Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could The 757 Make A Comeback?  
User currently offlinedlramp4life From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 931 posts, RR: 1
Posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5502 times:

With recent news of Delta picking up 100 boeing 737-900s and that the new aircraft would replace 757s,A320s,and 767s. The 757 has a comfortable cabin, extended range ac, and the 757-300 is a like the narrow body version of the 767. The 757 is so unique that no other plane can match it. Do you think Boeing made a mistake by closing the 757 line in 2005?


PHX Ramp, hottest place on earth
29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5480 times:

Nope it is totally impossible, and there's a reason WHY the airlines are replacing them all.

Well, many reasons. Fuel burn not being the only one.

NS


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17039 posts, RR: 66
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5268 times:

This subject comes up regularly. If airlines wanted to buy new 757 type aircraft in any significant number, Airbus or Boeing would be making such an aircraft.

Current demand for 757 type aircraft is adequately covered by existing 757s.

Quoting dlramp4life (Thread starter):
The 757 is so unique that no other plane can match it.

So was Concorde.  
Quoting dlramp4life (Thread starter):
The 757 has a comfortable cabin, extended range ac, and the 757-300 is a like the narrow body version of the 767.

How is it more comfortable than a 32x or a 737? Also the 757 has a disadvantage when it comes to cargo. This doesn't matter as much in charter traffic (where in fact most of Europe's 757s are currently used) but in regular service an airline might prefer a widebody just for cargo.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinedeltamartin From Sweden, joined Dec 2010, 1061 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5154 times:

Ahh, not a day is complete without a "Should Boeing produce more 757's?" thread on a.net!  

On a more serious note tho, I can agree that the 757 can do missions that no other aircraft can, such as thin TATL routes, but on 90% of the routes that 757-200 flies, an A321 or 737-900 does it more effectively.


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6858 posts, RR: 75
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5084 times:

Another 757 resurrection topic? *bangs head on table*
The 752 can carry about 23tons for 2000NM need about about 21 tons of fuel (trip + reserves)
The 739ER can carry about the same, for 2000NM and need about 18 tons of fuel (trip + reserves).
So you save about 15% more in fuel, albeit slower... total trip costs, the 739ER should still be cheaper.

Carrying 20T of payload for 2000NM, the 752 need about 19Tons while the 739ER need 15.5 tons... now that's about 18% or so difference...

In terms of fuel burn...
The A321 would perform about the same as the 752 up to 2000NM... The 752 would only beat the 739ER and the 321 above 2000NM.
Below 2000NM, both the 321 and the 739ER beats the 752.
Now put 737 MAX-9 and the 321NEO, the 752 stands little chance of a comeback.

Now add costs such as maintenance... even the 321 looks more attractive than the 752 at 2000NM... The maintenance costs of the 737 MAX-9 and the 321 NEO would increase less than than the fuel burn savings... putting the 752 further away from a comeback.

Did Boeing make a mistake in 2005? Answer: NO!

In the envelope where the 752 is ideal, isn't big enough because one can get "slightly less than ideal compromise" with either using narrowbodies for less payload, or a widebody with a little bit more payload (hence more revenue to negate the increased costs)... heck, get a 762/3 with winglets would do if you can't make it with a 332 profitably!    And the market size where the 752 is ideal over others, is relatively not big.

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently onlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13115 posts, RR: 100
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5033 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting deltamartin (Reply 3):
On a more serious note tho, I can agree that the 757 can do missions that no other aircraft can, such as thin TATL routes,

I propose that the 737MAX-8 will be the best TATL of the bunch. I'm also aware that many airlines would like the A321NEO to be TATL capable. I *know* studies are being done to make the A321NEO a true 752 TATL replacement. It is a question of when. At that point there is not one niche where the 752 would have lower costs.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 4):
Now put 737 MAX-9 and the 321NEO, the 752 stands little chance of a comeback.

And 'sharklets' on the A321 too. (Past due, IMHO.)

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 4):
The maintenance costs of the 737 MAX-9 and the 321 NEO would increase less than than the fuel burn savings...

A321NEO with Pratts should have *lower* maintenance costs.    The maintenance costs on older 752 are too high.   By the time an airframe is depreciated enough to where the payments are low or nearly free, the 752 maintenance costs are killing the economics (in passenger duty). The engine maintenance costs are in a different realm than the CFM-56/V2500.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 4):
And the market size where the 752 is ideal over others, is relatively not big.

