft you will be able to see that.


What it really needed was a bigger wing, because it was unchanged (apart from the rakelets) from the -300 series and the landing gear is only 18 inches taller it is geometrically limited for rotation because of the significantly longer body length.


As a result the take off and landing speeds are artificially high to give adequate tail clearance and this considerably lengthens the take off and landing roll.


Once she is airborne she climbs well, at maximum weight it is not a high altitude aircraft until you burn off some fuel but, once again this is due more to the size of the wing than anything else and that you can thank Delta for who insisted on a restricted wing size so it could fit it's gates in Atlanta.


It is, like all aircraft, a compromised design, a bigger wing and more fuel capacity would, have improved it's performance considerably but for the markets we bought it for at Cal it has proved very economical and popular, more power would have helped as well but by no means is it underpowered.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 20075 times:

Quoting hoMsar (Reply 16):
One thing not mentioned yet in this thread is that the 717 was really the MD-95, a McDonnell Douglas design that was supposed to be the next generation of their DC-9 family. It was designed to replace DC-9-30s (and 737-200s and whatever else in that size category), and McD had nothing else in their lineup smaler than an MD-80 at the time.

There have since been internal admissions circulated around Boeing that the 717 suffered from "not invented here" syndrome, and that Boeing sales did not put as much effort as they could have into marketing it. Some proposals for a stretch got quashed because of fears that it would intrude on 736 sales. (We see how well that worked out...) However...

Quoting hoMsar (Reply 16):
The end result was that the few orders the plane got dried up, and Boeing didn't really have much incentive to keep the line alive since they were doing more than well enough selling 737s.

Actually there was an incentive. Don't forget that the 717 was produced in Long Beach, which Boeing was trying at the time to keep open. As long as Airtran continued to express any interest at all in more orders, Boeing was willing to engage in all kinds of creative deals to make the sale; they even accepted some Airtran stock as payment on some 717's at one point. Part of the driver behind all this was because Long Beach was also the production site of the C-17, and the USAF desperately wanted to keep that line open despite the fact that the program was having severe funding problems. And, Boeing at the time foresaw the possibility of a commercial freighter version of the C-17 possibly becoming a big seller. Unfortunately, none of this worked out; eventually 717 orders dried up, the USAF couldn't pay for any more C-17s, and there were never any orders for the commercial C-17. And that was that for Long Beach. Sad story.


User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4336 posts, RR: 19
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 19978 times:

The industry effects of 9/11 effectively killed off hope of significant future sales of all three birds (plus the 747-400).


Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 19958 times:

Quoting mia305 (Reply 8):
The 717 was a success and had more orders than both the
753 & 764 combined I believe.

The 717 should have stayed in production because it was a better plane than the 736 for what it was designed for, the 100-120 seat, short range market. It posed a threat, but only on the low end of the 737s mission profile. Now had MD actually gave a damn about their commercial products and designed it to be transcon or near-transcon capable, then that would be a different story.

The 753 is a small success, but if Boeing would have given it TATL range, there would be plenty more 757s flying across the pond.

The only one that really wasn't a success was the 764. Boeing should have just started with the specs of the 764ERX, even though I acknowledge that the ERX idea came later in the 764 life.



Go coogs! \n//
User currently offlineTN486 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 915 posts, RR: 2
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 19457 times:

My understanding was that after the "merger", there were outstanding contractual obligations (I think the obligation was to build 150 or so) of the MD95 (rebadged 717), and Boeing ensued there would be no further orders, and were quite happy to let it all disappear. Please note, I have no sources for the above statements,and if my understandings are a figment of ones imaginations, then so be it. I have flown in the "717" numerous times, and absolutely loved the ac, and as QF continue to source ac from around the globe, they see it fills a necesary niche for them. cheers.

[Edited 2013-03-07 21:54:18]


remember the t shirt "I own an airline"on the front - "qantas" on the back
User currently offlinethorntot From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 52 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 19093 times:

ValuJet, the 717's launch customer (MD-95 it was called then) had placed an order for 50 firm with 50 options and paid a substantial deposit. ValuJet suffered its shut-down, re-opening, then re-branding via merger with AirTran before the first frame was delivered. When Boeing became the new owner of the MD-95 program, they considered shutting it down in favor of the 737-600 product, however, failure to deliver the first 50 717's to AirTran would have resulted in hefty payments to AirTran per contractual obligations. Boeing fulfilled the order to avoid paying AirTran the penalties and sold additional frames to other carriers as a result of keeping the product available.