   And if the 737MAX-8 or A321NEO become TATL capabile... there is no ideal market left for the 752. Its most profitable niche is 'long thin TATL.' Since most of the profit is the first 1/3rd of the seats, if it lowers the trip costs, go with a slightly smaller airframe.   

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 4):
Carrying 20T of payload for 2000NM, the 752 need about 19Tons while the 739ER need 15.5 tons... now that's about 18% or so difference...

Taking your numbers and doing 'back of the envelope corrections.;

752: 19Tons of fuel for 2000nm
737MAX-9: 13.5 tons of fuel (vs. 15.5 with 739ER of today)
A321: With 18t payload, it should burn 18t of fuel at 2,500nm. so 20t payload at 2000nm is ~ 16.5t. If it was similar to the 752, few if any A321 would ever have sold!
A321NEO: ~13.9t of fuel before sharklets. With sharklets, it should be very close to the 737MAX-9's 13.5t

Thus for TCON missions, a 752 will burn 40% more fuel than the re-engined competition coming out! Since fuel will be about 40% of the mission costs for these flights, a brand new 752 that was free would have the same costs as a leased 737MAX-9 or an A321NEO plus the maintenance costs differences; but only if the airline was paying 'over the barrel' lease rates. Otherwise, we're looking at a 10% lower cost per flight. Since that 752 is worth $10million to FedEx, it will never be 'free.' With airline profit margins only being about 7% in good times... A passenger airline flying 752s will be buried by one flying 739s (MAX or not) or A321NEO.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5009 times:

When Boeing closed down the B757 production line.The decision seemed right at that time,however later on there was a demand for the type & the B739 could not fullfill i

With end in production would mean destruction of tools/fixtures.

The B757 cannot be restarted but a near similiar project could be commenced in its place.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6383 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4971 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 2):
Also the 757 has a disadvantage when it comes to cargo.

How so? The 757, although it had the same cabin space profile as all other narrowbody Boeings, used the deeper lower lobe fuselage barrels that the 707/720/727 used, which gives the cargo compartment in the 757 more volume. This worked to the advantage of most North American carriers, who bulk-load the bellies of 757's. However, as I understand it, this can be a disadvantage for overseas operators, who tried to containerize cargo being carried in the belly of the 757 (many of these carriers also use cans in the A320 family). Or are you implying that there is there weight trouble with a full belly + a full passenger deck + enough fuel to really take advantage of the 757's range?    If so, this seriously goes against the a.net mythos of the 757  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinedlramp4life From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 931 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4971 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 6):
The B757 cannot be restarted but a near similiar project could be commenced in its place.

Very true. Maybe the "797" will be based off it 757 cousin....



PHX Ramp, hottest place on earth
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6858 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4901 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 7):
The 757, although it had the same cabin space profile as all other narrowbody Boeings, used the deeper lower lobe fuselage barrels that the 707/720/727 used, which gives the cargo compartment in the 757 more volume.

Say again? Deeper lower lobe it has, but have you checked the length of the cargo holds or the volumes?
Hold volume for the B752: 51 cu. meters
Hold volume for the 739ER: 51.7 cu. meters
Hold volume for the A321: 51.72 cu. meters

Why would this hurt the charters?
Max pax capacities?
B752: 224 (6door+4 o/wing), 239 (8door)
739ER: 215
A321: 220

"Luggage space per pax" (cu. meters / pax)
B752: 0.2134 - 0.2277
739ER: 0.2405
A321: 0.2351

There goes the myth of "752 with better cargo hold volume" myth...   
The payload range capability, is however, not a myth...   

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17039 posts, RR: 66
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4868 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 7):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 2):
Also the 757 has a disadvantage when it comes to cargo.

How so?

I was unclear. I meant compared to a widebody. Then again mandala499 just compared cargo space with the 739ER and the 321.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineGeorgiaAME From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 980 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4857 times:

My 2 cents: The 757 has to be one of the worst aircraft flying, at least from the standpoint of an economy passenger. It's narrow. It's long. And put on some winglets, it flies on for hours and hours and hours... Given the choice of a 767 Y seating or 757 Y, I will opt for the widebody any day of the week. First class is a totally different story. First with Delta, probably the widest domestic seat they have. That front cabin, isolated by the entry/galley area from Y, makes for a much more comfortable trip. And having flown Tatl on a Continental 757, up front, well, that was one of the best flights I've ever been on. I am less than enamored with its little brother the 737. Same NARROW body, noisier, just as miserably cramped, and sitting up front is no bargain, at many levels.

This mayvin will opt for an Airbus whenever I am given a choice. I don't care if they take an extra 5 minutes to reach cruising altitude, are heavier, are less efficient, have a shorter shelf life, or whatever. For the same number of bucks I have to shell out for lousy service, I'll opt for a tad more comfort.

Flames on, boys.



"Trust, but verify!" An old Russian proverb, quoted often by a modern American hero
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6383 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4851 times:

Quoting GeorgiaAME (Reply 11):
My 2 cents: The 757 has to be one of the worst aircraft flying, at least from the standpoint of an economy passenger. It's narrow. It's long.

The worst flight I think I ever had was flying PDX-ATL on a '57 with DL, in economy, in the middle seat between two rather large people    One of the best I ever had was when I had the good fortune to score a ride on the first revenue trip of a brand new CO 757-300 (also in economy), PBI-EWR. I think DL, back around 2000 or so (the "DeltaFlot" days) probably had the worst economy seat pitch of anyone on this side of the Atlantic. CO was very comfy, the CO flight was around 2003 or so. CO had much better seat pitch than DL did...



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17039 posts, RR: 66
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4817 times:

Quoting GeorgiaAME (Reply 11):
My 2 cents: The 757 has to be one of the worst aircraft flying, at least from the standpoint of an economy passenger. It's narrow. It's long. And put on some winglets, it flies on for hours and hours and hours... Given the choice of a 767 Y seating or 757 Y, I will opt for the widebody any day of the week.

Well sure. But economy pax preference is pretty far down the list when it comes to things that affect a purchasing decision.  



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinewn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4746 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 5):
Since most of the profit is the first 1/3rd of the seats, if it lowers the trip costs, go with a slightly smaller airframe.   

I agree with everything you posted except for this. I know it's an old a.net canard, but this is simply not true! If it were, prem cabins would extend past the overwings and the likes of WN, FR, B6, F9, FL, etc (some of whom don't even have prem cabins) would never exist. Not picking on you in particular, but the idea that there is a substitute for a lot of full Y seats, and that F or J somehow pays most of the bills, exists only here on a.net.

I do agree though that as the 320/321 NEO & the MAX series materialize, the 752 will have a much harder time in these segments, as its few extra seats will have a hard time paying addt'l MX costs and fuel bills.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17039 posts, RR: 66
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4735 times:

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 14):
I agree with everything you posted except for this. I know it's an old a.net canard, but this is simply not true! If it were, prem cabins would extend past the overwings and the likes of WN, FR, B6, F9, FL, etc (some of whom don't even have prem cabins) would never exist. Not picking on you in particular, but the idea that there is a substitute for a lot of full Y seats, and that F or J somehow pays most of the bills, exists only here on a.net.

I think it depends on the route. If you look at some CX and BA planes, the premium classes certainly extend past the wings.

As you say though, this is not universally the case.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4407 times:

Quoting GeorgiaAME (Reply 11):
The 757 has to be one of the worst aircraft flying, at least from the standpoint of an economy passenger.

its doing quite well as a freighter out here though.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3550 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4374 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting GeorgiaAME (Reply 11):
The 757 has to be one of the worst aircraft flying, at least from the standpoint of an economy passenger. It's narrow. It's long.

Well you can be glad it won't be coming back ever, and neither will the 707's, 727's, DC 8's or 9's.. although you probably never flew them.. But the 737/A320 series have esentially the same width also.. Steerage seats are all the same so go first class and you won't see how long the fuselage is because it's behind you. Wide bodies only offer relief if your prone to claustrophobia..


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6858 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4310 times:

Ah well, am sure he'd like to try the MS-21 when it eventually (if ever) flies... widest cabin of any narrowbody?   
And it appears to want to grab the so-called 757 market.   