Work Hard. Fly Right. Fly United.
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1869 posts, RR: 4
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 18344 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 13):
The 764s fly lots of high-yielding transatlantic routes, while the A332s (and A330s in general) fly more international leisure routes.

At Delta perhaps yes, but at many other carriers, especially network ones, A330s is their bread and butter maker, when it comes to the high-yielding routes (LH group, SAS, Finnair, Air Canada, KLM, Air France and many others).

So in general, A330s most likely fly just as many, if not more high yielding transatlantic routes than 767-400s.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3633 posts, RR: 5
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 17945 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
The 767-400ERX sought to address this via an MTOW boost and an additional 8,000 liters of fuel capacity via a tail tank to increase nominal range by over 500nm.

The 764ERX also required an upgraded engine that was also going to used for the proposed 747X models. Once the 747X proposals were dropped, so was the 764ERX.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 39):
Delta for who insisted on a restricted wing size so it could fit it's gates in Atlanta.

It was Delta's requirement that the 764 be able to fly to LGA that restricted the wing size.


User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3114 posts, RR: 5
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 17566 times:

IMO, both the 753 and 764 are good aircraft for Hawaii - Mainland routes, at least NW and DL thought so. My first 753 was SEA-HNL-PDX, and my first 764 was SLC-SFO-HNL-SLC.


AA-AC-AQ-AS-BN-BD-CO-CS-DL-EA-EZ-HA-HP-KL-KN-MP-MW-NK-NW-OO-OZ-PA-PS-QX-RC-RH-RW-SA-TG-TW-UA-US-VS-WA-WC-WN
User currently offlineTN486 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 915 posts, RR: 2
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 17496 times:

Quoting TN486 (Reply 43):
My understanding was that after the "merger", there were outstanding contractual obligations (I think the obligation was to build 150 or so) of th
Quoting thorntot (Reply 44):
ValuJet, the 717's launch customer (MD-95 it was called then) had placed an order for 50 firm with 50 options and paid a substantia

Thanks for the clarification  



remember the t shirt "I own an airline"on the front - "qantas" on the back
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9155 posts, RR: 29
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 17156 times:

I did not read vall the posts here so I may duplicate.

LH tested the 753 as a potential A300 replacement on high density domestic and European routes and found the aircraft unpractical for their purpose.

The single aisle aircraft took simply too long to de-board and board the passengers. Simple test result, the thumb went down.

.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 16306 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 45):
At Delta perhaps yes, but at many other carriers, especially network ones, A330s is their bread and butter maker, when it comes to the high-yielding routes (LH group, SAS, Finnair, Air Canada, KLM, Air France and many others).

So in general, A330s most likely fly just as many, if not more high yielding transatlantic routes than 767-400s.

Precisely. You can add Singapore Airlines, Qantas, Cathay, and others to this list as well.

In the case of Delta as someone else pointed out, they have chosen to deploy the 764s a certain way because they already had them in the fleet, and it works for them -- TATL does not require that much range, and the 764s happen to have the new business cabin as that was put in when they were converted from domestic use. Making the business cabin larger also reduces weight and extends range, which further makes DL's config work for them.

However the 332 can do pretty much the same mission and has more range, and will soon also get the new J cabin (currently they have the old NWA WBC cabins).

[Edited 2013-03-08 04:18:09]

User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 15686 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 20):

The production of the B 757-300 was cancelled when the production of the 757 was cancelled.
Not all ordered 753 were produced. Boeing made some deal with Icelandair for the two not jet delivered.
I do not know if more orders were cancelled by Boeing.
Today every 753 produced is in service with the airline (excluding mergers) which bought it, not one on the second hand market.
Still more than with the 752 there is no air plane in planing by any manufacturer replacing it.
It can be that the decision to stop production was premature and they could have sold more of them.
Perhaps Boeing saw an overlap with the than planned 787-3, nobody expected than the delay in the program.

The arrival of the A321 and 737-800 killed the 757-200 because they could serve 80% of the routes the 75 was dispatched on a lot cheaper, and as a result of that the price of the 757-200 collapsed after 9/11
When that happened it really made no sense to buy a new 757-300 when you could pick up relatively new 757-200 for halve price.

The only thing that could have prolonged the life of the 75 at the time, where some updates to the engine which is really old and consumes lot of fuel, and I think that Boeing was short sighted not to update the engines when they offered the 757-300 and the 767-400


User currently offlineSpaceshipDC10 From Canada, joined Jan 2013, 1617 posts, RR: 3
Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 15468 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 23):
Prior to that, a heated order battle was had between the MD-95 and the 736 from SAS. The 736 won that order. That was a blow to MDD who thought they had the inside track at SAS with their large M80 fleet.

At MDC, managers had been sleeping on their laurels for too long. They had somehow the same approach with OS and SR, both of which turned to Airbus rather than order the MD-90. Their only true success in their policy was the MD-80 family. The MD-90 was too little too late compared to the competition which proposed either brand new airliners or much more advanced evolutions, and for it, they received such a huge slap in the face, especially when DL canceled the 40+ remaining order.



KEEP LOOKING UP as in Space Fan News
User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 795 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 14624 times:

Quoting TN486 (Reply 43):
My understanding was that after the "merger", there were outstanding contractual obligations (I think the obligation was to build 150 or so) of the MD95 (rebadged 717), and Boeing ensued there would be no further orders, and were quite happy to let it all disappear. Please note, I have no sources for the above statements,and if my understandings are a figment of ones imaginations, then so be it. I have flown in the "717" numerous times, and absolutely loved the ac, and as QF continue to source ac from around the globe, they see it fills a necesary niche for them. cheers.

You are more or less correct, from talking with folks from MDC, Boeing was under-cutting the 717 before it left Long Beach. When Boeing sent the 717 on its world tour, many airlines that were interested in the 717 to use on a regional market, however, Boeing was pushing them to buy the 737NGs rather than the 717.



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1419 posts, RR: 3
Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 14495 times:

I think the 764 and 753 would have been quite successful if they had come out earlier. Not sure if Boeing had resources to do that at the time however.

User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6432 posts, RR: 2
Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 12222 times:

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 42):
The only one that really wasn't a success was the 764. Boeing should have just started with the specs of the 764ERX, even though I acknowledge that the ERX idea came later in the 764 life.

DL and CO wanted a common engine with their other 767s, while the 764ERX was planned to use the 747X engines.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1345 posts, RR: 2
Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 11469 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 51):
The arrival of the A321 and 737-800 killed the 757-200 because they could serve 80% of the routes the 75 was dispatched on a lot cheaper, and as a result of that the price of the 757-200 collapsed after 9/11
When that happened it really made no sense to buy a new 757-300 when you could pick up relatively new 757-200 for halve price.

In Icelandair configuration the 757-200 takes 178 pax (22,10,146) and the -300 takes 211 pax (22,10,179).
The CASM of the -300 is better than the -200.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5169 posts, RR: 1
Reply 56, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9943 times:

I think the 717 was hurt a lot by 9/11. Simply put, airlines weren't buying airplanes, and they started shifting routes that were flown by 100-125 seat planes to regional carriers.

Another factor was the fact that Boeing and AA couldn't work out a deal on the 717s that TWA had ordered. My understanding is that TWA ordered the planes with very unfavorable leases, because of its bad credit. Prior to 9/11, AA was willing to pay the TWA lease rates. After 9/11 and AA looking to reduce the number of aircraft types, AA decided either the 717s had to go, or the F100s.

There has been a lot of finger-pointing, but the fact is that Boeing and AA couldn't agree on rates, as well as how Boeing could resell the F100s. The F100s were owned outright, so AA kept them and returned the 717s.

The irony is that AA retired the Fokker fleet before the end of 2004. Fokker had been out of business for several years, and maintenance was becoming an issue due to lack of spare parts.

I've heard from AA people that if management had the situation to do over, they would have kept the 717s under the best terms that Boeing offered.

Now, I've heard that between McDonnell Douglas and Boeing, they never got the FAA to approve pilots flying both the MD-80 and the MD-95/717. I don't know if they tried to get approval, and it was rejected, or if no attempt was made. Considering that the FAA approved pilots flying both the 757 and 767, one would think that allowing pilots to fly the MD-80 and 717 wouldn't be that difficult.


User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1573 posts, RR: 7
Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9557 times:

Quoting mia305 (Reply 8):
I think it was a waste of time for Boeing to produce the 753 & 764 for
such small orders

NW bought the 753 as a DC-10 replacement for HNL and some domestic flying. They intented the A330's to replace the 10 on trans-Atlantic routes.

DL is EXTREMELY happy with the 764 and just spent a fortune upgrading the interiors. If they could get their hands on CO's I bet they would snap them up in a heartbeat.



Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently offlinecarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2940 posts, RR: 3
Reply 58, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8597 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 26):
747SP and 764 required major changes and may not have recovered their development costs.

True, but some of their technology went into the other aircraft or other versions.
For example, Boeing found that the 747SP, with the shortened fuselage length hence upperdeck being closer to the vertical tail, some aerodynamic efficiency. Thus the stretched upper deck 743 & 744 were born.
The raked wingtips tried on the poor-selling 764 was applied to the hot-selling 777-300ER.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7987 posts, RR: 5
Reply 59, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8546 times:

I think the 767-400ER didn't become really popular for two reasons:

1. The plane's range of 5,626 nautical miles was not enough for many airlines.
2. The plane used the smaller, almost unique LD2 cargo container, not the more widely used LD3 cargo container.