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinewn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4284 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 15):

I think it depends on the route. If you look at some CX and BA planes, the premium classes certainly extend past the wings.

While that is indeed a good point, I think those are more the exception than rule. For BA & CX, your point is probably more relevant, but here in the US Domestic market (where much of the world's 757s work) so many prem seats are awards or cheaply achieved upgrades that it's virtually impossible to see how an airline would make money having a plane fitted with more than about 10% prem class.

The other thing that a lot of us on this site forget (but can be conveniently observed in our awesome TR forum) is that prem class costs an airline more than just the extra space up front. Lounges, staffing the lounges, concierge services, among other things I may be forgetting, etc...

So for the point that lightsaber was making, that most money is made up front, I just do not see how that can be the case, especially in the markets the 757s work. I know there are exceptions, but as a rule, they need those Y seats. Badly. For the record, though, I'll say pretty much everything he said about the 757 vs the 321s & 739s was probably spot on.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4282 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 18):

Ah well, am sure he'd like to try the MS-21 when it eventually (if ever) flies... widest cabin of any narrowbody?   
And it appears to want to grab the so-called 757 market.
http://www.aviationnews.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/yakovlev-ms21.jpg

Why does the MS-21 read as MC 21 though?.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineCharlieNoble From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4237 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 16):
its doing quite well as a freighter out here though.

I'd say that freight duty IS the 757's comeback. They are going to be slinging packages for a long time.


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6858 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4175 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 20):
Why does the MS-21 read as MC 21 though?.

MS-21 in latin would be written as MC-21 in cyrilic.
MC is Магистральный Самолёт 21 века
MS is the latinized version Magistralny Samolyot 21 veka

I hope that helps...

I didn't believe how wide it was until I visited the cabin mock up...

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinedimik747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4158 times:

This may sound like a naive quesiton, but what if boeing or someone offered a re-engine of the 757 with the new generation of engines provided the current operators want it. would it become economical enough to run until a suitable replacement is made? or will it not make a big enough difference?

User currently offlineflyingclrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4122 times:

Quoting dimik747 (Reply 23):
This may sound like a naive quesiton, but what if boeing or someone offered a re-engine of the 757 with the new generation of engines provided the current operators want it. would it become economical enough to run until a suitable replacement is made? or will it not make a big enough difference?

I think it would be more likely if Rolls Royce updated the RB211-535 with a new combustor and other tweaks.


25 HAWK21M : Sure does....I was thinking so too.....Interesting.... Economics.....How many operators would want to spend that $.....To convince an Engine manufact
26 notaxonrotax : Would the 757 NG / MAX have a device to rev up the wheels before landing? This to avoid wear on the tires……... No Tax On Rotax
27 Post contains links kanban : your question should be on the Revving Up The Wheels Before Touchdown (by faro Sep 2 2011 in Tech Ops) thread and look at rely 16 there for your MAX
28 notaxonrotax : ###ALARM SARCASM ALARM### ###END OF SARCASM ALARM### The 2 most popular questions on A.net--> when is the 757 coming back, and why not rev up some
29 HAWK21M : Added weight & complex mechanisms that can go wrong.....Not worth it.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Could The 757 Make A Comeback?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Could The 757 Operate Safely From Eyw? posted Thu Dec 19 2002 21:15:21 by John
Could The MD-90 Do Mainland-Hawaii Legs? posted Sun Aug 7 2011 13:39:54 by c5load
Could The Airband Go Digital? posted Fri May 14 2010 03:06:37 by Glom
What Are These Openings On The Belly Of The 757 posted Wed Mar 10 2010 09:27:35 by c5load
Could The Y-3 Become A Triple Aisle Design? posted Thu Jan 14 2010 19:34:15 by 747400sp
Could The A321 Be Used For Tatl? posted Fri Apr 3 2009 16:31:07 by Seemyseems
Comparing The 757 To The 707 posted Thu Nov 20 2008 19:45:05 by Quickmover
Captain Who Flies The 757 And 737 posted Tue Sep 9 2008 10:30:57 by 767nutter
Hydraulic Fluid And The 757 posted Sat Jul 7 2007 18:02:29 by Jeffry747
Could The MD-11 Problems Happen Today? posted Fri Jun 15 2007 19:20:07 by AirEMS

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format