As such, the Airbus A330-200 became far more popular, because the plane had more range (6,400 nm originally, now upgraded to 7,200 nm) so it could fly most transoceanic routes and accommodated the widely-used the LD3 cargo container.


User currently offlinebmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 8127 times:

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
I know 9/11 killed the 753 & 764 production. Why did Boeing produce each one?

My understanding of it was a combination of exceptional Airbus A330 marketing plus wider 737-X options. I know 9/11 sped up 727/DC-10/L1011 retirements but that's about it...

[Edited 2013-03-09 10:43:28]


The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6432 posts, RR: 2
Reply 61, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7692 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 59):

Of course, not being able to fit side-by-side LD3 containers was a non-issue for DL since they already operated a huge 767 fleet.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19384 posts, RR: 58
Reply 62, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7660 times:

The issues behind the 753 and the 764 are different than the 717.

The 753 and 764 would probably have sold much better had they been introduced five years earlier than they were. For the 753, the 757 program itself was in its twilight days as the 753 went into production. The aircraft itself had a relatively limited niche with its enormous length and single aisle leading to long turn times. The actual technology aboard was approaching 20 years old at the time that the aircraft entered into service. The 764 had similar issues, although the turn time is less of an issue with a twin-aisle aircraft. The 764's big problem was that it competed with the newer A333, which was an airframe with more room for performance improvement than the 764, which pretty much stretched the 767 platform to its limit. Had it been introduced 5-10 years earlier, it would have fared better.

The 717 was a different kettle of fish. The 717 was all but killed intentionally by Boeing after the McD merger. From Boeing's point of view, the 717 was a competitor for their new 736 and they were afraid that the 717 would eat into 736 sales. That turned out to be a pretty silly move on their part because the 736 wound up being a white elephant that sold very few copies. And, truthfully, the 717 is a very different aircraft. It's lighter and better optimized for short hops than the 73G platform (like HI inter-island). It's essentially a large RJ. Even today, 717s are in demand for their unique capabilities.


User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7461 times:

Quoting NBGSkyGod (Reply 52):
You are more or less correct, from talking with folks from MDC, Boeing was under-cutting the 717 before it left Long Beach. When Boeing sent the 717 on its world tour, many airlines that were interested in the 717 to use on a regional market, however, Boeing was pushing them to buy the 737NGs rather than the 717.

The company has since acknowledged internally that that was a big mistake. There was a faction within Boeing that tried hard to save the 717 program. At one point, there was an article about it in the company newsletter nearly every month. But for whatever reason, those people were never able to exert any influence on the sales staff. The 717 could have been marketed as something that RJ operators could step up to. The 737NG, not so much.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2122 posts, RR: 1
Reply 64, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7438 times:

Quoting cornutt (Reply 63):
The 717 could have been marketed as something that RJ operators could step up to.

Except what the RJ operators could "step up to" is out of their control. Scope clauses determine that, and there is no way most if any of the majors would have reached an agreement with their pilots in which the 717 was operated by a regional operator.


User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2326 posts, RR: 7
Reply 65, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7335 times:

Quoting thorntot (Reply 43):

   This is the most factually accurate post on the 717 in the whole thread.

To add, there was an effort to persuade FL to cancel the MD-95 order, (much like DL and AS with the MD-90), but unlike those airlines, FL wouldn't budge. As such, Boeing was legally obligated to build the type, as part of the merger. Boeing earned a positive ROI on the program, following the YX order. This was justification to "wrap it up" and cease production shortly after.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 41):
Now had MD actually gave a damn about their commercial products and designed it to be transcon or near-transcon capable, then that would be a different story

You're a bit off the mark here. The 717's lack of range was intentional by Boeing. (The fuel tank holds little more than 1/2 the volume an A319 has). The MD-95-30 was to have been offered with an ER variant from the beginning. MDC were also developing the MD-95-50 as late as Q2 1997 (later touted as 717-300) which would have had additional range. If the MD-87 is any indication, the baseline 717 could have easily had more range.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 51):
At MDC, managers had been sleeping on their laurels for too long. They had somehow the same approach with OS and SR, both of which turned to Airbus rather than order the MD-90. Their only true success in their policy was the MD-80 family. The MD-90 was too little too late compared to the competition which proposed either brand new airliners or much more advanced evolutions, and for it, they received such a huge slap in the face, especially when DL canceled the 40+ remaining order.

I don't agree. MDC's misguided leadership was a problem at the C-level and SVP title, not the Mgr/Sr Mgr or in the Sales org.

Secondly, DL was persuaded by Boeing and MDC to cancel the MD-90 order. A great a.net myth is that DL cancelled the MD-90 order due to displeasure and therefore MDC folded and merged with Boeing. In truth, the 150 aircraft order was the largest obstacle for the merger to go according to plan, and needed to be eliminated from the books.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 56):
Now, I've heard that between McDonnell Douglas and Boeing, they never got the FAA to approve pilots flying both the MD-80 and the MD-95/717.

Not with the MD-80, but the FAA would have approved the MD-90 and MD-95 as a single category - provided the airline selected either the EFD or EFIS for both flightdecks.



There's nothing quite like a tri-jet.
User currently offlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2846 posts, RR: 30
Reply 66, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7232 times:

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
What was the reason behind each plane and why didn't it succeed?

Bear in mind that it is A LOT cheaper to modify an existing aircraft design than create a new plane type from scratch.

The Boeing 757 was initially envisioned with two variants, the 757-100 and a stretched 757-200. Nobody ever ordered the shorter 757-100, which was dropped as everyone went for the bigger -200 model. So from the get go, the airlines were all going for the higher capacity 757s. When 757 production peaked in the early 1990s, the 757 was the only Boeing aircraft without a stretched variant available. The 757-300 was finally announced in 1996, and it entered service in 1999; not long before the dot-com bubble burst.

The primary benefit of the 757-300 was that it offered approximately 10% lower seat-mile operating costs than the 757-200 by virtue of its additional capacity (20% more passengers, nearly 50% more available cargo volume). In addition, the type was envisioned as:

1) Perfect plane for European charter carriers, as it was a very high capacity narrowbody aircraft with sufficient range to operate from any European market to popular vacation destinations throughout the European continent, northern Africa, and the Near East.

2) The same passenger lift capabilities as the 767-200, but with lower operating costs - widebodies are inherently more expensive to operate than narrowbodies.

3) Boeing's answer to the longer-range versions of Airbus's new A321.

However, there was one problem with the 757-300: reduced range. Boeing had developed the 757 as a short to medium range airliner, with domestic and regional routes in mind. Like the 737-900, the 757-300 was a stretch variant that offered airlines greater capacity at the expense of range. While the 757-200 can comfortably handle transatlantic ops, the 757-300 can't. If Boeing had developed some kind of 757-300ER with transatlantic range and higher capacity than the 757-200, the story might have been much different. In addition to its range, I think the main issues for the 757-300 were the prevailing economic conditions (dot-com bubble I mentioned earlier, then the shock of 9/11) and the drastically improved performance of the 737 and A320 families: their lower operating costs presumably negate their shorter ranges, as evidenced by their widespread popularity with LCCs and legacies around the world. Also, the 757 never gained much popularity in high growth regions of the world like the Middle East and Asia, so Boeing was pretty much left selling the type to cash-strapped airlines trying to survive in the stagnant, hypercompetitive American and European markets...

The story of the 767 was similar, except for the fact that the initial 767-200/-200ER base model was quickly stretched into the highly successful 767-300/-300ER variants. Proposals to stretch the 767 further was considered, but Boeing found that airlines wanted a fuselage wider than the 767 and operating costs lower than any 767 stretch could provide. Hence, the 777 was born. The resulting 777 was so much larger than the 767 that Boeing again revisited the 767 stretch idea after abandoning development of a smaller 777 variant in late 1995. As DL was looking to replace its aging TriStar fleet, it was considering the A330-200, and Boeing responded by offering a 767 with a 12% capacity increase. Boeing launched the 767-400 when it won the DL order in 1997, and CO also ordered the 767-400 a few months later - as a DC-10 replacement. However, like the 757-300, the 767-400 sacrificed range for capacity, and that was probably one reason why no other airlines wanted it. Also, by 1997 most major airlines had already replaced their DC-10s and L-1011s or at least ordered aircraft to do so, then as now it was really only the U.S. legacy airlines that still maintained substantial fleets of older plane types  . The 767-400 was a very late answer to the industry-wide retirement of the DC-10 and L-1011, and the design had essentially been rejected by airlines in favor of the 777 about 10 years before it was released. It's no wonder it didn't do well!

The 717 was indeed the most successful aircraft type, and here in the U.S. we'll get to enjoy them for many years more if we fly HA within Hawaii or on FL for the next few years, then DL thereafter. The 717 was an example of an aircraft shrink, which usually never bodes well in terms of sales as airlines prefer slightly larger types that have similar operating costs. McDonnell Douglas, and later Boeing, were hoping to sell the type as a modern replacement to aging regional aircraft - primarily, the DC-9 it had evolved from. It was thought that major DC-9 operators like AC, NW, and SK would eagerly take on the 717, but none ever did. They bet the farm on FL, which flourished with the type and took over half of all examples produced, but other major customers like TW, YX, and QA (MexicanaClick) didn't fare as well. To be sure, the 717 has fans in the airlines that operate it. But in the grand scheme of things, it is an alien aircraft type that would be an obstacle to an airline like WN that is attempting to realize cost savings by standardizing the fleet around all 737 (or A32X) family aircraft.



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 67, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7184 times:

Quoting ha763 (Reply 45):
It was Delta's requirement that the 764 be able to fly to LGA that restricted the wing size.

It was both.

The only good place to park a 777 or A330 is at E, maybe a few of the T gates. Delta wanted to be able to park them everywhere.

NS


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7152 times:

Despite being from 1982(antique), how is CASM on a filled 753 compared to say a 788 on the same route?

User currently offlinebmi330 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1450 posts, RR: 1
Reply 69, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7058 times:

This might be a stupid question but why did Boeing destroy the tooling for building the 757 as opposed to storing/ mothballing it, seems like a pretty extreme, destructive and wasteful policy also what was it that they destroyed?

User currently offlineantoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 70, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7057 times:

Quoting bmi330 (Reply 69):
hy did Boeing destroy the tooling for building the 757 as opposed to storing/ mothballing it

The tooling to build a commercial jet is quite large... where would they store it without having to worry about it deteriorating? Why would they keep if not planning to use it? Presumably, as much of the material as possible got re-used, probably in tooling for the 787 or 747-8 Final Assembly Line.



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1345 posts, RR: 2
Reply 71, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6837 times:

I think we are shuffling together very different scenarios with this three Types.

1. Boeing 717 , not a "Boeing". Boeing did not want to sell it did not want to produce it and so sabotaged sales and closed it down with the first possibility. It may also have been a decision to concentrate on bigger planes and leave this part of the market.

2. Boeing 767-400 just did not sell. As the 767 is still in production, and if you want one you will get one, the only problem is nobody really wants one.

3. Boeing 757-300. That type was not stopped by itself, but was closed down as part of the closing of the 757 production.

I do not agree that the closing down of the 757 was inevitable, why did Boeing than do not close down the 767 too?
What production line needed urgently the space of the 757 line?

deliveries 757: 2001 45, 2002 29, 2003 14, 2004 11, 2005 2.
deliveries 767: 2001 40, 2002 35, 2003 24, 2004 9, 2005 10.

2004 Boeing asked at least one airline to cancel their order of a 757-300.
Nobody seems to know if there were more, but the one above does not seem to be on anybody's spreadsheet regarding orders for the 757 either.
The last year with good orders for either the 767 or the 757 was 2001 with 40 and 37 respectively.
I think the B 767 passenger plane managed to live on only as an addendum to the KC-767 at that time, and than sales picked up again. Who knows if sales could have picked up for the 757-300 again too?


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9155 posts, RR: 29
Reply 72, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6834 times:

There's one "Boeing" missing in this discussion, which wasn't a top seller either, the Boeing MD11. Lufthansa Cargo accepted the last one off the line.although the intention was there to buy more (by LCAG).


E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 73, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6593 times:

The MD11's fate was pretty much sealed before the merger, due to it not meeting its published performance numbers. Boeing had no incentive to try to fix it (which would have been very expensive) since it overlapped several Boeing models, but MD11 orders were drying up well before the merger.

User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 74, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6539 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 71):

I do not agree that the closing down of the 757 was inevitable, why did Boeing than do not close down the 767 too?
What production line needed urgently the space of the 757 line

The 737NG. By 2005 those orders were really piling up, and Boeing needed the space that the 757 line was occupying in Renton. I don't recall for sure, but the 737 line that was installed in the 757 line's old space may have been the first of the 737 moving assembly lines. The 767 was built in Everett and at the time the space there wasn't urgently needed for anything else. Plus, Boeing was at that time pursuing the KC767 tanker project, and wanted to keep the line open for that.


User currently offlinemsp747 From United States of America, joined May 2010, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6487 times:

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 57):
DL is EXTREMELY happy with the 764 and just spent a fortune upgrading the interiors. If they could get their hands on CO's I bet they would snap them up in a heartbeat.

I don't doubt that DL loves the 764 fleet, but if they really want more, they don't need to get UA's. They just have to ask Boeing, since the model is still technically available. I'm sure Boeing would give them a deal to keep the 767 line busy until tanker production ramps up.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 76, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6353 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 68):
Despite being from 1982(antique), how is CASM on a filled 753 compared to say a 788 on the same route?

Some publication ran Piano-X numbers on Tokyo-Osaka and they showed the 757-300 would have been a fair bit better than a 787-8 or 767-300.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6118 posts, RR: 34
Reply 77, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6211 times:

Quoting thorntot (Reply 43):
however, failure to deliver the first 50 717's to AirTran would have resulted in hefty payments to AirTran per contractual obligations.

And hefty payments to risk sharing partners as well as per contractual obligations.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1345 posts, RR: 2
Reply 78, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6063 times:

Quoting cornutt (Reply 74):
The 737NG. By 2005 those orders were really piling up, and Boeing needed the space that the 757 line was occupying in Renton. I don't recall for sure, but the 737 line that was installed in the 757 line's old space may have been the first of the 737 moving assembly lines. The 767 was built in Everett and at the time the space there wasn't urgently needed for anything else. Plus, Boeing was at that time pursuing the KC767 tanker project, and wanted to keep the line open for that.

737 deliveries:
2001 299
2002 223
2003 173
2004 202
2005 212
2006 302
2007 330
2008 290

what was piling up?


User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 795 posts, RR: 1
Reply 79, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5709 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 78):
Quoting cornutt (Reply 74):
The 737NG. By 2005 those orders were really piling up, and Boeing needed the space that the 757 line was occupying in Renton. I don't recall for sure, but the 737 line that was installed in the 757 line's old space may have been the first of the 737 moving assembly lines. The 767 was built in Everett and at the time the space there wasn't urgently needed for anything else. Plus, Boeing was at that time pursuing the KC767 tanker project, and wanted to keep the line open for that.

737 deliveries:
2001 299
2002 223
2003 173
2004 202
2005 212
2006 302
2007 330
2008 290

what was piling up?

At the time Boeing was looking at Long Beach to expand the 737 FAL, even sending the -700 T1 bird down to LGB to practice moving it around the ramp. This idea died out, and Boeing closed the MDC commercial plant after the last 717 flew away.



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 80, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5674 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 78):
what was piling up?

Between 2005 and 2007 Boeing received about 1800 737 orders. The current 737 backlog, per Boeing as of last month, is 3136.


User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 81, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5493 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 78):
737 deliveries:2001 2992002 2232003 1732004 2022005 2122006 3022007 3302008 290what was piling up?

You are looking at DELIVERIES, not ORDERS. They could only produce so many frames a month hence why they needed/wanted another line.

Quoting cornutt (Reply 80):
Between 2005 and 2007 Boeing received about 1800 737 orders. The current 737 backlog, per Boeing as of last month, is 3136.

  



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2326 posts, RR: 7
Reply 82, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5409 times:

Quoting cornutt (Reply 73):
Boeing had no incentive to try to fix it (which would have been very expensive) since it overlapped several Boeing models, but MD11 orders were drying up well before the merger.

Not true for the Freighter. Between Sept 1997-May 1998, the MD-11 received 23 firm orders. This followed the improved numbers from 1996 and was the best showing by the MD-11 since 1991. Also post merger, a final PIP was developed which was specific to the BR and LH frames delivered from 1998-2001.

Nonetheless, I would never consider the MD-11 a "Boeing."

[Edited 2013-03-10 22:38:11]


There's nothing quite like a tri-jet.
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1501 posts, RR: 8
Reply 83, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5379 times:

[quote=cornutt,reply=74]The 737NG. By 2005 those orders were really piling up, and Boeing needed the space that the 757 line was occupying in Renton. quote]

Boeing didn't stop production of the 757 so they could make room for the 737 second line. After 9/11 there were 73 757 deliveries and only 9 orders -- ATA ordered 2 in DEC-01 and SHA and XIA got some good deals on the last airplanes with orders for 5 in SEP-03 and 2 in NOV 03 respectively. Nobody was willing to place a major order for the 757 after 9/11 it had nothing to do with needing more room for 737's. Before 9/11 there were 35 orders in 2001, 43 in 2000, 18 in 1999, and 50 in 1998--the drop off is obvious. With no up turn in sight it was time to put it out of it's misery.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21512 posts, RR: 55
Reply 84, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5368 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 38):
Once she is airborne she climbs well, at maximum weight it is not a high altitude aircraft until you burn off some fuel but, once again this is due more to the size of the wing than anything else and that you can thank Delta for who insisted on a restricted wing size so it could fit it's gates in Atlanta.

It was LGA that DL needed the plane to fit into, not ATL.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineflyingclrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Reply 85, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5380 times:

If the 757-300 had been introduced 10-15 years earlier, it probably would have sold many more copies. It came too late in the life of the 757 program.

User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2122 posts, RR: 1
Reply 86, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5165 times:

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 82):
Not true for the Freighter. Between Sept 1997-May 1998, the MD-11 received 23 firm orders. This followed the improved numbers from 1996 and was the best showing by the MD-11 since 1991. Also post merger, a final PIP was developed which was specific to the BR and LH frames delivered from 1998-2001.

Boeing only shows 9 firm orders for the MD-11 in that time frame, versus 67 for the 777. I am aware that if an airline later cancels it won't show up on Boeing's site when you searched, so what were the 23 firm orders?


User currently onlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 87, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4980 times:

Quoting bmi330 (Reply 69):
This might be a stupid question but why did Boeing destroy the tooling for building the 757 as opposed to storing/ mothballing it, seems like a pretty extreme, destructive and wasteful policy also what was it that they destroyed?

Don't forget that the tooling goes all the way to the lowly contractors. Not only Boeing but Spirit etc . . . would have to keep the tooling . . . which cost money.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 88, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4673 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 86):
Boeing only shows 9 firm orders for the MD-11 in that time frame, versus 67 for the 777. I am aware that if an airline later cancels it won't show up on Boeing's site when you searched, so what were the 23 firm orders?

What he said could be -- it's possible that some of the pre-merger order info never made it into whatever system generates that data at the Boeing Web site. It took a couple of years after the merger to get a lot of the business systems integrated. (I started with Boeing in May 1999, and I was assigned a McDonnell-Douglas clock number in addition to a Boeing employee number, because they were still using the M-D time charging system.)


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30553 posts, RR: 84
Reply 89, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4523 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If you increase the date range from February 1997 to September 1998, you will get 24 orders: 2 MD-11 and 22 MD-11F.

User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2326 posts, RR: 7
Reply 90, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4075 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 86):
Boeing only shows 9 firm orders for the MD-11 in that time frame, versus 67 for the 777. I am aware that if an airline later cancels it won't show up on Boeing's site when you searched, so what were the 23 firm orders?

I don't remember the exact breakdown by carrier, other than the final/post-merger orders were for FX, LH, and BR. FX and LH both planned on firming additional aircraft when the line was closed. LH voiced their displeasure in the press and did not order from Boeing again until the 748I, IIRC. Additionally, WO and H2 had options which were rumored to have been firmed by Q4 1998, but Boeing made the MD-11 unavailable before either carrier was ready to commit.

I do remember clearly that when Boeing and MDC were finalizing the merger agreement, the MD-11 backlog added up to a total production of 177 frames.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 89):

If you increase the date range from February 1997 to September 1998, you will get 24 orders: 2 MD-11 and 22 MD-11F.

   You got it. Likely some early 1997 orders were not made public until after the merger became official in August of that year.



There's nothing quite like a tri-jet.
User currently offlineFI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 91, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 82):
Nonetheless, I would never consider the MD-11 a "Boeing."

Include me in that also, please!  



737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
User currently offlineNBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 795 posts, RR: 1
Reply 92, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3516 times:

Quoting FI642 (Reply 91):
Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 82):
Nonetheless, I would never consider the MD-11 a "Boeing."

Include me in that also, please!

I have a hat from my father that has MD-11 on the front and Boeing on the back...I call it my sacrilegious hat.



"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
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...
Delta 767-400 IFE Question posted Sun Jan 15 2006 01:38:22 by 1337Delta764
757 And 767-400 Cockpits posted Sat Jul 30 2005 03:30:34 by Patches
767-400 Runway Question posted Fri Mar 18 2005 21:29:15 by FLY764
TWA 757-300/767-200/Routes Update posted Wed Feb 2 2000 20:20:00 by Jet Setter
717, 767-400 & 757-300 Flop? posted Tue Dec 19 2000 19:00:02 by Airmale
757-300 & 767-400 posted Tue Apr 11 2000 23:19:09 by F4N
The 757-300 And The 767-400 posted Sun Aug 22 1999 13:15:39 by Cedarjet
What's The Point Of The 757-300 And 767-400? posted Sun May 30 1999 00:26:01 by Cedarjet
Boeing 767-400 Range/Payload Question posted Sun Feb 3 2008 09:15:38 by CF-CPI
Delta 767-400 Question posted Thu Oct 11 2007 08:52:13 by Adman737